Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 2

A couple of other points

• Discussions regarding article input on Wiki should be depersonalized. I do not find it helpful to label contributions by contributor. After all, I am not -- or certainly should not -- be the topic under discussion. This is not the first (nor likely the last) discussion page where my contributions will be discussed under a header bearing my user tag. But such headers specifically identifying me (or anyone else, for that matter) really should have no place on Wikipedia. A suggestion: in the future, if contributors wish to address information or ideas presented, then do so by making reference to those ideas, to that information -- and not to the person who contributed them.

• I've been meaning to mention this. I've been editing it and editing around it, but I really fundamentally don't get the inclusion of the Nation of Islam in this piece. It is not considered a black supremacist organization by sociologists and political scientists who have studied it. Why is it included at all? (Initially, someone had written that the NOI was a black supremacist organization, and then a few sentences later, the statement was made that it wasn't.) I don't know if this incongruence was simply the result of multiple contributors (likely), but given that it doesn't fit the category, I don't think it should be referred to at all. Is there some other organization that is indisputably black supremacist that can be substituted? deeceevoice 23:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, your claims are simply not true. Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam is cosndiered a racist black supremacist by many political scientists and sociologists. I cannot imagine why you are claiming otherwise. You have the right to agree with those people, but you do not have the right to deny that they exist. When you make such demonstratably incorrect claims, you lose credibility. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you bother to read my comments in full, they address the fact that I was not previously aware of specifically black supremacist teachings of the NOI and that the material presented in the article did not support the claims -- only that the NOI was a hate organization. (My introduction to the NOI was through Malcolm X and the fact that the NOI went into depressed black communities and into prisons and got black men and women off the street, off drugs and into productive lives. Most black folks I know simply haven't been steeped in that dogma; we've been focused on the black nationalist aspects of the organization. IMO, my pressing for specificity and accuracy in this regard where it was ambiguous has improved the quality of the article. Lastly, I'm not worried about my "credibility," so don't concern yourself. deeceevoice 01:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did read your comments. You are simply switching your position. And I have noticed that you do not care about your credibility. You seem to be filling this article with your own personal opinions and original research, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. That is why your work is not being respected. RK 03:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

NOI teachings that are black supremacist

There are several teachings of the Nation of Islam which are undeniable of Black Supremacist nature.

Additional to the Yakub doctrine, it's the teaching of the Nation of Islam that Allah, (God) himself is the original and supreme black man and that all black men today are a part of this God-race and the black race is thus divine and superior to all other races.

Furthermore, it's also the teaching of the Nation of Islam that some time in the future, Allah will bring a spaceship into the earth's atmosphere and bomb the cities of the world so that the unconverted white race will be purged from the world.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to include the Nation of Islam into this article.

Additional, the article should also mention other organizations founded by former NOI members, such as Khalid Abdul Muhammed's "New black panther party" and their call for white genocide (“We kill the women. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the cripples. We kill them all. When you get through killing them all, go to the goddamn graveyard and kill them a-goddamn-gain because they didn’t die hard enough.” Khalid Abdul Muhammed) and the former NOI member and self-proclaimed black messiah Hulon Mitchell Jr., leader of the Yahweh ben Yahweh cult who urged his followers to murder "white devils" and bring him back body parts - a sliced-off ear or finger or head - as proof of the kill.

Also, The Black African Holocaust Council, a anti-white/anti-semitic organization, could be at least mentioned in the article. Pharlap 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, let us not confuse what may be a black hate group with a black supremacist group, or hateful, possibly unsanctioned rhetoric of indiviudal members of a particular group with that group's officially stated ideology, founding principles or mission. For instance, I first read of the Doctine of Yakub 40-some years ago. This is the first I've read of any explicitly black supremacist rhetoric. If you can point out definitive sources in the group's own official literature, then that would be helpful. The New Black Panther Party, however, as I am familiar with it (and only marginally in local politics -- struggles around a public hospital and affordable housing/gentrification issues) is neither a hate group nor a black supremacist group. I would request the same specific information before any mention of it is made. I've never heard of the Black African Holocaust Council. Again, however, it sounds as though it may fit into the category of a hate group, but not necessarily of a black supremacist organization. The problem with loosely organized groups with little local control over members, whose members have a tendency to engage in inflammatory rhetoric, is that a lot of off-the-wall rhetoric becomes associated with the group itself.

