Talk:Black people/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

The word Black comes from Classical African Civilization

Hetep and Respect Good Spirit, The first word in recorded history to describe Blackness is a burnt piece of wood. This Metu Neter glyph is translated as the letters km. A piece of bread is added "t" and the symbol for nation to make the Name of Classical African Civilization, Kmt (Kemet) or the land of the Black people.

See the Kemetic (Egyptian) word for Black and Black people. You can find a detailed explanation in my book "The What Makes You Black, Blook". You will find the details with the metu neter (pictographs) in the appendix.

This takes place thousands of years before the first Greek writes a book. This article should be updated to reflect the fact that the Word Black was first written by Black people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aunk (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

If we can verify this, I would like to include it. This is why I want this to be inclusive. This is the kind of interesting information we need.--Filll 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun's misunderstanding of the British census

Alun the "other black background" on the british census is also only for people of African ancestry. The fact that a tiny % are from Oceania means nothing. There are people of African ancestry who live in Oceania. Enough with the original research.

In any event it's clear that there's a narrow definition of what it means to be black and a broad definition, just like there's a narrow definition of what a lizard is, and broad definition (anything that looks kind of like a lizard including a crocodile and a dinosaur). Encyclopedias tend to focus on precise definitions so that's what we'd like to do with this article. There's another article for teh broad defenition of black. Timelist 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Alun the "other black background" on the british census is also only for people of African ancestry.

I can find no evidence for your assertion anywhere and yet you accuse me of original research. I am British, I know what is included in the British census. People are entitled to respond how they like. You have consistently made totally unfounded claims regarding the criteria used in the collection of information by the Office for National Statistics. Did you read the document I posted? If you did then it will be as clear as the nose on your face that you are quite wrong. Your statement has no basis in fact. It is incorrect, and however much you might want it to be correct you will still be wrong. The document clearly provides information that includes people of non-recent African descent in the "Other Black" category. Give it up. You cannot keep pushing this single POV, you appear to be very much against consensus here. I know it is difficult sometimes to see another's point of view, but it is really time for you to accept that ther POVs do actually exist. We are not disagreeing with you for fun, we are not trying to annoy you, we are not trying to offend or upset you, and I'm quite sure none of us has enjoyed disputing with you. But it must be plain to you by now, given the multiplicity of definitions and sources we have produced that your contention that Black people are exclusively of recent African origin is just one point of view, and that it is not the only point of view. We have demonstrated this to the satisfaction of wikipedia's policies. It is now you who is going against all three policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. For example there's this:

For more than eight in ten (84 per cent) of those in the Other Black group, an ethnic group description was specified in the text box on the census form. The majority (63 per cent) specified a ‘Black British’ ethnic identity (Figure 4.2). A further 13 per cent were coded to a ‘Black Mixed’ group, indicating mixed ethnicity where both or all ethnicities described are from different black groups. A ‘Black British’ identity was even stronger among Other Blacks born in the UK. Three quarters (74 per cent) of the Other Black group born in the UK specified a ‘Black British’ identity. The proportion was similar for those over 16 years old (75 per cent) and those under 16 (72 per cent), most of whom will have had their ethnic identity written in by a parent.

So what do we know about these "Black Other"? We know that most describe their ethnic identity as Black British, and that the vast majority were born in the UK (79%). That's all we know about them, they do not describe their descent at all, they just tell us where they were born and what their ethnic group is (Black Other and Black British mainly). We can assume they do not identify as Black Caribbean or Black African as they did not choose this option. You are claiming these people as of recent African descent, maybe a lot of them are, I don't know, but neither do you, and yet you claim to know this as a fact. How do you know this? Alun 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense Timelist, but can we not leave this article to be for all called black or ever called black? And have one for African people? And one for African American definitions of black which are quite restrictive? We have literally hundreds of other articles about black and african people that are more specific. I am not sure how the British census refers only to African people. Can you back that up with a direct quote? --Filll 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Timelist, so your preferred definition is the lizard, and everyone else who disagrees with you merely makes a case that looks like a lizard. I do not see the validity of that simplictic analogy. --Ezeu 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look above, I suggested an restrictive definition article called "black people (US meaning)". What do you think?--Filll 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're never gonna convince me that Indians (or at least some) are black people. Didn't anyone ever see Mississippi Masala?--4.245.206.43 02:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No sorry I missed it. And which Indians are you referring to? The Indigenous peoples of the Americas? Or the people of South Asia? I am not trying to convince you they are "black people". However, if they were historically called black, or if they have ever self identified as black (which some claim, and I have not verified for myself), then that is something that might deserve a sentence and a reference. Does that not sound reasonable?--Filll 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't reasonable Fill. This article is about black people, not people who've been called black at any time in history Timelist 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

No offense, but I think that the introductory paragraph is again migrating towards a bit of bias and also some inaccessible English. Here is my suggested replacement:

This article is about the different definitions of the phrase "black people". To see the article about the African American use of this phrase, see Black people (US meaning).
Black people is a term that usually refers to various dark-skinned people. "Black people" are also known as blacks. There is no universally agreed-upon definition for who is "black". "Black" can be a racial, ethnic, societal or cultural classification. A variety of racial, socio-political, lexical, and biological factors can influence the definition of a "black person". Some argue that the term should be reserved exclusively for dark-skinned people of recent African ancestry in certain parts of the world. However, some argue that this definition is inaccurate since it excludes Negritos and Australoids and other dominantly dark-skinned groups.

That is not perfect, but at least it is a proposal to argue over. I would then suggest that another article discussing the African American point of view be produced. It would have to feature both the restrictive view and have links to more general views. However, there are already hundreds of articles written from the more general viewpoint on Wikipedia, so this should not be hard to flesh it out properly so as not to claim that ALL African Americans support a definition of

• recent African ancestry from subSaharan West Africa with dark skin and those who live in subSaharan West Africa with dark skin.

which many seem to want to push for. --Filll 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will remove the mention of Negritos and Australoids from the lead para. Is that good enough for yous? --Ezeu 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We can keep the reference to Negritos and Australoids, as long as we do it in a way that does not step too hard on someone else's toes. In fact I would like to include them so that people can understand what we are hinting at actually.--Filll 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I edited it slightly to include Negritos and Austaloids. I also improved the English a bit. I favor shorter cleaner expository sentences.--Filll 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't accept a bias in the introduction that states that Black people is usually used for people with a recent African origin. This is not true. In some parts of the world it's true, but not everywhere. I also don't understand what is particularly "not neutral" about the word "exclusive". Exclusive simply means "only". So if it's exclusively people of African descent it just means the same as not including people of any non-recent African descent. If this is what you mean then how is it POV to say it? It's just accurate that's all. I don't get how it can be neutral to keep saying that "African descent"="Black", now you want to say it in the introduction, or at least imply that this is the "usual" or "normal" usage everywhere in the world. Alun 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wobble/Alun. Which is why I said SOME people claim this. Obviously not everyone does. I also have a problem with exclusive, so I am trying to add enough qualifiers to describe the situation accurately. It is true that SOME people want to define it this way. But not everyone does. And I do not believe that what I have suggested claims that African descent=Black, but if it does I should change it. I have given many many counterexamples here that demonstrate African Descent is NOT the same as black. And not just Aborigines. Many many other counterexamples exist.--Filll 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it said that Black people usually refers to people of recent African origin. I changed it and got told I was just being stubborn, see the edit history of the page. I think it should say that some people think it is only people of recent African descent and some people think it is people anywhere in the world with a very dark skin colour. I'd be happy with that. There's no bias there is there? To call one usage "usual" imediately brings in a bias. That's what I am specifically against. But apparently that's just stubborn, not neutral at all. Alun 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it being stubborn? This is something we have been over again and again. I thought we were slowly coming to a consensus, and now you want to go back to saying that Black is recent African origin and recent African origin is Black, "usually". What I don't understand is how you think this is at all significantly different from what Timelist is saying, because as far as I can see you are now agreeing with him. I do not support a bias in favour of any given POV. Alun 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is something I am missing. Who is being stubborn?--Filll 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun, you are being contradictory: you are saying that black does not only refer to those of African origin, yet you are also sying that black is "exclusive" to African people. What do you mean? Do you know what exclusive means? --Ezeu 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read what I wrote? I said some people think that Black people are exclusively of recent African origin or mixed recent African origin. This is one POV, it is not the POV I hold, but I accept that this is something a lot of people believe. What is wrong about this? Some people do think that Black people can only (exclusively) be of recent African origin or mixed recent African origin. That's what I said. In the article I said that in some parts of the world this is believed. Look at the edit. Alun 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have called you stubborn, I misunderstood your edit. --Ezeu 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to include all comments and make a version. I also tried to clean up the English a bit.--Filll 07:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No More Black people pages

