Talk:Back-to-Africa movement

message: It's really great to see this article coming to life! futurebird 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great work

message: It's good to see that some Africans want to return to Africa, but the preposterously low quality of the language in the article as it exists now should perhaps be discouraged.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.31.86 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Can certain posters stop trying to reference this organization, as these references totally lack any NPOV, have zero verification, pertain to a website with zero notability, and just seem to be an attempt to get attention for said website. if you want to advertise then go elsewhere, but inserting blatantly biased and unsourced propaganda is not needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.9.117 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop trying to shoehorn in the "International African American Caucus" 

message: I'm a little confused on why there is a detailed sectioned on Liberia by itself, and then Liberia again farther down with only one sentence. Why are they separated?   — Preceding jmilam comment added by 10:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the Liberia sections, but the structure of this article still needs some work. Dialectric (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberia

message: Can anyone explain how the homeland link is related to his page, or is it just random? — Preceding jmilam comment added by 10:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked page was unrelated; I delinked homelands. Sometimes wiktionary links are used to help clarify uncommon words, but I think in this instance 'homelands' is understandable enough to stay unlinked. Dialectric (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Back-to-Africa movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020614223755/http://jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm to http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just trying to gauge whether the Greater Liberia Bill has a place on this page. I am drafting a write up of it but just checking first if this would be a good fit or if anyone can point me to a more logical place if there is one. Thanks Joshev (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: How about telling us what it is? deisenbe (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater Liberia Bill 

message: What is this? I can not find anything about it. Did someone mean to type "eighth international UNIA convention"? 199.120.30.194 (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eight International UNIA convention" 

message: It looks a little like the article in its present state dismisses the opinions of the Nation of Islam by drawing a loose connection between them and one group of Neo-Nazis. Just because Rockwell might have outwardly supported Nation of Islam does not mean that the Nation of Islam held a white Nazi belief. Also, I think including lines like "Black Hitler" to describe Elijah Muhammad biases the article toward a perception that Nation of Islam believed what they did because they were really Nazis themselves. This is not the case. The article doesn't even give the Nation of Islam's 1960s opinion on the matter, but rather presents it through Rockwell; that seems quite odd. Let's turn the unnecessary and trivial section about Rockwell's relationship to the Nation of Islam into a bit about what some Nation of Islam members believed.  --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot believe what I am reading here. Who is William Schmaltz? He calls the Fruit of Islam "the Gestapo of the Nation of Islam' -- clearly a biased statement that indicates he associates the Lost Fond National of Islam with Hitler and fascism.  This is not a reliable source. Montju (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dismissing the opinions of Nation of Islam 

message: When I clicked on this, I expected to read about African American back to Africa movements. I did not expect this to be almost totally focused on white opinion, nor do I understand the "Nadir of Race Relations" categorization since that is bias; it is not a neutral point of view. While it might be true that is a point of view. 
There were many African Americans who advocated for return to Africa, and this article trivializes them.01:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this told nearly exclusively from the POV of white Americans?