Neither Hulon Mitchell Jr. nor Khalid Abdul Muhammed were merely members of those organizations, they were the leaders. Pharlap 12:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap is correct. DeeCee is being disingenuous or grossly ignorant when she claims otherwise. RK

So far, however, the only seemingly bona fide example of a black supremacist group is the old Rastafari (something I didn't know until I read this piece). There are probably others, but we should be clear just what black supremacy is and which groups claim it as a core ideology/belief. deeceevoice 11:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this from the Nation of Islam: "... teaches that the black man is the original man of the planet Earth and that Caucasians were created by a grafting (selective breeding) process devised by a scientist called Yakub. ...that Caucasian muslims are their brothers in the faith of Islam and should be honored as such." That doesn't sound like a white black supremacist group to me. Again, provide references that specifically refer to NOI doctrine -- not the rhetoric of some minister -- otherwise, references to the Nation should be removed. deeceevoice 11:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh? No one claimed that the Nation of Islam was a white supremacist group. They claimed that it was a black supremacist group. Honestly, your letters here are not rational. RK

Pharlap, great stuff! So that this discussion thread can be followed more closely, I've taken the liberty of moving your addition here to the section below. (Hope you don't mind.) deeceevoice 12:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Policies that users must follow

Again, the New Black Panther party is considered a hate-group by many people. While you have the right to disagree with them, you do not have the right to falsely claim that these views do not exist. When you do so, you lose credibility. RK (Posted March 22, 2005)

What the hell are you talking about? Reread my comments. I have a right to write whatever I wish, and I do not need you to tell me what I may and may not write. My comments in the discussion have been inquiring. When contributors have made assertions that fit more into the category of hate groups, I've asked them to point to specific doctrines that clearly state white supremacist sentiments so that they could be included in the article. That's just sensible/good journalism. And when they have provided such information, I have been appreciative. What? You got a problem with specificity? Damn. Another freakin' Wikipedian with selective comprehension. *x* deeceevoice 01:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia editors do have the right to insist that you not write things that are false. We have official Wikipedia polciies that Wikipedia editors are bound to follow. If you consistently refuse to follow our policy, write false statements, engage in original research, and refuse to cite sources, you may be brought before our Arbitration Committee. Here is specifically what I am talking about: RK 21:18, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Cite sources - Provide references that help the reader to check the veracity of the article and to find more information.

• Wikipedia:Verifiability - The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so we strongly encourage you to check your facts.

• Wikipedia:No original research

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox

• Always avoid the No true Scotsman logical fallacy.

Silly. My comments were about the discussion on the talk page -- not about the article itself. And whether the New Black Panther Party is a hate group or not has no bearing whatsoever on this article. At issue is whether or not they are a black supremacist group; the two are not one and the same. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Let's try to exercise a little common sense, some discernment, people! deeceevoice 19:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• All articles must be written in a Neutral point of view

Nation of Islam = black supremacists

I strongly disagree, The Nation of Islam are textbook black supremacists, indeed I can think of no better example. Does anyone else remember the meeting between Elijah Muhammad and George Lincoln Rockwell? They found they had alot in common. [1]. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The NOI also joined forces with the Ku Klux Klan (even inviting Metzger to a NOI rally in Los Angeles) and the Lyndon LaRouche's organization. Khalid Muhammad joined forces with the Aryan Nations, the Posse Comitatus and former Klan leader and Aryan Nations recruiter Louis Beam, and Garvey even invited a KKK spokesman to speak at one of his rallies. We should include all that in the article as well. Pharlap 12:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, there is disagreement on the subject. I'm sure there's no shortage of personal opinions on this subject, but that's not helpful. What we should be looking for is some doctrinal evidence of black supremacist dogma in the NOI. Fine if the NOI stays put in this piece; I have no problem with that at all. But it's got to be backed up with solid evidence -- but the NOI is not generally held to be a black supremacist organization, and there seems to be information even on Wiki that contradicts such an opionion. Again, a reminder: there is a distinct difference between a supremacist group and a hate group. deeceevoice 12:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is very little disagreement. The vast majority of people who know about the NOI view it as a racist hategroup. And for your information, never in history has there been a difference between racist supremacist groups and hate groups. Ever. RK 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That makes no damned sense; is downright silly. Of course there's a difference. One can hate another group without believing oneself to be superior to them. deeceevoice 01:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh? No one claimed otherwise. RK