I forgot to add, if anyone tries, like children in a candy store who cant get what they want, go and start another black people article i will make sure it is deleted. This is not a forum, our a country club, this is not a playground for "I dont want to play with you so i will go and get my own friends." Their is only one "black people" and the article should be of Encyclopedic content, reflective, diverse in world view, baka! or i will go and start creating new sections called Israel--My version of it, USA my version of it and on and on, the entire wikipedia should be balanced, i.e what is true for one section must be true for all. I would like to take this time to say thanks to all the European contributions to this site, as you know Africans have no yet been able to define themselevs and we still need your help. I am serious about the last bit, this is the legacy of enslavement.--Halaqah 08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I really do tend to agree with this. We should try to include all points of view here. I know there are several people here who do not want to apply wikipedia policies, but they are quite straightforward in this case. We present all POVs without bias. Simple. If we cannot do this then we need some help. We could go for a peer review, or an RfC or some such thing. We could seek mediation. But I do think that spliting the article will not work. We cannot have what are essentially two articles about the African diaspora just because a few editors refuse to accept that a different POV to their own does exist. Essentially this is what we are talking about. Alun 11:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It remains very unclear just how many people do refuse to accept other POVs. There is a strong suspicion that Editingoprah/Whatdoyou/Kobrakid/Timelist is one person. There has been a history of sockpuppetry and dissimulation which makes it difficult to say. There has already been a mediation case, which made no difference (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people). I find it disturbing that this problem may be no more than one person who is being given free reign to essentially create an impression of a "consensus" to promote a personal view. Paul B 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Message to Timelist, I dont come here often enough to know who is who, (I know a few of my big time enemies come here). I have just observed some of the incorrect edits you are doing and must ask you to stop, It is not going to give you victory, why are you doing it. Is it fair? Is it fair for your American POV to be a WORLD POV. have u been to Fiji and other countries where non-African people identify as being of a "black" race. Furthermore many people in the world were called black by Europeans. Almost everyone became black. Imagine if a Jewish person said suffering and genocide and Holocaust only referred to them--is it right? Stop causing trouble. I think the intro accommodates your POV, and if I had anything to say about it the intro wouldn’t so be happy for what they have given you and be a broader thinking human being. I know how you feel, cuz if they start saying African means White South Africans I would flip. But black really doesnt only apply to African, trust me my friend most African never call themeselves black. Go to Niger, or Timbuktu, or Gonder and see if you hear the word black people.--Halaqah 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It remains very unclear just how many people do refuse to accept other POVs. There is a strong suspicion that Editingoprah/Whatdoyou/Kobrakid/Timelist is one person. There has been a history of sockpuppetry and dissimulation which makes it difficult to say. There has already been a mediation case, which made no difference (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people). I find it disturbing that this problem may be no more than one person who is being given free reign to essentially create an impression of a "consensus" to promote a personal view. Paul B 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! I've just had a brief look at the mediation. It was back in August, and exactly the same people were having exactly the same argument. The mediator seems to have come to the same conclusions as most of the editors here, and yet the few who refuse to accept other verified points of view are still pushing this POV. I wonder why they went to mediation at all if they were not prepared to even consider any other POV. I also think this contraryness has gone a bit far. We have catergorically shown that there are many reliable sources that support the point of view that Black people is usually used to refer to people of dark skin colour, irresepctive of descent, these people still refuse to accept this POV. This refusal is a direct breach of the WP:NPOV and WP:V. Indeed there is little evidence that Black people only refers to people of recent African descent. Most definitions from dictionaries support both POVs. The "Biological definition" section in this article is misleading and should be scrapped. The section about Ethiopians is extremely POV, pushing the "African descent" idea and implying that a non sub-Saharan descent is not compatible with identifying as Black. Indeed I think there should be a shortish section giving the "Black as recent African origin" idea (possibly including the section about genetic definitions) with a link to the main article about the African diaspora. It seems to me that because nearly all North American Black people are of recent African descent the words have become near synonyms there, this is probably exacerbated by the adoption of the "African" epithet in North America to replace the word Black. Now both words are used and seem to be applied to the same North American ethnic group. But this does not make it acceptable for people to ignore the obvious fact that these words are not synonyms, and I suspect that they are not synonyms for many North Americans either, just for certain groups. I think Filll has made this point several times before. So do we go for an RfC? Do we go for an accusation of disruptive editing? What is the consensus? Alun 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the time is ripe to request for Arbitration. There are two or three people here, all suspected to be meat/sockpuppets - refusing to accept consensus. --Ezeu 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree. We have a big problem here. Timelist/Editingoprah have about 10 sockpuppets and have caused enough chaos here. It is probably just one person trying to keep the article from being written.--Filll 15:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that we do not really know who is who and how many there are. The falangists might be all one person. Many of the "African Americans" might also be one person. Or maybe just 2 or 3. Maybe splitting the article will not help. Splitting it would not negate the need to make at least one general article, even if the general article is a disambiguation page. Now of course everyone is fighting over who gets to have the simple "black people" article. Let's take a look at how many people we are talking about:

• African Americans no more than 40 million at most, of all colors
• Africans more than 800 million, of all colors
• dark skinned peoples in Europe about 3-7 million
• dark skinned peoples in Australia about 230,000
• dark skinned people in the rest of Oceania that have been called black hard to say but could be many more

We know that not ALL African Americans agree with the restrictive viewpoint, since many have a global viewpoint. I believe Editingoprah has a global viewpoint and is a self-identified African American. We known from Halaqah who is our only self-identified African that not all Africans share this view, and maybe no Africans. I know that very few if any Australian Aborigines share the view. We do not know about the others. Certainly some in South Asia use the term for political purposes (DALIT: THE BLACK UNTOUCHABLES OF INDIA, THIRD EDITION, by V.T. Rajshekar ISBN: 0-932863-05-1, 124 pp., illus., 1995, $9.95) and possibly for other reasons. There are over 160 million Dalits in India. However, it is fairly clear that the perspective that

• Black refers only to those of recent African ancestry from West SubSaharan Africa and particularly to African Americans (some of whom have seized the name for themselves and deny reality and history)

leaves out very large groups of people who have other views, even those with dark skin who self-identify as black. I would not say a group of 230,000 Aborigines is a trivial number. How many Dalits call themselves black? I am not sure what else to suggest but maybe some intervention of outside editors.--Filll 13:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the main issue is not that this one or two people disagree, but they seem to deny that disagreement exists.--Filll 14:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think from what FILL said above I sign off on this debate, it is beyond argument, 40 million are called black and even more in Austrailia and Oceania, like Fiji etc. I dont want to be a "thats it" but i think the point is 100% accurate and the debate should be closed. Too much evidence supports that black people is not only for Africans. I even heard an Italian women calling a dark Italian black. I have seen no supporting evidence for why only AA are black, NONE! or are they denying the entire history of Indians being called black by the Bristish? --Halaqah 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that I was mistaken. We also have Ezeu who is a self-identified black African. I fear I am incorrect about Editingoprah and the sock puppets.--Filll 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is a personal view only, I used no references, or encyclopedic content, do what u will with this contribution. Here's my two cents:

I am an African-Canadian, son of Jamaican immigrants who sought Canada as their place to better their lives and the lives of their children. I initially logged into this 'black people' page to find out more about black people across the globe and their history, struggles as a minority. 'Black people' are all over the world, a minority in Russia, Korea,Europe, Mexico, Central and South America. I was and still seek knowledge of the plight of Blacks all over the world, Canada, U.S. and the other nations I mentioned.

To get back to the point, the terms black and African to describe a community, are problematic. Let's say you use the term 'black', who is defined as such. Many 'blacks' can easily pass for whites or caucasian, Mariah Carey,(as pointed out in an e.g.), the other problem is black as defined in the dictionary is defined very negatively, as evil etc., and not every one likes the term assigned to them. The 3rd problem, most people who call themselves black aren't black they're brown at best ( a silly point, possibly but true nonetheless. The good thing about the term 'Black',in the seventies became a call to self-pride for many in America, (and more than likely across the world), a call to build a united community that supported its needs through Blacks supporting their businesses, working together to build safer, stronger communities etc. That's why I like the term 'Black', in the sense of racial pride.

African is term I also use, I firmly believe that many if not all blacks (possibly all of humanity) originated from Africa. Many people I speak to have no allegiance to Africa as a number of Africans (those I've spoken to) view us as exiles, not worth working with and not true Africans. Many people reject the African term and have allegiance only to the nations of their birth I am Jamaican, or American first. A viewpoint that I think is foolish especially unless you are from a nation where blacks are the majority, you more than likely have suffered more hate from your fellow countrymen who view you as a lesser being than a fellow Brit, Canadian or American.

The sad thing, there are terms used to describe us, some less than flattering which I refuse to use myself. Negro is the lesser of the evils, but I've hated the term. It's a definition dumped on us not one I believe we chose for ourselves. Negro, Negroid, I just hate the term.

Which makes this whole debate very confusing, the attempt was to have an entry to define a group that exists all over the world, It is necessary to have info about blacks all over the world not just in Africa or the usual suspects, not an easy feat of course but worth investigating. To help aid myself or others in that search for information terms had to be selected. Should we squabble over the term black or african when we ourselves have trouble figuring out how we identify ourselves ? I have heard of no term that would satisfy me, so if any one can think of one, please let's hear it. That's my two cents.Darkrider30 04:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)darkrider30

Comical vandalism

Someone just included the phrase

People from Asian countries such as India, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia etc should not be recognised as black, but instead Hispanics.

which I think is pretty funny.--Filll 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

People of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry, only ethnicity not allowed their own termnology,

It's amazing how much hatred there is for peoples of rescent sub-Saharan African ancestry on wikipedia. It seems we're the only ethnicity on earth that's being denied the right to an article about ourselves using our own ethnic termonlogy despite the fact that this termonology is officially recognized by numerous governments.

So we have editors like Wobble and Fill who want to create a ridiculous article listing all the people in history who have ever been called black by anyone ever regardless of whether the term was used in an ethnic context or not. As a result these editors are transforming the article into an incoherent mess and disrespecting peoples of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry in the process. Timelist 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said many times before, this is the race card being played. Why do you ignore the mediation case? Do we have to go for RfC or will you be cooperative? You know I have bent over backwards to try to accommodate you and so have many many others. Now it looks like you are just one person with about 10 sockpuppets. I do not like wasting everyones time with this ludicrous issue. Take your own article and leave everyone else alone. --Filll 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take your own article and leave people of recent Sub-Saharan African ancestry alone? The article you are trying to create is idiotic. A long list of everyone who has ever been called black? That's gibberish. Peoples of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry are a very legitimate ethnic group and we go by the name black and we are as entitled to our own article as any other ethnic group. Why can't you show us that basic respect? Please do not accuse editors who disagree with you of playing the race card. Timelist 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Timelist you r correct in part, African people have zero voice in their agency (to quote) but I am African, I am not American, My ancestors are listed in the Kebra Negust and we dont/didnt call ourselves black, I am not a coconut or a clown. Many Hausa and Ethiopian never use this word, actually most African dont save SA. And not only Near African or whatever are called black. Your voice is in the article u need to browe wikipedia and see the real racism going on, this site here is actually one of the better examples of plurality--TRUST ME BRO, this is mild compared to other parts, its a war in some zones for African agency.--Halaqah 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah I'm not suggesting that all Africans call themselves black. But many people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry use the term Black to describe our unique ethnicity and rather than write an article about that, many people want to merge all these unrelated definitions of black people (Black Irish, negritoes) into one article, when the far more interestinng article is about Black as an ethnic label. Essentially we're bing told "NO! EVERY OTHER ETHNICITY GETS TO HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THEMSELVES USING THEIR OWN ETHNIC TERMONOLOGY, BUT NOT YOU GUYS!" Timelist 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Timelist, Black people are not an ethnic group. There are hundreds of ethnic groups in sub Saharan Africa, to lump them all together as a single ethnic group is extremely offensive to them. These different ethnic groups do exist, have you not heared about Rwanda and the genocide there? Do you seriously think that Black people of recent African descent form a single ethnic group? African Americans are a different ethnic group to West Indians who are different again to all African groups. You are also being unfair, you want to repeat the African diaspora article as a "Black people" article. The only reason I can think of for doing this is that you cannot accept any other POV than your own. I am really angry about this. There are Black people who are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin all over the world. This is not just about people with recent African descent, this is about Black people. Your criteria for defining Black people are narrow and not representative of the consensus here. Many people here have tried hard to accomodate your POV, have accepted that we should include it in the article. But this does not seem to be enough for you, it's your own personal definition or nothing at all. Well this is an encyclopaedia, it is not the world according to Timelist. I really see very little option here other than to refer this to an investigation for disruptive editing. Alun 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Extent of Problem

Suspected Sockpuppets of Editingoprah:

• User:64.230.72.185
• User:Aquadaqua
• User:Cardriver
• User:Kittykash
• User:Kobrakid
• User:Timelist
• User:Vexel
• User:Liketoread
• User:Whatdoyou

Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah.M This is one person who has been harassing other users here for months and months and ignoring mediation attempts. We have a problem.--Filll 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet of Editingoprah. We're classmates and freely admit this on our talk pages. Full disclosure. Why are you trying to marginalize all the African American users? Timelist 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do not become immediately magically cooperative, it is all over. Sorry. I have had enough.--Filll 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also please take a look at this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Editingoprah.--Filll 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you revert this again, I am going for RfC

