Talk:Cheikh Anta Diop

message: The following paragraph was put on the main article page by . I've moved it here where it belongs. - ulayiti (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I invite IP 146.244.132.69 to discuss the changes they wish to implement  here on the talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've offered a compromise edit which preserves the IP's suggestion with regard to "Afrocentricity" but elides what I believe to be inappropriate attribution: . Generalrelative (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Aha, understood. Thanks for engaging here. I'm glad that my suggested compromise works for you. I'm not enthusiastic about the latest edit by  which introduces both Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity, but I'm not willing to keep reverting over it. I imagine that we should be able to come up with a less awkward alternative that still accords with a nuanced understanding of the two terms. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

text: That's convincing to me. I'll revert. Antiok 1pie is of course welcome to explain their suggested edit in greater detail here and build a new consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

text: That just sounds like original research to me. I believe that discussion about Afrocentrism's origins and whether everything you wrote is correct or not, should limit itself in the talk pages of the Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity articles. Nevertheless, the important thing is that Diop has been described by a huge amount of reliable & academic sources as one of the founders of Afrocentrism or as one of the most important figures of Afrocentrism, e.g. ,,,, , ,  + the 2 citations I added to the article with this edit. I don't see why such a well-sourced statement should be removed from the article. Antiok 1pie (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Regarding Lefkowitz and Howe, you said that: . However, having an alleged bias doesn't mean that, "in the most objective sense", Lefkowitz and Howe aren't reliable. Reliable sources are allowed to have a bias. You might not agree with what Lefkowitz, Howe and others have to say about Diop or about Afrocentrism and you might not like the fact that , but the truth is that they continue to be two very reliable sources. Nevertheless, since you complained that Early was , there are also some sources which link Diop to Afrocentrism written by African Studies professors, which can be added in the article if needed (e.g. , , , ). Including the 10+ sources above, these are more than enough to warrant the inclusion of the term. Antiok 1pie (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you at all read any of the articles that I presented? To be honest, I feel you simply did a google cross-reference of "Africana Studies Scholars" and "Afrocentrism" without even actually reading all of the material for context. If so, this is problematic. I am familiar with all of these authors you have presented. I am telling you that the scholarship that you are presenting is one-sided and you need to have a grasp of all of the scholarship in order to understand what you wish to include in describing Diop. First of all, Afrocentrism, though some authors (included many you have cited) have confused it as such, is not an academic social theory. No one in the Academy uses "Afrocentrism" as a theoretical paradigm as Asante did not title it Afrocentrism but Afrocentricity. Therefore, you can not use Asante as a source for this as you had done before by simply including Afrocentrism next to Afrocentricity. Further, as Afrocentrism is not a social theory (you will not find any credible scholars claiming they USE Afrocentrism as a social theory unless they too have confused the term with Afrocentricity, which further brings into question their competency of the theory), you should not present it as one. In fact, the Afrocentrism page on Wikipedia is ripe with confusion as to what Afrocentrism is as no one really KNOWS what it is. It even inaccurately states that he term "Afrocentrism" dates to 1962" and cites William Moses. But William Moses actually says the term "Afrocentric" dates to 1962 , which is true. It's primarily just a straw-man term (argument) usually used by detractors of the scholarship of primarily Africana Studies scholars and other theorists to lump-in a host of people and their ideas but it has no true definition as it isn't actually USED as a guiding theory by any credible academic. You may find some someone outside of the academy claiming to use it, but that would be fringe. It was a term created by media as explained by both Asante, again here , and others I have previously cited. Scholars began using the term due to its popularity but it never existed as a term created by Africana scholars. African-centered, or African-centeredness, Africentricity, and others have been however proposed as parallels or alternatives to Afrocentricity and if you want a history on those terminologies and how the differ from Afrocentricity then check here (even Afrocentrism is mentioned here), .As for those Africana Studies scholars you have mentioned, if you paid any attention to what I wrote just before your recent comments, there are scholars (mostly older) in Africana Studies who do not hold any degrees in Africana Studies. They were not trained in the field, were not trained in any of the theories in the field (Afrocentricity is one of many) and were simply placeholders in order to get the field going. Many of them came, though African descent they may be, with the biases of their fields when writing and publishing as "Africana Studies scholars". And ALL of those you have cited here did just that.  Nevertheless, if you're so hung up on AFROCENTRISM, what you should do to maintain objectivity is in the body of this wikipedia page explain that people have attributed "Father of Afrocentrism" to Diop but this is a contentious title as while he is clearly one of the leading thinkers that led to the development of Afrocentricity, no Africana Studies Scholars have USED Diop's scholarship and called it Afrocentrism UNLESS, as I have stated before, they mistakenly called it Afrocentrism out of confusion (which happened especially very early on in the field) but are actually using Afrocentricity (which you may use some of the earlier sources I have provided to cite this confusion). Again, to simply say he is the "Father of Afrocentrism", and present it as a social theory with or the same as Afrocentricity, when Afrocentrism is not a social theory used by anyone but simply a classification whereby people and ideas have been, many times erroneously, lumped into the same ideological ilk is disingenuous and only perpetuates bias.  Africologist (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's original research to say that the authors I cited have confused the terms. Also, I never used Asante as a source for "Afrocentrism". You might be confusing him with someone else.  More original research in the first sentences here. You've provided no sources contesting the assertion that Diop is the "Father of Afrocentrism" (before you reply to this, see WP:SYNTH). Additionally, the fact that no "Africana Studies Scholars" have called used Diop's scholarship and called him an Afrocentrist is irrelevant. WP:RS is a very specific guideline and the sources I've provided tick the boxes required for inclusion. Cherry-picking a few insignificant errors from them(e.g. Early) and vilifying their authors (e.g. Lefkowitz, Howe etc.) in order to remove the term "Afrocentrism" from the article isn't very productive and I doubt that it makes them any less reliable. And note that African Studies sources are not the only reliable sources in existence. I simply cited some above, out of courtesy, since you deem them to be top-notch. Anyways, "" in wanting African Studies scholars who , Denise Noble, (author of this source which I cited above) does exactly this. Stating that she confused the terms would be original research (again), especially since, according to you, such confusions  and her works dates to 2017. As a whole I've presented  15 reliable sources; there is no rational justification in censoring them.  It won't be presented as a social theory. The sentence will simply say "Afrocentrism" with a wikilink, but without a qualifier. Antiok 1pie (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afrocentrism versus Afrocentricity / attribution 

message: The academic background of the negrocentrist diop is clearly ridiculously exagerated. None serious source (not coming from the centrist negro supporters of diop) is ever brought. 
From his collaboration with the prize nobel M. Currie (simply a total lie) and his two B.sc in chemistry (why it is needed two Bsc in chemystry btw? this is a complete no sence to get two times exactly the same diploma). The part concerning the fact that he studies at College de France is too absolutely grotesque as NONE requirements or registration is required to take courses in this institution. Literally anyone can come and listen to the lessons given there without any constraint (neither financial nor other academic condition). If diop went to these classes, he must not have understood much. 192.114.105.254 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic background 

message: National Democratic Rally (RND), the last political party created by Cheikh Anta Diop in 1976, which he led until his untimely death in 1986. 
I added this as an edit to the existing article.  I found this quote from a web search for Dr. Dialo Blondin Diop who is described as his successor in the party.
write me at peterjsmith.  XXX.   att Dot net for any questions. 
Tx 2600:1700:8CC0:CAA0:B5FE:F5E4:1DD6:E3C2 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  later political life