"And for your information, never in history has there been a difference between racist supremacist groups and hate groups." RK deeceevoice 21:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

From the Final Call, all articles © Copyright 2005 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com

"Master Fard Muhammad—the man who taught Elijah Muhammad and came to raise us up from a dead level and make us rulers over those who once ruled us" (Louis Farrakhan at Mosque Maryam in Chicago, first published 2001)

"You, Black man, are the Original. You are not naturally inclined to sin. You are naturally inclined to Allah (God). If you were in the right environment you would be more god-like than you are. The Black Man, or gods of the Black Man, are infinitely wise. They are being aroused to their Wisdom today to rule the people again throughout the ages of time." (Reprinted from "Our Saviour Has Arrived," 1974.)

"Due to the presence of Allah in Person, Master Fard Muhammad to Whom Praises are Due forever, and His Aims and Purposes to take over His own, it brings us hourly to a showdown of who shall rule the Nations of Earth. ... The present world (White people) have had their time and have gone over their time to rule....The earth actually belongs to the Black Man.

This is made clear in the Bible and Holy Qur’an. The prophetic sayings of the prophets for 4,000 years from Moses have constantly warned the present rulers (White) that the day of showdown was coming and that the world belongs to the Original Owners (Black Nation)....Integration is against the Desire and Will of God, Who Wants and must Do that which is written He Will Come and Do: Restore the earth to its rightful owner, the Black Man." (Reprinted from "Our Saviour Has Arrived, 1974)

"Not only is our Black Nation to become the equal, but it is to become the superior of the Nations of Earth, as it is written (Bible) that we shall no more be the tail, but the head." (Reprinted from Muhammad Speaks, October 17, 1969.)

"The real satanic people are the white race who have disguised themselves to deceive the Black people to follow them." (Reprinted from “The Fall of America,1973.)

"Allah came to us from the Holy City Mecca, Arabia, in 1930. He used the name Wallace D. Fard, often signing it W. D. Fard, in the third year .... He measured and weighed the earth and its water; the history of the moon, the history of the two nations, Black and White, that dominate the earth. He gave the exact birth of the White race, the name of their God who made them and how; and the end of their time, the judgment, how it will begin and end....He declared the doom of America for her evils to us was past due. And that she is number one to be destroyed. He described the destruction of world with bombs, poison gas, and finally with fire that would consume and destroy everything in the present world. Nothing of the present world of White mankind would be left. Those escaping the destruction would not be allowed to carry anything out with them. He pointed out a destructive dreadful-looking plane that is with bombs, made like a wheel in the sky today. It is a half-mile by a half-mile square; it is a humanly built planet. It is up there and can be seen twice a week; it is no secret." (Reprinted from “Message To The Blackman,” 1965.) Pharlap 12:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ---

Again, this is great stuff. I think there's enough info now to take this and incorporate it into the article -- perhaps a subhead of "Black supremacist groups" and then with separate third-level headers under that for "Rastafari[anism]" and "The Nation of Islam"? Also, it would be great to find something in Elijah Muhammad's own words on this subject. Question: do adherents of the NOI still believe that lunacy about spaceships? Or has this, like black supremacy in Rastafari, fallen by the wayside?

This material also brings another issue to mind. White supremacy is founded on a belief in the inherent superiority of whites and, for all intents and purposes, since the end of the Crusades -- and certainly with the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the subsequent rise of world capitalism -- white dominance has been pretty much a fact of history, generally. It's a given. So, when we describe black supremacy, we speak of it in terms of solely a belief in the inherent superiority of blacks. But not addressed in that definition is the belief that is so strongly enunciated here that blacks should dominate. Now, this is a corollary of white supremacy that is considerably less common, among even those who believe blacks to be inherently superior ot whites -- but an extremely important one. The article, I think, rightly puts black supremacy in a kind of liberation theology framework. But, clearly, it needs to address the NOI as a group that preaches not just black empowerment, inherent black superiority, but that advocates black domination (whatever that means).