Now that I have skimmed the Mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people) I see that we have a much bigger problem than I realized. Editingoprah and his or her sock puppets have been causing problems for a long long time. I think that if Editingoprah/Kobrakid/Timelist etc does not want to adopt their own article to edit and leave this one alone, we should get them barred from this article. It is clear that they have had some sort of crazy irrational agenda for many months that no one else agrees with. I am sorry to sound so harsh but that is what it looks like to me. I should have realized this sooner.--Filll 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Crazy/irrational agenda huh? So people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry wanting an article about our own unique ethnicity (as recognized by the census of many governments) using our own ethnic termonology is a crazy irrational agenda? Yes I gues it is pretty crazy and irrational for us to expect the same respect as every other ethnic group. Timelist 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Crazy/irrational agenda huh? So people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry wanting an article about our own unique ethnicity (as recognized by the census of many governments) using our own ethnic termonology is a crazy irrational agenda? Yes I gues it is pretty crazy and irrational for us to expect the same respect as every other ethnic group. Timelist 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You have caused chaos for too many months with this. You are one person with 8, 9 10 or more sockpuppets. The jig is up.--Filll 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Editingoprah and I freely admit that we are friends who post together. This is on our talk page in full disclosure Timelist 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Won't work this time. I no longer buy it. I wasnt born yesterday.--Filll

I am starting to realize

That perhaps 90% of the trouble at this page is the cause of one user with multiple accounts harassing others and engaging in disruptive behavior. I think the time has come to come to grips with this. All efforts for at least 6 months have gone nowhere. Many editors have given up in disgust. Tons of material was flushed down the toilet. All so one editor can rant and rave and threaten and throw tantrums and charge others with racism. This is too much. Even when I tried to get them to create a separate page with their own agenda, they wanted this one instead. And were not at all constructive. It is not as though black and African people and African Americans have no pages. There are literally hundreds. And this person does not want to contribute but just fight others and waste time and energy and be destructive. And their edits are usually stilted awful English. I am not even convinced any more that this person is truely African American or a person of color, but an outside agitator trying to cause trouble and damage to the article. This person is working at cross purposes to people of color, and might even be like the falangists, just trying to cause disruption to keep these articles from being written.--Filll 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will note that we have here at least 5 other editors, including myself, who believe that the right course of action is to consider corrective action to stop this, and stop it now.--Filll 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Alun

Timelist, Black people are not an ethnic group.

Then why are they an ethnic origin category on the U.S. census?

I don't know, but Black people are no more an ethnic group than White people. I was at that article as well for a while. I am not "ethnically White". I am ethnically Welsh and I am ethnically British. When I stste my ethnicity it tells you something about me. You know where I come from, you know the culture of the place, you know what languages I speak, you might expect me to follow Rugby Union. You would know that I am partial to Leeks and Daffodils. You might guess that the car sticker I have is of Y Ddraig Goch. You would expect that I probably support England in football and Cricket, but not in Rugby. There are a miriad of things that my ethnicity tells you about me. The fact that I'm "White" tells you very little. I have ethnically British friends that are not "White", I have far more in common with them than I do with people in Finland, where I live, because I do not share an ethnic identity with Finnish people, but I do with other British people, even if they are not White. Ethnicity has nothing to do with the colour of a person's skin. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of ethnic groups in sub Saharan Africa, to lump them all together as a single ethnic group is extremely offensive to them.

But it's not offensive to lump all the dark skinned people of the world into 1 category?

I didn't say that it wasn't. I wouldn't have Black people or a White people articles personally, I find them both offensive. I find this article White British particularly pointless and offensive, because no one identifies as "White British", it's not an ethnic group, it's a census classification, British people are British people, whether they are White or not. If we have to have one, then it should reflect a world view, and not just your view. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

These different ethnic groups do exist, have you not heared about Rwanda and the genocide there? Do you seriously think that Black people of recent African descent form a single ethnic group? African Americans are a different ethnic group to West Indians who are different again to all African groups.

There are ethnic groups within ethnic groups. The popular argument is that there are many tribes of Native Americans but that doesn't change the fact that Native Americans are still a coherent ethnicity.

I do not think this is correct. There certainly are ethnic groups within ethnic groups. I am both Welsh and British. I may even identify as European on an ethnic level (just as someone might identify as African). I never identify as ethnically "White", because I don't think such a thing exists. There are people that are considered White who do not live or derive from Europe. This was a big source of disagreement on the White people page. Myself and several editors were trying to stop some editors asserting that only Europeans can count as White. We appear to be having a similar problem here. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You are also being unfair, you want to repeat the African diaspora article as a "Black people" article. The only reason I can think of for doing this is that you cannot accept any other POV than your own.

I have no problem with other POVs. But the word black has more than one legitimate meaning. My ethnicity (recent sub-Saharan African ancestry) is as legitimate as any other ethnicity and I have as much of a right to an article about my ethnicity as any other ethnicity does. Why are you resisting the right of my ethnicity to have an article (under the terms we choose)? Why are you telling me my ethnicity doesn't exist? True, black also refers to dark skin, but "white" also refers to light skin, yet your ethnicity is still allowed its own article.

You certainly do have a problem with other POVs. We have all been prepaerd to compromise and include both your POV and our POV. You have consistently implied that we are racists for doing this. No one has called you a racist for insisting that the only Black people in the world are the ones that you decide are Black. Your ethnic group does have an entry. Are you claiming that you are not African American? Are you claiming that all people of recent African descent agree with you and identify as a single ethnic group that is called Black? I do not think you have the right to claim to be speaking for all people of recent African descent. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am really angry about this. There are Black people who are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin all over the world.

There's more to being black than experiencing discrimination. Being discriminated against has nothing to do with being black, it's just an unfortunate byproduct. Why does it make you angry to see people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry assert their identity. We're recognized as Black by the U.S. census and we'd like an article reflecting this fact. Timelist 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RE "We're recognized as Black by the U.S. census and we'd like an article reflecting this fact", see African American. --Ezeu 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why does it make you angry to see people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry assert their identity.

It doesn't, it makes me angry when people want to promote their personal opinion on wikipedia as if it is a universal truth. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What about those of us who aren't American, but still would like to maintain ties with our African heritage. I don't understand why you wont let us have an article just like every other ethnic group? We call ourselves black and so does most of the world. Just because the term is also used by non-African dark skinned people too does not mean we should be denied a right to an article? Why the resistance?Timelist 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Who isn't letting you have an article? There are many many articles on wikipedia about the exact thing you keep claiming doesn't exist. What about African diaspora, what about British African-Caribbean community, what about Black British. I think Filll earlier produced a very long list of articles about this subject that you claim is absent from wikipedia. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you are one person with the better part of a dozen sockpockets who has caused repeated chaos here. After 6 months or more of hostility on the article, enough is enough. I offered you the opportunity to make your own article. You rejected it and want to take this one over. No more. No one else agrees with you. Face the facts. It is you against about 20 or 30 or more other editors. --Filll 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Editingoprah and I freely admit we're friends and are in the same class. We're not the ones who post here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's you Fill. Timelist 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Timlist, no one is deying you the right to be black, but the right to monopolise a term that is used to self-identify, or to refer to a variety of people. If you need more arguments against your views, I refer you to page 1 of this discussion and the almost total consensus against you. --Ezeu 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu we're not trying to monopolize the term. But the reality is that a very notable and very legitimate and very officially recognized use of the term black is to describe recent sub-Saharan African ethnicity. I would like an article discussing black in this sense without confusing the issue with people who are black by other definitions. Timelist 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't do this because it breaches the WP:NPOV policy. You have been told this many times. Besides which you claim in one sentence that you don't want to monopolise the term, while a couple of sentences later you say that you do want to monopolise it. Alun 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to start a procedure to see what happens. Timelist, you have caused enough trouble. I think that the sockpuppetry issue alone is bad enough. I see too much of a pattern in multiple users espousing the same radical views. You do not want to compromise. There are several hundred African American pages. There are many pan african pages as well. You could write your own but you refuse. You do not actually write anything you just disrupt. You drive other editors away so this topic suffers. You are anti-black. It is over.--Filll 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually 90% of this article in its current state was written by me. It used to be called Definitions of black people and I wrote that article. You on the other hand Fill just clog volumes and volumes of space on the talk page saying the same thing over and over again. You drive other users away with personal attacks and by simply wasting bandwidth You accuse African Americans of playing the race card and have made many generalizations about the African AMericans in your home city Timelist 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is an admission of sockpuppetry. Because we do have a history log here. And I do recall Deeceevoice contributing a lot but disagreeing with you. But we do have records. I only came here because there was a call for editors to come and help stop the fighting. Which I have tried to do, and many others have recognized me for it. This article is renowned for fighting and being locked. And it seems like Timelist and associates sockpuppets have caused most of the fighting. I have tried to discourage the white supremacists it is true. However, if one checks the records, as long as they are productive, I think even they have a right to contribute. And I have supported their right to contribute as is a clear matter of public record. And yes I have talked about people I know because that forms my frame of reference. Many others do here as well. I will also note that bandwidth is cheap, but we should be writing articles. Which I now realize you are declining to do. A person really interested in contributing would write an article and call it black people (US meaning) or black people (American ethnic group) or add to the African American page or accept a disambiguation page at this address. But you do not. You prefer to fight. So be it. It is now clear. If you were serious, you would be writing not fighting. --Filll 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Where in NPOV does it say that words with more than one meaning can't have more than one article? Disambiguation pages were created for this very reason Alun. Timelist 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content forking. Alun 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't apply. The term black used in one culture and one language has nothing to do with how its used in another culture and language. Its a separate topic Timelist 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone would agree that it doesn't apply. Why do you think that it doesn't apply? We don't have different articles for different usages of the same phrase, we include all points of view in the same article. So of coures it applies. You keep doing this, you keep trying to interpret things in a way that suits you, rather than in the correct way. Here's a little advice from someone who's been arround for a while. If you break a rule it's not an excuse to claim that the rule doesn't apply to you because you choose to interpret it that way. This applies here, just like the census data don't interpret Black people as only of recent African origin. And now I've had a look at the old mediation I can see tha the mediator was in agreement that neither the US nor the UK census criteria excluded people of non recent African descent from the definition of Black. Alun 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say that when I read the previous Mediation, I all of a suddent realized what was going on here. It is very discouraging to see this. We will get a lot more done by cooperating with each other. --Filll 19:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem is not that "black people" has the meaning you claim or not. The problem comes with trying to stamp out other meanings.--Filll 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And this has been true for at least 6 months from the records and mediation etc.--Filll 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will support User:Halaqah, Alun and User:Halaqah and User:Ezeu and Paul B and probably a few others if it comes to this. You cannot win this. I am sure we could get a good 10 more people as well to back this up.--Filll 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone object to a separate article Black people (ethnicity)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Content forking.

POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion.

Alun 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about distinct definitions of a term. One based on appearance (dark skin) the other based on ethnicity. These are separate topics and need to be separate articles. Timelist 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In which case they should both be here, as per the neutral point of view policy. I remind you that wikipedia is not a dictionary, dictionaries deal with defining words, encyclopaedias do not. Alun 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I also remind you that User:Halaqah has already stated that he will RfD any article created for this purpose, and I will support this. Alun 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, even when you were offered this option before, you rejected it. And if you wanted to do it, you would just do it, Just write it. Dont ask. Do it. And then try to defend it from forking charges. If you write it properly you have some chance I think. So write it. Dont fight. Write.--Filll 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice Timelist 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us not lose track

The discussion page is very large so much that it is easy to lose track of what the various propositions are. And also who supports what. here are a few things I have picked out.

• keep article as it is
• Black vs black
• Black(ethinicity) vs skin color
• Black(generic) vs ethnicity
• Black(recent African descent)
• rename article without the use of the term "black".
• delete the article altogether.Muntuwandi 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate. We have to archive a lot of this. It is difficult for new editors visiting the page to understand what is going on.--Filll 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is easy. Delete. This article is rather embarrassing. All of the content is handled better elsewhere. See Race and its related pages, African American, Negro, Indigenous Australians, Recent single-origin hypothesis. Let me know when the AfD goes up. Jd2718 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This and Black people (ethnicity) should be deleted. While I think there are good grounds for deleting the latter article as a POV fork (and I'll AfD it tomorrow), I don't think there are grounds for deleting this. I would turn it into a disambig page, I suggest redirecting it to Black people (disambiguation). What do you think? Alun 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See Timelist? This is what happens when you get people sufficiently annoyed by your tactics. They lose the willingness to cooperate with you. You get a bad name. I think that a case can be made to have two articles, particularly if this one is made general to be about ALL people called black or who self-identify as black, either now or in the past. The ethnic article has to be done very carefully. I do think that there is some sort of generalized "ethnic" or "cultural" argument that is broader than African American but not as broad as BLack people, so that ethnic article would fit in an intermediate niche. Here is a sort of diagram showing what I imagine:

|<----------------Black people-------------------->|
|<-------------Black people (ethnicity)---->|
|<---African American--->|<--African people--------------->|

This is not quite correct, because of mulattos and other complications. But is approximate. I think that Timelist can make a successful argument, but he must give up the notion of fighting with everyone and anyone who he thinks wants to use the name he personally wants to reserve for his own personal definition, ignoring the world outside the US, ignoring African Americans with a global perspective and ignoring history.--Filll 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see myself ignoring history because the reality is language is fluid. Just because black has one meaning in one language at one point in time doesn't mean the term can't evolve in other languages and time periods to have completely different meanings. And I do have a very global perspective in that I feel kinship with peoples of African ancestry from all over the world. Hence I find terms like African-American too limiting. Timelist 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. But for an encyclopedia to be useful to readers, it has to address historical material, obselete meanings, meanings in other countries, contradictory meanings, disagreements, contrary opinions etc. Otherwise, it is not particularly useful to people.--Filll 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point Fill! An effort will be made to direct readers to any and all alternative meanings when they are already adressed in wikipedia. If they're not already adressed in other articles, the ethnicity article can discuss them Timelist 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't. It's a POV fork, pure and simple. Anyone can see that. The history here proves it. When it became obvious that Timelist was editing against consensus s/he decided to go off and create another article about a thing that does not exist, but that Timelist would like to exist. The name is bad, the article is worse. It seems to be from a single POV and mainly personal opinion, one whole section has a single cite, I don't think we can cite material by saying This section was adapted from Chapter 3 of Frank W. Sweet, Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule (Palm Coast FL: Backintyme, 2005) can we? We cite facts, not whole chunks of material. If this section is entirely from a single source, then how can it be neutral? This is clearly a POV fork, and it is clearly Timelist's "personal" vanity article. It's nothing more than opinion. Alun 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to remember that this is the first rough draft of such an article. Since Timelist wrote it, of course it is from his personal viewpoint. This will probably evolve if he allows it to evolve to be more neutral. I encouraged him to do it, because I think that he does have a point about blacks having a somewhat different meaning in the US, and ethnicity being somewhat different than race or other criteria that black is used as. Everytime you turn around, you see things labelled as black in the US, even though in principle it should have been long since replaced by African American. It is in government documents and government committee titles. So he has a point. However, I think that the main article, this one, should be reserved for the broadest possible interpretation.--Filll 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Fill has been suggesting that the black people article should be divided into a family of articles for quite some time now. He was right all along and I should have listened sooner. My article might not be the greatest but its brand new and I've had help from no one. Give it time! It's not based on opinion or POV but on black as an ethnic classification as per the U.S. census. There's already an article on Black as a skin color identity. What's wrong with an article on black as an ethnic identity since this is how I've always understood the term to be used. Timelist 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed been suggesting something like this for about 4 months. And I was shot down every time. I think if we give it a try, we might be able to make a case for it. It is new, so it needs other input besides just Timelist's. So it will change. It is just a rough draft now.--Filll 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And Alun, can you please stop saying that African origin ethnicity does not exist. I know your not from North America, but here people of African ancestry call ourselves "brother" and "sister" and feel an enormous degree of kinship. Please show us enough respect to acknowledge the fact that peoples of recent sub-Saharan African descent are a legitimate ethnic group and deserve the same amount of respect as any other legitimate ethnic group. Fill and Ezeu have no propblem with us having an article. You shouldn't either. Timelist 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had several reasons for suggesting more articles for months. One of the reasons is that there is too much material for one article. If it was repetitious to have that other article, I would agree that we should only have one article. But it is not repetitious. I also think that we can accommodate more viewpoints more easily with this article. Just fighting we do not move forward. If we can allow another article and not fight, then that is helpful. Also, if you look at the list of articles on this area, we have several hundred already. So if we have another one, so what? It does no harm. Also, we have to recognize that given their wealth, African Americans have more influence on Wikipedia and the internet than Africa or other places. This might be unfair, but it is reality. This accommodates that reality. It might not be the best reason, but it is true.--Filll 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill is 100% correct. And to add to Fill's great points I would say that growing up, I only ever heard the term black being used exclusively to describe those of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry, but when I got to wikipeda, I found that my reality was not adequately reflected. So I think the ethnicity article fills a void. It's great to have the Australian aboriginal perspective on what it means to be black, but does it have to come at the expense of mine. Fill is right. There's room for more than 1 article. Timelist 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sub Saharan African people

The discussion is too long, I havent bothered to read it. So excuse me if I'm repeating someone. I think Black people (ethnicity) should be renamed to Sub-Saharan African People, which is defined as people who are of "recent" Sub Saharan Ancestry...

The question of names is difficult. The reason I am doubtful about this is that many people that we are proposing to cover in the ethnicity article are not in SubSaharan Africa, and may have only ancestral roots there within the last 500 or 600 years, since the start of the African Slave trade by the West (although probably it extends further back in time thanks to Arab traders). I think that the use of the word ethnicity also highlights the cultural aspects which are important; attitude, music (jazz, hiphop, rap etc), food, clothes, some measure of shared experience as well as genetic similarities. etc. I think that the name and description SubSaharn is still a bit confusing because the Sudan is not all SubSaharan, and neither is southern Algeria, Morocco, Libya, etc, and it is hard to draw nice clean boundaries really. I am not sure that all of African Americans are of SubSaharan origin either. Basically I see it as an American definition by African Americans and Americans. Which might not be fair, as I said, but the Americans are still a dominant force on the internet and world culture. Also, there are many Afrikaaners etc that are white skinned in Namibia, South Africa etc that can add to the confusion, and they have been there for many generations. So I am uncertain that SubSaharan Africans is a good title.--Filll 23:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: "Take a look at English people. It lists people of English descent in USA despite those people are American and not English. So, in Wikipedia, X People refers to people of X origin, rather than people who were born in Xland..." So to be called Sub Saharan African People, they dont have to be in SubSaharan Africa.

African slave trade was both done by West and Africans. It was African tribes who enslaved other Africans and sold it to Europeans.

Americans are still a dominant force on the internet and world culture? ROFL...Right. If you think culture is hiphop music and hollywood movies. And internet =/= English internet...

Afrikaaners are European people, having originated in Europe. X People in Wiki refers to origins... Lukas19 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Slave Trade was done by everyone, including plenty by Africans themselves who are still involved in it, which is a bit startling to realize. After all, there was Big Money in slaves. The Arabs had a substantial part in it, long before the Europeans got on board, from what I understand. Americans are important in world culture. American culture is mainly lowbrow culture, true, but it is a bit difficult to deny that they have an immense influence.--Filll 09:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Immense influence is way less than being dominant. Lukas19 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This Black People article should be about black skinned people who are mainly Sub-Saharan Africans and Native Ocenians...Lukas19 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But there are many people in the US who look very white that are called black. People who have maybe 1/128th or 1/256th African ancestry. So it is not really dark skinned.--Filll 23:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Jamaicans who are very dark called the light skinned African Americans blacks. Black has some inherent connection with the US in the ethnic context that Timelist is proposing.--Filll 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not Black. They are mixed. Your Census is worse than your foreign policy...Lukas19 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It might stink that that is what they are called. And it was state and federal law here for a long long time.--Filll 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And this concerns me how? Lukas19 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not have to concern you particularly, but in the general article (such as what the "black people" article might be), all the varying definitions have to be included. And it would be a bit silly to not include among the definitions the definition that is favored by wealthiest most powerful country on the face of the earth at the moment, especially when it has such a large natively English-speaking population. Sorry to put it in such blunt terms, but that is our current reality.--Filll 09:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Then create Wikipedia American. This is Wikipedia English. OED definition should be the reference definition but other definitions may be defined in their sections, like a US section, which links to African American as the main article. What would be silly is to make the US definition the reference definition. Lukas19 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with you that one should NOT make the American definition the main one or dominant one somehow. And I have argued against this very vigorously for months now. However, I think that I would not object to a separate article that focused more on the American perspective, as long as the main article included all definitions.--Filll 23:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want an article about black skinned people just call it black skinned people. The problem with calling my ethnicity sub-Saharan African people is multi-fold. A) The census describes us as Black so its best to go with established terms, B) Not everyone agrees that the Sahara desert is a meaningful barrier for distinguishing black Africa, from non-black Africa. Many people find the term "sub-Saharan" offensive if only because it includes the word "sub". C) Personally I just don't like calling myself sub-Saharan. D) I'm not a sub-Saharan African person. I'm a person of recent sub-Saharan African descent, so my recent ancestors are sub-Saharan Africans, but I personally was not born there and never lived there. But I'm glad you agree with Fill and I that the article needs to be split Timelist 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No it is not about dark skin. It USUALLY about dark skin, but it is not about dark skin (no skin is black). I agree that the Sahara is not a great barrier. It is rough at best. And there are lots of white African immigrants and Indian and Chinese Africans that live south of the Sahara.--Filll 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pesonally, I think your Census groupings is crappy. In this context OED defines Black as:

"relating to a human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry. " [1]

And I base definitions on OED because: The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language over the last millennium. [2]

If you think sub-Saharan African is offensive, how about Black African People? However I think sub-Saharan African is better. I've never thought about "sub" in that way, before you've brought it up. And about your "D". Take a look at English people. It lists people of English descent in USA despite those people are American and not English. So, in Wikipedia, X People refers to people of X origin, rather than people who were born in Xland...Lukas19 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the map. It makes perfect sense. North Africans arent considered black, but they are "brown". So African People can not be a substitude for Black People in Timelist's sense. And Black Africans sounds funny...So sub-Saharan African People makes sense to me...Lukas19 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will point out that Americans will really not recognize OED as authoratative. Sorry. But it is ok to use as one of many sources for this inclusive article, but not the restrictive ethnic article, which is really about what African Americans think. --Filll 23:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And I will not accept Americans as the authority on English terms. It'd be as ridiculous as accepting Senegaleese as a authority on French...Lukas19 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Oh no its NOT as "ridiculous". Is there as many Senegeese who speak French as there are French who speak French? Not even close. But theres lots more Americans speaking English than there are English speaking English. Your anallogy is weak. The Real Rodney King 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to accept Americans as authorities on the English language. Many Americans actually claim not to speak English but American instead. But for the general article, American definitions just have to be included among the others. And for a restricted article using the African American cultural or social definition, which would include African Americans, dark skinned Africans and other recent dark skinned people with recent African ancestry, the African American/American definition would be totally appropriate. The American definition of the word "black" carries a huge weight because at the moment in the suite of world cultures, the US constitutes an immense presence. It is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. --Filll 09:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, This is Wikipedia English. OED definition should be the reference definition but other definitions may be defined in their sections, like a US section, which links to African American as the main article. I also find fat gorilla analogy to be ironic. Lukas19 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I don't have a problem with having a section dealing with the North American perception that Black=African. And I fully support a link to African American from this section. Alun 10:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people north of that boundary on your map are VERY dark skinned. So it is more complicated. And Black Africa is a term that is often used, but I do not think we have an article on it. Besides which we have one editor here who does not like that term.--Filll 23:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, in future you might have to accept addition of materials to Black people (ethnicity), which you may not like. I've found this article:

"Me and my Pakistani friends, we are suffering because we are black," she says. [3]

So unless you name it to Black people (US ethnicity), you might run into problems...Lukas19 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless it is defined very carefully, this is probably true. It is not really a US ethnicity, but a US-defined ethnic category.--Filll 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say U.S. only? See Black Canadians. Timelist 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Canada probably absorbs most of this from the US. After all, most of the Blacks in Canada are there because Canada was the terminus of the Underground Railroad. There are some there because of being recent Commonwealth immigrants and some there because they are descendents from the very few black slaves in Canada before the British Empire outlawed slavery. But most come from the US. And most of the culture in this regard is imported from the US. Canada is culturally dominated by the US to a large degree.--Filll 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point Fill. But I don't think it's just North America. see this article about Blacks in Latin America.[[4]] I would guess (though I have no proof) that most of the world equates Black identity with African ancestry identity, if for no other reason than the fact that African descendants are the dark skinned people most of the world has had the most contact with. Most of the world has never met an Australian aboriginal or a negrito so I think over time these groups have become excluded from the definition of black in the minds of most people. That's just how language eveloves. The meaning of words comes to reflect their most common useage Timelist 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

But if you try to pare the definition in that way, you will end up getting killed with charges of a fork. You can get away with it if you claim this is a US based thing and part of US culture. But only by a hair. You still might get nuked. If you try to shove Afro Argentinians etc in , aside from just a tangential mention, you will get your article killed.--Filll 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be right Fill. I certainly need to do a lot more research on just how widespread the practice of calling only people of African origin Black is. Is this something limited to North America, limited to the Americas, or is it also common in Europe, Africa and much of Asia? I know that in North America black is a social category for people of African descent but when black is used for all dark skinned people in other countries, I'm not sure if they mean it as a social category, or as a literal description of extremely dark brown skin. If one use of black is a "social category" and the other use is a physical description, we might be comparing apples and oranges. That's yet another reason why you are so correct in advocating a family of articles Timelist 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove that Black people as a social category are used worldwide in the same sense in North America, then we can make this article only refer to Black African People. We can say This article deals with Black people as a social category. For it's usage as a skin colour, see Black skinned people. In Norway, black seems to be used with African and Caribbean as in Black/African/Caribean as a ethnic or people group...[5] Lukas19 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Wobble seems to think the idea of calling only those of Sub-Saharan descent black is my personal bias and has nothing to do with reality. So would Australian aboriginals or the people of Southern India be classified as Black in Norway? Timelist 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This man, who is of Pakistani origin [6] calls himself black. He may also be called black by others. I've always thought that's a relatively used term. Relative to ethnic Norwegians he's black, but actually it's clear that he's "brown" and South Asian. So it's more like daily speech, rather than legitimate categories. And this survey thingie [7] considers Asians to be seperate from Blacks/Africans. But I'm not sure if native Ocenians are supposed to go to Black or "other" category (Anna). I know I'm not being helpful, it's because these things are not often talked about and there are no official definitions. The only vaguely relevant concept Statistics Norway uses is "people with immigrant bakground" which pretty much includes anyone except ethnic Norwegians, Sami and Kven....Lukas19 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In the UK many people use the term Black to describe any non-indigenous European people (ie anyone not White). So it has been common for people from India or Pakistan to identify as Black. This is more of a social and political statement than anything else, but it is worthy of inclusion that this meaning exists. It is in one of the definitions used in the article. In the UK it is increasingly common for Indian and Pakistani people to identify as Asian. Indeed when British people speak of Asians they primarily mean people from the Indian subcontinent. You might find this article interesting. Though be warned the terminology is British, definitions used here may not apply outside the UK.[8] Cheers. Alun 10:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this article as the most general, or else move this article to another and leave "black people" as a disambiguation page.--Filll

I agree with you Fill. Nothing wrong with a general article giving the overviews of various definitions. But perhaps it could be better organized. Instead of dividing it up based on social/lexical/biological definitions, it could be divided up based on ethnicity definitions, and skin color definitions, and then the ethnicity definitions could say: see main article Black people (ethnicity) and the color definitions could say: see main article Black as a skin color identity Just a thought. Timelist 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that people will give up this article as the general article, but an alternative name for one of the general articles might be "Who is black?", parallel to the article "Who is a Jew?".--Filll 09:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea. Maybe first check over there to see whether that title reflects anything specific, or whether they had the same problems people are having here. Carcharoth 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Core and peripheral issues and fuzzy categories

I've been busy with other things for a while. Coming back after a few days I find lots of confusion, and odd support from the OED and the "canonical" dictionary of Chinese that was first put together not long after the Chinese deposed the Manchurians for defining Australians with Africans. The view has more merit than I would ever have believed before seeing the research of Wells et al., but just picking two groups as "most related" because of skin color denies the objective research of Wells and others.

I would like to see an article that began with the putative earliest Homo sapiens sapiens population in Africa and showed, within the confines of the African continent, how the San, the Mbuti, the East Africans, the Bantu, the Nilio-Saharan, and the West Africans relate to each other, but also relate to groups with whom they are in closest geographic and social contact, the Berbers, the Sardinians... and I don't see the Egyptians mentioned on the Cavalli-Sforza square chart, but they and the Arabs should probably be included as well, not as core populations but as peripheral populations that have diverged themselves and perhaps have brought some outside diversity back to Africa.

Once we have that article (which we might call something like "African people" meaning people with (fuzzily) "all" (almost all) their family history occuring on the continent of AFrica and adjacent areas (Arab peninsula, and, for historical/genetic reasons the island of Sardinia), it would be easier to talk about the diaspora and give groups such as the Australian aboriginal population and the African Americans a clear position related to what we have already established as the historical and geographical center.

To carry out this kind of an organization we need to be cognizant of existing article, and perhaps we would end up tailoring them to fit a more global picture than has been presented previously. P0M 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One general suggestion: If we decide what groups to make articles about, how to define those groups most elegantly, etc., it will then be relatively easy to find names for them. We are now stuck on names that people want to us and then running into trouble when there are as many definitions for the names as there are contributors. P0M 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

An article like that which you describe would probably benefit from a more precise title, and would also end up encompassing material from articles like: History of Africa, Human genetic history, Human migration, African diaspora. As Filli has been saying, there is a lot out there already. There is a whole category of articles on the diaspora at Category:African diaspora. Carcharoth 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, there are literally hundreds of articles about black and African people. There are some articles which need to be written and some which are in bad shape and need to be expanded or worked on. We have some gaps. We also need to organize the material so it is accessible. We do have to be careful not to duplicate too much and to name things appropriately. Pan-Africanism is part of a big family of articles. African American is part of a big family of articles. There are many racial articles but I do not get the impression they are too well organized yet. There is a lot on genetics, again not super well organized yet. But we could serve a valuable service by organizing this area, creating a few lead articles, filling in gaps, etc. I would propose that African people and black people be very general articles. Very wide, not too much depth. Then we can have a suite of others more in depth on various aspects. Some exist already. Some are in pretty good shape. Some need work, to be honest. But it will take a while to get a grasp on the humungous volume of stuff and figure out what is needed and where it should go.--Filll 04:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever we get articles started without an umbrella article or articles to give them some context they tend to need to do with side issues. For the question we are working on now, the umbrella articles should be Race and Social construction. Maybe we should also include articles on culture and language in that list. All of the aforesaid factors are at work in defining "black people" (in very many different ways) and in influencing the way that individual humans interact to what they (individually) regard as "black people."

When you zoom in on Africa plus the migratory routes out of Africa (and, occasionally, small-scale returns to Africa), you see the same topics, but limited in scope. These topics become specified as as to relate to the "racial" (i.e., genetic) identities of the indigenous populations of Africa, and the social constructs that are imposed on these matters of genetic fact. Culture and language have ancillary effects that may be important for people living in Africa but need an extra level of interpretation for people who have an "all Africans are the same" view. I'm just guessing, but just the body language of a Dyak on the streets of NYC might give troublemakers and other interested people a heads-up that "this is something else." Such factors have powerful effects that are not always easy to analyze or even to pick up on. (See The Silent Language for some good examples of "culture shock" things that people all do that are strongly discordant in the eyes of members of other cultures and yet below the level of conscious awareness.)

When you zoom back out a big you see the same topics, but in an interesting light since social construction becomes somewhat more important. We are all African, but at least two "canonical" authorities on the use of language, the OED and the 國語辭典 (China, ca. 1930), separate some of the "black-skinned" among us into a special category. The classification of "black" has medical relevance for issues like UV damage, but it is mainly a "cosmetic" issue in the negative sense that many social constructions place on dark skin color are disadvantageous to the "black" individuals concerned. At this level the cultural and language issues become much more socially relevant since — despite skin color — people frequently treat others differently depending on the language(s) they speak and the cultural features that are manifest in dress, affective mannerisms, etc.