Another question: in that regard, is the NOI pretty much sui generis? Also, in light of this material, it would seem that the definition herein of black supremacy and the Wiki article on the Nation needs some expanding to include the notion of dominance. And the paragraph ending in: "By comparison, there is no powerful, far-reaching nexus of instruments under black control that have a corollary effect on whites. Nor does there appear to be a significant desire on the part of so-called 'black supremacists' to have one" as well needs an addition which cites notable exceptions to this general rule. deeceevoice 13:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are the own words of Louis Farrakhan and Elijah Muhammad, reprinted and published by the Nation of Islam in their official paper, the Final Call. Obviously they still believe in all their doctrines, otherwise they wouldn't reprint it. Pharlap 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that when I went back and read the piece again (because of the reference to "Message to the Black Man" before I clicked "save page" and, I thought deleted that sentence (along with a question which I did delete). But something else comes to mind upon reading this again: this "humanly built planet" -- is that literally "human," or are these the "aliens" to whom someone (you?) referred earlier? It's not clear to me. deeceevoice 16:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The land seizures engaged in recently in Zimbabwe would be an example of Black Supremacism in a position of empowerment. [2]. Also, you seem to misunderstand white supremacism. They don't feel particularly empowered either, and theirs is also a "liberation theology" (minus the communist undertones and catholic emphasis, of course ;). White Supremacists and black supremacists seem to agree that Jewish Supremacism has the real reigns of power. Interestingly, there is not a Jewish supremacism article (not for lack of trying, it gets deleted early and often). An area where white supremacism and black supremacism differ is on Communism. Black power / black supremacism is more friendly with leftism, white supremacism / white power clearly is not. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not! Land seizures in Zimbabwe are part of a policy of land reform and are not "black supremacy" in operation. From the bad old days when the nation was called Rhodesia, whites controlled the majority of the land, and the most lucrative land. When virtually any nation struggles to reorganize its economy and mete out some degree of economic justice after a prolonged period of colonialism and usurpation of the land by a few/an oligarchy, the issue of land reform comes to the fore. It must, because, particularly in the third world, land is the basis of all wealth; it is the engine that sustains families, as well as national economies. As tragic, catastrophic and seemingly unjust as land reform can be for the few families of privilege stripped of their holdings by the new order, the status quo is far more tragic, far more unjust. If the ruling class is based on color privilege, on white supremacy -- as it was in Zimbabwe, as it was in South Africa -- then the policies of the new order that seek to topple the old regime and restore some semblance of equanimity to land (and power) distribution, to the superficial or ignorant observer, can take on the appearance of a reverse kind of supremacy, of black supremacy -- particularly when accompanied by race-based resentment/animus on the part of the colonized. The fact is land reform in Zimbabwe is no more black supremacist than was, say, "land reform" in post-revolutionary France, when the peasants and former serfs took possession of old estates and refused to ante up.

The issue of land reform isn't all you misunderstand, apparently. My comments spoke to the somewhat limited definition of "black supremacy" as a belief in the superiority of blacks. My comment was that the definition should be expanded to include a belief, among some black supremacists, in black dominance -- nothing more. And black power is most certainly not the same as black supremacy! deeceevoice 16:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Land reform in Zimbabwe is not black supremacist. It's a political maneuver to gain votes among black people and divert attention away from his own corruption and failures. Too bad the farms now are mismanaged and Mugabe now needs fat American tourists to operate them. (I'm not kidding) Wareware 19:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great photo!

I'm half-asleep, reworking the section explaining black supremacy, and when the edit takes, I see this great image. I'm awake. Thanks, Pharlap. deeceevoice 12:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DC's recent reversion (melanin/science etc.)