If we could organize these canopy and sub-canopy issues correctly, then the place and appropriate content for other articles should become much clearer. P0M 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But we have African American

I just remembered Timelist said everyone has a page about them, but there is African people (although i am frighten to look) and African American so that is an ethnic group, so am i missing something?--Halaqah 10:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we have an African American page. And we have an African people page. And this is the black people page. And timelist has been working on the black people (ethnicity) page. And all are different, or at least are intended to be. All are works in progress:

• African people is just a start and does not yet include the diversity of all the people in Africa. It needs a lot of work, but it is a start. It will cover all the people who live in Africa, obviously. Very important since this is one of the 7 continents (6 continents with native populations).
• This page, the "black people" page, (which might get renamed to something like "Who is black?" or some other similar name) will describe all people who call themselves black or who have been called black.
• African American exists and describes the group known as African American. It is one of a huge collection of pages on this topic.
• The new black people (ethnicity) page, which might also get renamed, is about the ethnic and/or social identity that is called black by African Americans and other Americans. It has little or nothing to do with skin color, since many of the people who are called black in the US look essentially white and might be only 1/128 or 1/256 or less of African ancestry. Many African Americans and Americans (apparently including the American government census definitions) do not include Australian Aborigines and other nonrecent African ancestry people as black. This category includes many but not African peoples that African Americans look to as their kin. This category also includes many other groups with recent African ancestry around the world. Black is really important in the US even though in principle it should be replaced by African American as a term. There is a Black History Month every year that is widely publicized. There is a Congressional Black Caucus that is an important government group. Laws use the phrase black. The phrase black is part of the public discourse. It is in the media. Organizations put black in their titles. Black continues to live on. Black carries immense significance because it was the term used during the Civil Rights Movement in the US. Is this clearer?--Filll 10:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

black is dying, it isnt used in Africa, more and more people are moving away from it, come back in 10 years and see. The first time i realized this was with 500 years later and maulana karenga , kimani Nehusiand others where you could see the deliberate drift, and actually the film above had a big message at the end, stating Black was only a political term but we are an African people. times r changing and black like yellow people and red people is on the downslope, --Halaqah 11:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Africans might not use it. It might carry various stigmas in various communities. But black has historical interest. Black has regional interest. And black is still extremely important in the USA. And so that has to be recognized, because the US has a relatively important position given its wealth and power at the moment.--Filll 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

black people (ethnicity) to be deleted

I have added a delete tage to black people (ethnicity) or the tage should be put as merged. I think some of you may support what i have done. I have a POV at times but i am fair, and it isnt fair to run off and make new articles about your little WORLD VIEW.If i have added the tag poorly go and fix it, but i would like everyone to add their opinions on the validity of it being deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You are free to do what you want of course, but I think that is a bad idea. I think this will contribute more to fighting and squabbling rather than productive work. And I do think that in some ways Timelist has a point, although he might not have done the best job in arguing his case.--Filll 11:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why all structures need rules and regs because sometimes the path is difficult. I think the creation of the article is an encylopedic violation. This page is not about arguing it is about content, if more people start using wikipedia what do you think will happen, think long term, imagine more views coming here more timelist with alternative views, may an India guy comes and Creates black people only for indians, this is the problem. work with the democracy and plurality of this page--that is the solution.--Halaqah 11:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "ethnicity" is exactly the right term, but there is clearly a place for an article on the various social constructions (positive as well as negative) that are placed on the fact of having a darker skin color. (I've never been sure exactly what most people understand when they read "ethnicity.") P0M 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the right name should be. But I do know several things:

• we have plenty of material to fill multiple articles
• we have been mired in edit wars for far too long and it shows in this black people article
• if we can all work together, instead of at cross purposes, we will make far more progress on this suite of articles, including this one
• The USA definition of "black" might or might not be the same as others around the world or historic definitions, but the US definition of "black" is very closely tied to the US Civil Rights movement. This gives the term "black" a very special resonance in some quarters. Also, Americans are very dominant on the internet and have a large influence on world culture for a variety of reasons. As a result, I would favor trying to see if we can divide up this material in some way such that their separate more restrictive perspective can be more extensively developed in a separate article than is possible in a general or summary or inclusive article like black people. This does NOT mean that I do not think that the black people article or other articles should not be general or inclusive in nature or that black people article not be globally defined, with a wide scholarly treatment of the term. In fact, I think if we do this, we can have a far more general black people article.--Filll 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ethnicity: African American, Hausa, Amhara, Gurage, Oromo, Sileti, Mandingo, Wachaga, Sindi, Hindi, Han, San, Soax, black is a loose (undefined) social construction for bannding non-white ethnic groups into, black is an inclusive group while white is an exclusive.--Halaqah 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% I've never understood why a person with one "White" parent and one "Black" parent is usually identified by society as Black, but never White. I have drawn the same conclusion. Black is inclusive, White is exclusive. Personally I find this social convention obnoxious and hypocritical. Alun 11:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this article really need quotes from racists to be complete??

I've been reading through it, and I think quotes from Mr.Coon or the Nation of Islam are unnesscesarry. This article is suppose to be about the black "race", and how it's defined UNIVERSALLY, not how it's defined by racist mentallities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bélancourt (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I so agree about Coon, the man is a relic of an evil era, and is been given centre stage, i am sure he would be well pleased, even his Europeans contep dismiss him.NOI might be important because unlike Coon they have greatly influenced the "Black man was the first" thingie. that would be hard to ignore but Coon--joke --Halaqah 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize for this, but you have to cut us some slack. This article is a work in progress and it is not meant to be racist. We have been mired in edit wars for a few months. I do think if we can start all pulling in the same direction instead of working at cross purposes, it will get much better. It is a bit embarassing I admit.--Filll 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For my friends who are so sure they know what a "black person" is in the USA

Take a look at these Americans:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]
6. [14]
7. [15]
8. [16]
9. [17]
10. [18]
11. [19] x
12. [20]
13. [21]
14. [22]
15. [23]
16. [24]
17. [25]
18. [26]
19. [27]
20. [28]
21. [29]
22. [30]
23. [31]
24. [32]
25. [33]
26. [34]

Which of these famous Americans, some of whom you might recognize, would you think is black? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC). oops--Filll 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just tell me which of the people in which of the pictures is a black person, without looking at the names.--Filll 05:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is a biased sample, both as regards gender and as regards pulchritude. ;-) P0M 05:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I figured I should make it a bit more pleasant for our male editors to do this important research :) --Filll 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They are all either white or mulattos, and all of them would be called wazungu where I come from. --Ezeu 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I never knew Ryan Giggs had African ancestry untill I recently read his wikipedia article. For all you North Americans he's a Welsh football player who plays for Manchester United. Ryan Giggs. Alun 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The one-drop rule isn't universally accepted, and "Mullato"?

This is sort of a response to the list of pictures above this post. The one drop rule is an American law (which I thought was dropped out, I didn't know it was still in effect), and wouldn't apply to many other places like South Africa for example. All of them are either mixed, or have parents who are mixed.

...Another rant I hold is the use of the word "mulatto". I think it's degoratory since it originates from the word "mule", which is a mix between a Donkey and a Horse... now, which ever race you think would represent the horse, obviously noone would like to be called a donkey (based on the human characteristics associated with the animal, e.i. dumb, lazy, etc.). So if you call yourself a Mulatto, in a way, you're insulting your own parents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.81.0 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Why dont you create an account and log in so we can know who you are? Mulatto is a well known and accepted term. It might have a less than savory provenance and/or etymology, but so do many many words that we use in English. We would end up discarding a huge fraction of our vocabulary if we applied this suggested rule of yours. Also, everything about race can be determined to be offensive to someone, so all of the hundreds and maybe even thousands of articles on this topic should be deleted. This might be politically correct, but not helpful for the readers of the encyclopedia and not helpful for someone trying to understand cultures, societies and history. And I do not believe that the "one drop rule" is on the books still, but it might be. Nevertheless, it is an important part of history. And as such there is no problem with including it. The goal of this article is not be politically correct, but to explain the world. And the world is not and never has been politically correct. The article is about how people do not agree on this subject, which they do not.--Filll 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mulatto like all the words i hate is a problem, word it is rarely used, not polite and should be avoided, we need to be respectful, it was a dirty word fashioned out of enslavement. multi racial heritage is far more accurate, and most people of multi racial heritage are African or racial identify with being Black people and guess what they are, because race is in your head. And anyone with enough african blood is an African, if they wanna be. Yes everyone will find something offensive but that why we need to look at the words carefully clearly looking at Mulatto and multi-ethnic background we dont need to try hard to see which one is better. Retarded or Mentally challneged. blacks or African Americans, is it just me or is African Americans a more beautiful term? that yellow person or that Chinese person? She is a Mulatto, or she an African from a multi ethnic background--Halaqah 18:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should not go out of our way to offend, but we have to be accurate. I have to look and see where this term was used.--Filll 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu used the word here on the talk page. He is from Africa. It is not in the article. It might be a lousy word, but I do not want to expunge it from the encyclopedia or dictionary. I could give you a list of thousands of similar words.--18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So Halaqah, what is your opinion of the pictures I posted links to above? Who is black to you in that list?--Filll 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the term reflected the intermediate social status of individuals with one "white" and on "black" parent. If a "white" man had a "mullato" offspring and he loved his child, then another "white" person in that society would have more to worry about if he attacked that child than if he attacked a "black" child because he could not assume that the "white" parent would be as relatively powerless as a "black" parent would be. Among the "non-white" members of a racially structured society, a lighter individual might be perceived as better than a darker individual.

There are other terms to describe "mixed race" people, and it is difficult to know what is safe to use. "Half-breed" has always been disrespectful as far as I know. In Chinese there are two terms, "zá zhǒng" (miscellaneous seed, miscellaneous kind, sort, variety, [mutt?]), which is viewed as "bad language," and the socially acceptable "hùn xǔe ér" (muddled blood child, child of mixed parentage), which is viewed as proper and respectful language, i.e., PC.

I think that terms that may be problematical need to be contextualized, e.g., "people having parents of two different 'races' are sometimes called 'mullatos.'"

How could the "one drop rule" be relevant to any legal issue? It is no longer legal to discriminate on any "racial" basis.

As for Filll's test, personally I didn't even try. I know when I'm licked. P0M 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow no one wants to try my test? Haha...I have a good point to make with that test.--Filll 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures remind me of the good old days, i think i shouldnt look at them too long. I dont believe in this someone is light skin so they are less "black" or someone has narrow bone features so they are less black. Where i come from those rules would make my brother another race from me, and we have the same mother and father. --Halaqah 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess since no one will bite, the answer is that those are ALL and I do mean ALL (including the children) "black people" and Americans. And well known to be "black people" in the USA. I dare say, they look pretty white skinned don't they? So you see how the definition in the US is a bit different than in other places?--Filll 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One of my friends has a very ordinary-sounding name, and except for being a rather large guy he looks nothing out of the ordinary. But according to him, a significant part of his family is Cherokee, which is still a major nation around here. Anyway, as far as anybody who looks has any opinion, he is "white." He married a "black" woman, so he has a "black" child. While this boy was growing up, my friend was frequently in company of his "black" son's friends. At first his son's friends felt suspecious of him and I guess there were things they didn't want to talk about. Finally, somebody new to the group said something about my friend, and another of the kids said, "Aw, don't mind him. He's black." End of story.