HI DC, as per your recent reversion of the changes I made, I must admit I am quite baffled. You posted here two ~20yr old scientific studies on melanin in animals but I fail to see how any of this relates to black supremacy or even to the so called melanin theory. There is no existing information on any connection between Vertiligo an black supremacy [3] and it therefore is what is called on wikipedia "original research" which is not permitted. Also I'm rather disappointed that you took my inclusion of the statement "in the early 1970's led to a bizarre chapter in the history of the black supremacy movment which involved pseudoscientific..." and somehow twisted it into "black supremacy IS bizarre" when I said no such thing. I was merely referring to the PERIOD in its history where the supremacists used the incorrect idea that melanin is a superconductor to bolster claims of superiority. That's very bizarre thing, don't you think? Also you have not provided any refrence or source for the incorrect scientific claims you put back into the page. (again, with the "melanin is a replacement for inorganic semiconductors" mention being the most outrageously incorrect) I must insist that they remain out of the article until sources are noted. Then, I'd be happy to include them, but as it is now, I see nothing supporing this view. Cheers.--Deglr6328 17:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention, there is no previous connection between either melanin theory or black supremacy and parkinson's disease [4] or [5] and this is therefore also original research which is not permitted on wiki I'm afraid. Please see here: Wikipedia:No original research--Deglr6328 18:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, let's face it: deeceevoice knows nothing about science. Just because there is some research going on doesn't mean it's going to replace current technology (microchips) any time soon, if ever. It's fucking stupid. It's like saying nerve cells may be used as batteries in the future because the voltage gradient across the cell plasma membrane is 200,000 volts per centimeter (a typical power line is around 200,000 volts per kilometer). Sure, the nerve cell is damn amazing, but is it going to replace batteries any sooner? NO! and perhaps NEVER. Unless you live in the Matrix's real world of course. Wareware 19:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I really wish I knew where this idea that melanin will someday replace inorganic semiconductors in microchips came from. It is quite preposterous. I strongly suspect DC got her information from here [6], since the information she's entered here so closely matches what's from that site. That site is loaded with crazy nonsense and the guy who made it seems rather loony himself too [7]. DC however, says she refuses to visit the site when I mention it further up the page where she replys "I haven't even bothered to follow the link you provided, because I don't think it has anything to do with where I retrieved my information." which, I have to say was somewhat unhelpful..... Sigh.--Deglr6328 22:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think parts of Deeceevoice melanin essay can still be used in this article, since it is a prime example of black supremacist thought: Whites are all defective albino mutants, therefor whiteness is a horrible disease and therefor white people suffer collectively from all kind of disorders, like uncontrollable aggressive behavior, limited intellectual capacities, deafness, vitiligo (which, by the way, affects all races and both sexes equally, according to the National Institutes of Health) and all other kinds of nerve degeneration, and will therefor never evolve intellectually, physically or spiritually past the level of a sick dog or cat. Blacks, on the other side, are the super(conductor)humans, and, because of their built in supreme melanin based electrical and neural skin-to-brain network, which would even emit flashs of light when switched on, they are the supreme humans with superior intellectual, physical and spiritual capacities ... indeed bizarre ... Pharlap 00:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The so called melanin theory should be described as accurately as possible, yes. But, it should be described as it has existed in the past 30 years and not expounded upon here with conjectural elaborations such as vitiligo/parkinsons/all the rest of it, because this has had no part historically, within melanin theory and would therefore as I mention up top, be orig. research. In other words, melanin theory should be described as the term is used by supremacists and not as what it could be or what other people might want it to be or what it might be in future. --Deglr6328 00:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that Deeceevoice is presenting black supremacist theology as if it were actual science. It is not. The material she presents can not honestly be used to portray the findings of science; it can only be used to describe what some black supremacists believe. RK 03:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

More info on "melanin science"

More info:This is from the University of Queensland website I provided earlier. I'm still looking for the specific reference, but here's one very similar. The introductory paragraph states:

Our main materials of interest are Melanins, and synthetic conducting polymers such as MEH-PPV. Currently, our application focus is 4th generation photovoltaics ... although various forms of biocompatible sensor may make an appearance in the very near future. A growing area of biophysical interest is the spectroscopic signature of Melanin pigment contained within cancerous melanoma. Here are brief descriptions of our main research projects....

Conducting Molecular Crystals (collaboration with NSW Physics) Over the past few years there has been an explosion of interest in the field of "plastic [or organic] electronics". These are semiconducting and conducting organic polymers and molecular crystals, which one day may replace conventional inorganic materials such as silicon and gallium arsenside in high technology devices. [emphasis added]