Sometimes people can be very cruel. I remember being in a program involving Native Americans. One of the presenters was a person who had one "white" and one "Amerind" parent. Two tribal elders, from other than his tribe if I remember correctly, got up and spoke at length and with some heat about the hatefulness of a state in which there exist people of mixed heritage. All of this was said to the poor guy's face in a pretty small group.

Another quirk is that for some purposes people carry identity cards that identify them as members of certain tribes. This is essentially a matter of governmental relations between nations. American Indian tribes have the status of nations, and treaties between, e.g., the Cherokee nation and the U.S. federag government still play a part in the arcane workings of government. Anyway, the result is that you get some people whom even the Amerinds view as "white" who are full members of a recognized tribe. So these kids often feel very put upon when somebody tells them that they "aren't Indian."

Racism aside, what are the real-world differences among these people? There is at least speculation to indicate that Old World people have had distilled alcohol available to them for so many centuries that the people who cannot metabolize alcohol efficiently and therefore are subject to certain disease processes when they consume alcohol heedlessly must have largely been eliminated from the gene pool. But these differences can only be attributed, if at all, on a statistical basis.

What are the other differences that matter? I'm still waiting. P0M 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

My feeling is that our list of lexical definitions is not particularly scholarly. I use things like dictionary.com and yourdictionary.com, but I think they are somewhat lacking as scholarly sources. I have no problem with listing dictionary definitions, but lets try to have more scholarly references. I would suggest the list of dictionaries at a place like http://onelook.com is a good place to start.--Filll 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to report on what dictionaries report to be the history of the usage of certain words, then "canonical" sources like the OED and Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language" would be my preference. P0M 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Would a admin please remove the phrase,

“ Ethiopians were the founders of religion ”

(Black people#The role of Ethiopians in defining ancient black identity) since this discriminates against Christians. Its intresting, everyone is against discrimination, but it seems, that they all turn a blind eye to religious discrimination. 86.206.11.179 13:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens. This is not serious. If you want to log in and be productive, go ahead.--Filll 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is far from neutral. I have several suggestiond for redressing this. I offer these up for discussion, they are not "fundamental positions" of mine.Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very correct in how you have built your case but i dont think Neutral is the correct word, it is neutral, the quality and consitency is the question. It has too many views not to be Neutral.--Halaqah 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was merely refering to the Neutrality tag on the aricle, and how I see the best way of coming to a consensus about removing it. I was not trying to imply that my observations were neutral, but I did think that my observations might start a general discussion about how to get a consensus on what changes are required in order to remove the neutrality tag. I am not under the impression that I am any more or less POV than any other editor. I think our main aim at the moment is to remove this tag, and we should be collectively trying to come to a consensus as to how to achieve this. Alun 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove the section about Ethiopians. It seems to me that this section is unwarranted. It is little more than an attempt to introduce the POV that because Ethiopians have a genetic relationship to groups outside of the sub-Saharan African groups then they are not "Black". This is just a POV and should not be included in a section on Ethiopians.Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the information about Ethopians is valuable for historical reasons. However, I am not sure it should be presented as prominently as it is.--Filll 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly for months (i think) have asked that this material be removed, it is out of balance, everyone that comes here complains about it, it is an exotic view, it is almost a "conspiracy theory" and it has been elevated to a station not fitting its merit. I got blocked for disucssing racism in Israel (thought i would drop that in). Yes so we need to remove or reduce its station. I strongly back this move.--Halaqah 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Find out what is first, attach names to it second. That being said, it seems to me that if African Americans are going to be included among the "Black peoples" then Ethiopians surely ought to be included too.

What is interesting to me about the topic of Black peoples is the ability that we are now gaining to see how people who were black and/or eveolved into the current dark skinned people of Africa moved out and gradually became the rest of us. If that history indeed involves a group that moved north, picked up some northern adaptations and/or random variations, and then moved back and either were still as dark as they are now or else selectively bred back their dark hues, why could they possibly be excluded from this story?

Of course that brings up another question: When does a group stop being black? It's completely bonkers to think that moving onto the Arabian peninsula would do it. Would developing the epicanthic fold do it? Would developing a heavy adult tolerance for lactose do it?

• Remove section about Biological definitions. These are no biological definitions, they are "racial" definitions. The first definition does not even mention the term Black people, it is a definition of "Negroid". The other definitions display the sort of systemic bias that equates Black people with a recent African descent. I suggest these definitions be placed in a section that covers the POV that Black people are always of recent African origin, it is a POV that should be discussed i the article, and these quotes certainly fit that particular POV. Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is genetic information about "black people" which this should be augmented with. I do agree that a definition of negroid only is a bit problematic. I would agree about sorting the definitions a bit into sections.--Filll 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put some stuff up in the article on African people that I've derived from the books I have on hand. We need to be a little careful about the way these materials are handled since even Cavalli-Sforza seems to have gone beyond his evidence when he suggested that dark skin re-emerged in the Australians. At the time he wrote he didn't know that Wells would be able to show a "first wave" migration that went by a peri-tropical route directly to Australia. I'm pretty sure that it is known which groups in present-day Africa are L1, which are L2, and which are L3. By now there should be lots more information. Cavalli-Sforza is getting quite dated. We should be able to find new Y-chromosome research, etc.P0M 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is stupid to discuss biological def, but we must be plural and i think we can allow it, as stupid as it is.--Halaqah 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean that there is very little real difference on the biological level but huge differences are imputed on that basis, then I have to agree. Someday we will be able to say that after running broad bandwidth comparisons of, e.g., Irish and San genomes, it was discovered that the actual differences amounted to a presence of 99% in San of epicanthic fold vs. .01% in Irish, a .57% presence of red hair among San vs. an 18% presence in Irish..... and nothing that matters much except that the Irish will not walk the Kalahari naked without paying for it. (And I thought a sunburn on the underside of my chin was extreme...)

Anyway, if we are clear on what litter biological differentiation there is, we can have something interesting to say about the other differences. P0M 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blacks as the original race. This section is misleading. I suggest that what we really need to ask is "Were the original anatomically modern humans Black." I think there is enough evidence here, that has been cited on this talk page to conclude that they were, but I also think this fits better in the Human skin colour article. We could mention it here and have a link to the majour article. Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good way to phrase it. We can present evidence and viewpoints on various sides of this question. I think that the dominant evidence is that they were, but there certainly is and have been contrary views published.--Filll 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a valid claim and not without merit, i see no harm here, i know you guys have a problem with the source, not the real content, because of the politics behind this rhetoric.--Halaqah 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If I were to look at this as a scientist, I would say the preponderence of evidence by far is that the original humans were black, or quickly became black in a few generations as they transitioned from some sort of hairy forebearer. Losing fur in the tropics pretty much means that even if your skin is white to start with (which we have no proof of, aside from the white skin of chimpanzees etc, which is no proof at all, really), it will soon have to turn black for you to survive and reproduce. However, I cannot look at this as a scientist with my biases. I know that there are lots of "nuts" in the literature and on this page that claim otherwise. So I think we should least acknowledge that they exist, but I would not write in a balanced way. My bias is that humans were black because of biology and geography and climate. And that is that. It would be very difficult to convince me otherwise. --Filll 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If we open up the possibility that the "original anatomical modern humans" both were indigenous to Africa and were "not black," then we have a genetic continuum that starts out as "non-black", becomes "black" at some arbitrary point, stays "black" throughout history down to the present, but branches out into "non-black" populations one or more time, etc., etc. That's a very odd, very fuzzy, set. Having it fuzzy on two ends rather than on just one end is not a big deal, but it does give the appearance that it is all smoke and mirrors.P0M 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We always return to the problem, race is a social construction and black is so invalid in any real historical context. Ancient Egypt black or white, its more complex than that. Black then or black now? Black if they were in Africa today or Black if they were in America today. All of them black or some of them black. we like to throw everyone in one box. I know Africa is the birth place of fully human people and climite would have made them what we call "black" people today. we know this because African people have the broadest gene pool and there only one way to have such a broad gene pool, to be the source of the gene pool. but it is far more complex than that, and people simplify it to exploit it for all forms of racial agendas, we dont live in an honest society and hence we cannot begin to have an honest discussion on race. We would need some Vulcans to come down and be neutral.--Halaqah 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Every social construct is an entity that is constructed on something. The Vulcans among us (Do you doubt that they are here? Earthlings supply their whole sit-com enterprise.) can point to the facts, and we can show how much subjective stuff the little bit of fact is made to support. The alternative is to let the Cling-ons cling on to their demonizations of people who look different from them. P0M 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lists of "definitions". I do not think we need a long list of definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article should not be here to "define" Black people. We can give a short section in the introduction that explains how the term Black as used to refer to people from different regions has both a broad and a narrow meaning. This is consistent with WP:LS. Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we do, because already we dont seem to have enough because no one can ever agree and we cannot assume to have the answer.--Halaqah 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the definitions I would get rid of. I would suggest the article is to document that there are many groups of people that have been called black or are called black, by themselves and by others. And that there is some controversy and disagreement about who is black.--Filll 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If we have an objective description of groups and we can document how some people define them as "blacks" and some people don't, then we have a kind of explanation for why there can be so many disagreements among people that are, at the bottom, questions of definition and opinion. P0M 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• The whole section on the "Age of Enlightenment" correctly belongs in the "race" article. It is not about Black people, but about early attempts at Taxonomy. Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am more doubtful about this. Historically, people tried to use taxonomy and other tools to "define" who is "black".--Filll 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wobble/Alun, it doesnt belong here, or not in length at least.--Halaqah 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a distraction here. To the extent that people think about them at all, I think they are important only in giving comfort to some of the old racist or racialist ideas. I tried to bring later research into this article and the attempt was not appreciated. The search was not for truth but for things that would shore up preconceptions. Putting a link to the Race article would direct people to a discussion that seems to have been fought to equilibrium. P0M 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article should be quite small IMHO. I think all we need to do is explain that generally speaking the term Black people is applied to various different "racial" and "ethnic" groups and that it is sometimes applied only to people with a recent African origin. We do not need, nor should we, go into any rgreat depth regarding the ethnicity of these various groups, we should simply link this article to the various groups. This would allow any reader to easily navigate to more specific articles about the various groups. For example if we link to the article Demographics of Ethiopia a anyone can read about Ethiopian people in detail there. There are also links in this article to the various ethnic groups in Ethiopia.Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all articles should be short, but this does not always happen in practice. We have discarded a huge amount of material that might find a home on the page if we can agree.