Note: Gallium arsenide films and silicon are used in microchips -- as are melanin films. Looking less and less like crackpot science, eh? And, no. The content I've offered cannot be described as "original research." I'm not the one in the lab probing the possible uses of melanin. Melanin Theory is what it is. And the bona fide scientific properties of melanin are what they are. Those who subscribe to Melanin Theory have been following the field -- just as they have known about the discovery of melanin as a semiconductor for more than 30 years. Further, the 2000 Nobel Prize for Chemistry fueled even more interest in the theory. There's a distinct connection. And as I said earlier, if I'm reading an article on Melanin Theory, I'd want to know what the hell is behind it. The explanation of the properties of melanin provides that information. deeceevoice 07:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ahh no and no. Melanin has never been used in an IC device sucessfully. And while that site does claim that organic polymers "may replace conventional inorganic materials" I would still think any inorgainic semiconductor scientist would caution that this is EXTREMELY wishful thinking to the point of near impossibility. The problem is with the inherently low electron mobility of organic semiconductors, they're POLYMERS(ie. highly disordered) they will never be able to replace thier conventional high speed inorgaic cousins. Anyway...What you entered into the article (read what I wrote please) about parkinsons/Vertiligo/etc. is not traditionally connected (ie. historically) to melanin theory so this IS original research. read the wikipedia article on original research Wikipedia:Original research--Deglr6328 08:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Melanin and quantum chemistry:

Quantum chemistry of melanin semiconductors - supervisors: Ross McKenzie and Paul Meredith

The melanins are a unique class of biopolymer found throughout nature [1]. They are based upon heteropolymers of indolequinones and indolequinone carboxylic acids. In humans, they act mainly as pigments and photoprotectants. In recent years, these materials have also been found in the inner ear and brain stem. No one really knows why they are there, or how they function. A common theory is that the biopolymers act as charge transport mediators. What is clear, is that the melanins are the only know[n] biopolymeric solid-state semiconductors. They are also UV/Vis broad band absorbers - the property at the heart of their pigmentary and photoprotectant functions. [emphasis added]

The electronic structure of these materials is of great interest to medical and biophysical researchers alike. The pi-electron Huckel method is one of the simplest ways to calculate the electronic band structure for organic molecular crystals. This has been done for a perfect crystal of 5-6 indolequinone [2], which is one of the most abundant constituents of eumelanin (the most common form of the biopolymer, and the major component of human skin pigment). This project will extend these calculations to the class of melanin semiconductors that will be used in electronic devices at UQ and will also consider the effect of disorder on semiconducting properties. In so doing, it is hoped that we will gain insight into: electron transport mechanisms in these disordered heteropolymer semiconductor; possible routes to achieve "tuning" of electrical properties; the dependence of conductivity on molecular weight, monomer ratio, and other characteristic chemical properties. These findings will be integrated with experimental observations to build more complete knowledge of these exotic, and potentially useful biopolymers.

• [1] M.Blois, Photochem. Photobiol. Rev. 3, 115 (1978).

• [2] D.S. Galvao and M.J. Caldas, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 2630 (1990). deeceevoice 07:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And about the Proctor website:And, Deglr, I followed your link to the Proctor site. Curiously, I don't see anything "loony" or "preposterous" about what I skimmed only briefly. I skimmed it because it simply seems to repeat the same, basic info on the link between melanin and deafness in mammals -- or, cats, at least -- that the London Royal National Institute for the Deaf and Dr. George Strain did. If it's not "loony" or "preposterous" when they address the phenomenon of melanin-related deafness, then it's not preposterous on the Proctor site. He also, interestingly, provides a link to the 1970s research that is the genesis of Melanin Theory, "Amorphous Semiconductor Switching in Melanins," as it appeared in Science magazine. (Another "loony," "preposterous" publication?) :-p deeceevoice 08:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"If it's not "loony" or "preposterous" when they address the phenomenon of melanin-related deafness, then it's not preposterous on the Proctor site." Wow that's some reasoning skill you've applied there. Well here's one crazy excerpt from the site:"This is strong electron-phonon coupling in potent sound-absorbing organic semiconductors such as inner-ear melanin." That sentance is so nonsense filled I don't even know where to begin.(nor do I wish to bother) There are many others on the site.--Deglr6328 08:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, darlin', you dug it up; you can read it! My first reaction to that information, though, is that it doesn't seem outrageous at all. Melanin clearly does mediate energy conduction and transduction, and sound is a form of energy. But since science isn't my chosen field, I'd have to decode "electron-phonon coupling" before I could say anything more. I perceive a fundamental difference between you and me. I keep an open mind and investigate to inquire, rather than to automatically debunk. Inquiry is the essence of science, the essence of learning. I have other things to do, so I didn't read the Proctor site thoroughly. But the sections that caught my eye make perfect sense, particularly in light of the other findings that support the information he presents to which I've already alluded. Additionally, I have to say that I briefly googled "melanin conduction deafness," and the three words do seem to appear frequently in the same articles. I haven't time to search through the sites; but, hey, sounds intriguing/interesting to me. deeceevoice 08:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but I'll pass on taking advice on methods of scientific inquiry from civil rights era grandmas, no offence. ":p" The idea that electron-phonon coupling would occur at biological temperatures and that it could possibly have anything to do with deafness and melanin is idiotic. Phonon.--Deglr6328 08:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL deglr that's a good one. That aside, melanin clearly does mediate energy conduction and transduction, and sound is a form of energy. Well, that doesnt really make sense at all, except more technobabble that makes it sound a wee bit legitimate. Energy conduction and transduction is not specific to melanin. Every cell in the body can do that since they have mitochondria, which mediate the electron transport chain to provide energy. Every kid who has taken high school biology can probably reiterate that mitochondria is the "powerhouse" of the cell. Saying so for melanin doesnt really mean anything at all, even though melanin isn't a cell (that's reserved for melanocytes). Throwing technical terms around doesnt do you any good unless you understand them and the context in which they're used. And I think there is a fundamental problem with comprehending the definition of original research. Nobody here argues that the Queensland report is original research, but the link between that and black supremacy is. You just can't make connections on your own if they sound good to you, because that would be original research. The individual components don't necessarily have to be, but the connection (no matter how flimsy) is. And [8] shows that "black supremacy" and "microchips" only have 3 articles, two of them have nothing to do with the purpoted connection and one is a direct copy of the wiki article. [9] gives 139 results of "microchip" and "melanin" together. None is about melanin application in microchip manufacture, and the last two on the first page are, again, direct copies of wiki articles (shows you how easy and dangerous for people to stumble upon bullshit through wiki disinformation). When melanin and microchip are in the same article, the microchip refers to DNA microchip array, which is a technique to detect changes in gene expression, NOT computer microchip. It has nothing to do with electronics. That pretty much means that if you say melanin could replace microchips/silicon/whatnots, you're doing original research. And for those who don't know much about science and exaggerate the application of melanin by extension of some mundane scientific facts, see my previous analogy to nerve cells. Wareware 09:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a simple fix to your objection, deglr: delete the specific reference to microchips, and the statement is absolutely sound. deeceevoice 10:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm up working on a project, but I'm remembering a comment by someone that melanin's conductivity is too low to be useful in electronics devices. But I recalled reading something somewhere about "doped melanin." I googled it. I turned up:

• Nature Vol. 248 April 5 1974, p475 ( News and Views )

"Semiconductors in the human body?" from our Solid State Physics Correspondent

"...Now at least one biological material has been shown to have a strikingly large conductivity when correctly excited. McGinness, Corry and Proctor, of the University of Texas Cancer Center, Houston, report in Science (183, 853; 1974) that melanins can be made to 'switch' from a poorly conducting to a highly conducting state at fairly low electric fields (say from 10K ohm- cm to 100 ohm-cm at a field of 300 V cm-1). This remarkable phenomenon occurs both in melanin made synthetically from tyrosine and in that extracted from a human melanoma. The large conduction is not destructive in any way and is reversible;. According to some tests, conduction seems to be electronic rather than ionic...."

And then a lengthy examination of different types of melanin and their properties which states, in part:

• "The conductivity of melanin in its natural state is rather poor but what can influence the electrical conductivity may be the presence of foreign substances or metals (doping effect ) or a proteic part which is difficult to dislodge from the complex. It is also to remember that heating modifies planarity of the system (hydrogen bonds and conductivity)." deeceevoice 11:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing conductivity with electron mobility. See here for discussion of the problem [10]. If you delete the refrence to microchips that would make things more accurate, yes. I do think this should go in the melanin article and not here though. No need to be redundant. If readers are interested in specific electronic properties of the material they should go there, not here. --Deglr6328 14:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I determined last night that much of what I've presented here should go in melanin, which is why this a.m. I put a note on that article's discussion page directing them to this discussion thread -- in the hopes that persons who've contributed to that article, who are more familiar with the field of plastic (organic) electronics, will take it further. (When I first came to the article on melanin, it said nothing about high-tech applications or biotech research.) I've been meaning to get back to this article, but I don't have the time right now (or the patience). When I do, I'll reinsert/insert some appropriate, pared-down language briefly referring to the physical properties of melanin that I believe are relevant to Melanin Theory and refer readers to melanin. In presenting much of what appears here in the talk section re ongoing melanin research, I was simply providing information in response to the debate about research applications, melanin's physical properties and its connection with deafness and Parkinson's -- unless someone has done/does it first, to my satisfaction. Much of it is not something I have any intention of inserting into the article. deeceevoice 18:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok by me!--Deglr6328 21:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, Deglr, re "civil rights era grandmas": in the future, when we have discussions/debates in the future, let's stick to the subject at hand and leave the personal remarks out of it. deeceevoice 06:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE-> your (unfounded) not-so-subtle insinuation of racism in a reply to me: "It's kind of humorous -- and very telling -- that nonblacks are so accustomed to the notion of black inferiority, that the converse, which parallels such a pervasive....", and you've got yourself a deal. :)--Deglr6328 09:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This reads like an excuse for your childishness. The corollary of white supremacy -- which is widespread -- is the notion of black inferiority, and it is pervasive -- insidiously so -- (as Wareware has demonstrated repeatedly and quite admirably). That whites and other nonblacks would be accustomed to such a notion is not surprising -- nor is it racist to state such. By the way, subtlety (if you hadn't noticed) is generally not something for which I generally strive. :-p Besides, when stating the obvious, IMO, it would be silly/a wasted exercise. deeceevoice 10:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point is I never said those things!! someone else did and it pissed me off when you accused me of it and then insinuated that I was racist because of it.--Deglr6328 21:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never said what things"? Never mind. It's not important, because I never insinuated you were "racist." Insinuation isn't exactly my style, either. :-p If it's something you inferred from what I wrote, then there was a misunderstanding. For all I know, you could be, but as a matter of fact, the only person I know for a fact is racist in this discussion is Wareware -- because of his repeated use of racial slurs. deeceevoice 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's concentrate on the article. I don't think it's possible to reason with someone who defines wikipedia as "enemy territory" and its members as "arrogant", "ill-informed" "wikiwhites", who "all too common" show "deep-seated, anti-black antipathy/animus" and "blatant hostility/racism". We should spend our energies on more constructive discussions. Pharlap 04:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aw, get over it, Pharlap! What? And I suppose you haven't noticed all the racist crap around here? I suppose we should all ignore it and pretend everything's just hunky-dory, eh? I see openly addressing the race bias on Wiki as being constructive. Besides, what I have to say about Wiki on my personal page has nothing to do with this discussion -- speaking of "spend[ing] our energies on more constructive discussions." And speaking of this discussion, would you care to explain to me why someone like Wareware continues to spew racial slurs with complete impunity? Why people like you see fit to criticize me for calling attention to a very real problem, yet you have absolutely nothing to say in the way of reproval or criticism about or to a Wiki member who uses words like "ape," "savage" and "jungle" when referring to a black person? And you think when you criticize me you have some kind of credibility? Hypocrites like you are really laughable. Credibility? You got none. Criticism from someone like you reads like glowing praise. Thanks for the compliment. *x* deeceevoice 10:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about mocking you with racial slurs, deecee. I think next time I'll have to come up with more creative and more PC ways to address your intelligence and conduct. I suppose a bag of shit or a cockroach nincompoop is better than apes or savages for the more sensitive. You'll have to excuse me since I'm not really acquainted with yo mama jokes and the dozens to come up with original insults like you do all the time, so I just took the lazy way and called you an ape directly. Also it's too bad that I didn't know non-racist slurs can be thrown around with impunity like deecee here did (maybe except one warning of civility from a sysop), but a single mention of ape is going to get me labelled a racist. Just remember kids, it's okay to insult people if you're creative and don't jump into using racial slurs like I did, and make sure you don't ever call black people apes or else they'll go monkey on you. Wareware 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Careful

As it stands right now, the melanin theory bit contains some copyvios. I don't know who added them (nor do I particualrly care) but please be careful of direct text copying. All that's needed are some phrasing tweaks to make everything ok. I'll leave it to others... --Deglr6328 04:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I rephrased the article, somebody please double check. Pharlap 12:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)