• I think we should be aiming for something like the Briton article. The term Briton is also quite a controversial term, especially for Irish people and people living in Northern Ireland. It is also controversial amongst certain nationalist/indepencence groups in Wales and Scotland. So this article does not try to treat British people as if they are an ethnic or racial group. It simply gives a brief definition in the introduction. It then goes on to list "Common usage" (rather than definitions) and finally has a section about "Sensitivity arount use of the term". I think this sort of short article would be good for this subject. Put the detail in articles that are more specific, like African American or Black British etc. Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that britons are a very small group in a very small place, compared to "black people". So it is a bit difficult to compare these two groups.--Filll 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article is quite amorphous. It has no real structure, and does not know what it wants to be. It is neither an article about an ethnic group, nor is it an article about a racial group, though it tries to imply elements of both. I find this quite unsatisfactory. Black people are not any sort of homogeneous ethnic or racial group, and the artificiallity of trying to imply this is evident in the article. The article contradicts itself several times, especially when parts of the article give definitions of Black that clearly include people of non-recent sub-African (or West African) origin, and other sections strongly assume that a recent sub-Saharan/West African origin is essential to be a Black person. This is just confusing. Alun 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be rethought, reorganized and ancillary articles created that describe each of the aspects in more detail.--Filll 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think such a broad topic could ever have a theme, thats why personally i hate the term black, it is pure confusion, let the music play.--Halaqah 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

People are going to continue to think in terms of "black people(s)." "white people," etc. for a while unless somehow all of us can educate ourselves or get educated. Until general enlightenment strikes it is probably worthwhile to have an article that clarifies the issues involved as much as possible.

I think the African people article is potentially much more useful that this article. It has clear bounds, geographically, without pretending that the bounds have anything other than a justification in convention.

Maybe on the other side of this article we could use a "pipeline" article that traces the two main migration trails as they come out of Africa at lest as far as where they become the founders of various populations like the two main groups of American Indians, etc. That way all the articles such as "The Japanese" would get their own genetic explanation genetic history canopy. P0M 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

Black people is a phrase that normally is used to describe dark-skinned people.[1]

1. This phrase "black people" is not a particularly accurate description, since no humans have black skin.

This statement was deleted as unsourced. I think we can find sources for it if necessary. Is this necessary? Is this not wanted?--Filll 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like to alien approach, a good article should be clear to all non-human vistors browsing wikipedia. And the first thing they would infer , is black people must b black skin.--Halaqah 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Canopy and sub-canopies

Over-arching articles need to be in place before we can do a good job of this article. One of the over-arching articles should pertain to the evolutionary/genetic history of Homo sapiens sapiens. Is there currently a strong article on that subject? A second over-arching article should pertain to social construction. Do we have that article? How about articles on Language, on culture, and on ethnicity?

Assuming that all the above articles are in place or could be brought to completion, then we can look at the black peoples of the world. The article on African peoples limits its story to the evolution of humans within the geographical confines of Africa, with a little attention being given to any back-flow of genetic change from areas outside of Africa. The article on Black peoples should then tell the story of how the people that trace their genetic heritage largely to early African sources have gone beyond the geographical confines of Africa.

There have been two main ways that people have left Africa, one was in a series of two migrations fairly near to the dawn of human history. One of the unexpected results of recent genetic research has been that the first migratory wave moved along the ocean edge and ended up in Australia. The people who stayed in the tropics presumably never lost their dark-skin adaptation. The second wave moved farther north and skin color adaptations occurred, making these people other than "black people."

The second main way that people have left Africa has been the slave trade, so we may need to check for adequate canopy articles on slavery, etc.

This is the kind of thinking that we need. We cannot be haphazard here. We need to have an organized plan and we need to think very carefully about how to put some structure to this huge subject area. If one looks at the African American articles, it is clear how complex even that restricted part of the subject is. Our situation here is quite a bit more complicated than what those on the African American articles grappled with.--Filll 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at Social construction. As one of the articles that forms a canopy over this one, we should be sure it is in good shape. I added some requests for citations, and I changed the stuff on gender identity and gender role because they are such clear cases of social construction and how it can get people in trouble if they assume they can construct anything they want on the basis of a partial account of the facts. Some things in the article seem to me to be likely to be correct, but I'm not sure how to improve the writing, which seems rather unclear. It may be clear and I may be in ignorance on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Can we get rid of the ethiopia "theory"

I must ask that the stuff about Ethiopians being from some strange cluster me moved or deleted, it confuses the discussion, it is an off topic, it is also an exotic view which is nowhere in mainstream thinking. We need to streamline this topic not explore every exotic discussion around blackness. The material discussing who is black (in different parts of the world) is far more critical than an extensive "abstract" study of what race Ethiopian people belong to based on some mad scientist.--Halaqah 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of it. It was initially written to suggest that there is a notable dispute over the "race" of Ethiopians. If I am not mistaken, that section expanded significantly after this AfD. There is no need to go into particular detail about Ethiopians unless one is trying to prove a certain POV. --Ezeu 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

it is history, my only regret is why did we take so long? if we look at all past discussion much time was spent complaining about this, everyone who came here complained about this madness.--Halaqah 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting this artice

I have been looking at ways to better this article, but it is so unredeemably flawed that a complete rewrite is warranted. Browsing back to previous versions of this article I find well-written, well-sourced and NPOV material. I suggest we gather our efforts to rewrite the article, using new material as well as by recycling information that is available in the article's edit history. So as not to cause another needless edit war, I have created a draft at Black people/rewrite draft which we can build on. In the draft I have removed blatant POV, but go ahead and remove even more at will. Please explain your edits and abide by consensus. The consensus is that not only Africans are black. Any disruptive edit warring, or attempts to sideline obvious consensus will be considered disruptive behaviour. Disruptive editors will be blocked. --Ezeu 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Was not a very good idea as we'll just end up with two articles to squabble over. --Ezeu 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I needed something from that article the "other opinions" thing, with Diop etc,--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ive restored it. --Ezeu 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

black Kenyan man picture

It's a great picture, but I don't think it fits perfectly to represent an average black person due to the obvious culture that's also visible in the picture. It isn't shared by every black person on Earth. His cloths and hair (his culture) stands out far more than his race (or skin tone). It would fit more in an article about African lifestyles or something similar to that, but not in such a broad article representing a whole race. Would it be too much to ask for or to provide a better picture that grabs a viewer's focus more on the person's physical appearance rather than his or her cloths or hair style?

I know there are other different pictures, but this one being on top makes it the "main" picture, and I am debating that it should not be. A good one would be a black woman with natural hair wearing no cloths (image cropped to her shoulders...) or any Black person wearing universal cloths like a regular shirt and pants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.81.0 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

I had a well nice image up here of a composite of black people, if anyone is intrested in making sure it has in only legal images then it would be best to repost it, let me know.halaqah --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Muntu

Someone has written this means black person, this is one of the points i have always made, muntu means person, normal person. A healthy group of people in their own world would have no need to define themselves by the obvious majority physical condition. For example we dont overstate we are Earthlings, it is only if we were a minority or invaded by Cardasions that we would be called Earthlings (by them). The KHOIKHOI means man man, not black man, just man. In America the Sioux means human, not red human just human, they see themselves as the norm. labels are placed upon "the other" not on themselves. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Muntu means person, not black person. The plural, bantu (or abantu, ngabantu, watu and other variants) means people in many bantu languages. Bantu as an ethno-linguistic classification applied to some Africans is fairly recent (attributed by some to the German linguist Wilhelm Bleek). --Ezeu 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you muntu simply means person, and as the majority always view themselves as the normal and the outsiders as different. Therefore in Africa the majority will refer to themselves as people and outsiders will have more specific terms. For instance a possible conversation would be something like

"question -Ni muntu?"

"answer - Si muntu , ni mzungu"

Translated literally

question - Is he a person?

answer - No he is not a person, he is white.

The reverse is so in the US where generally blacks are labelled as African-American and whites are simply referred to as American.Muntuwandi 02:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

this is why the concept of black is the concept of "otherness" where African people became the Other, it is not a natural part of African self-identity. No where in Nomadic Mali or Niger a term for I am a black person. and in sudan when you see this you find it is an piece of colonialism left with the pepople, and Rwanda.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A similar kind of naming occurred in China of the 12th century. China's equivalent of Thomas Aquinas spoke of "people" (meaning Han Chinese), and "barbarians" (non-Han tribal peoples). He explained the "barbarians" as creatures who were "between humans and animals." Since even Chinese people do not always successfully distinguish between Chinese and, e.g., Japanese, language and other learned behaviors tend to be more important in defining "human" status. Generally, members of the Han Chinese culture are regarded as ethnocentric rather than racist in cases where they discriminate on the basis of group or population membership. P0M 04:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this

Elongated labia and Steatopygia now how does this fit into the whole definition of "blackness"? We say we are all the same but this stuff is not the same at all. So i am confused, because these so-called black people are different from most black people. and how many more races of people have such unique things?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: We are all the same BIOLOGICALLY. Yeah we all have different physical attributes than one another. Indians and Chinese men are both Asians, but would you claim the Chinese as more "Asian" because of their eyes? I've seen pictures of Africans with slanted eyes similar to East Asians. It isn't separated by race, you are generalizing.--Bélancourt

"Race" is a word without an agreed-upon definition, so there are potentially as many definitions of "race" as there are humans that have ever existed and will exist. At one extreme, you could use one trait to define a "race." Then you might get a list of all the people with it and all the people without it. At the other extreme, you might include the entire genome for each person as a definition of a race. In that case you would get approximately as many races as there were, are, and will be, human beings. (You'd have to factor out the identical twins.) Add the right trait and two brothers get sorted into different races. Restrict the list of traits to skin color and maybe a couple other things and Swedes and Ainu become members of the same "race."

So the short answer to your question of "how many more races have such unique things?" is: All of them. P0M 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually dont have a point, i just found the above intresting and then questioned the whole concept of blackness, because we could divide humanity on eye color, or blood type, or long noses short noses. and then what makes a "race"? because clearly it doesnt make much sense,--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguate?

Why has this article not been listed for deletion yet? Someone proposed that there be a Black People disambiguation page, and that made a lot of sense. This is not an article about a group of people; it is a mishmash about different groups of people, that some of our editors have tossed together. It is unfortunate, and it is embarassing. Almost all of the content already exists in better articles. Short of deletion, I could see a short "Who Is Black?" article serving as a disambiguation page. Jd2718 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"founders of religion"

He also argues that Ethiopians were the founders of religion ...

What does that actually mean? And how does it fit into the context of this article? It seems to stand alone here as having little relevance, and I can't think of a single way to support this claim, even if the person being indirectly quoted actually did say it. - Che Nuevara 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Did the Neanderthals not have any signs of religion, burials with bows and arrows or other weapons, for instance?

As an uncited claim I think it should either be flagged or else removed directly.```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

renaming the ethiopian page i dont think was correct because it makes one person look very heavy in the def of black people so it isnt justified because he is one person with one opinion.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad references

Take a look at the refernces, ref 9 ref 32 what is going on? can this be cleaned up and some standard proper referencing format be used for the entire article so it stands up as a pro job?

A pro job? have you looked at the talk page and the article? People are just exhausted and disgusted from all the fighting. Forget formatting; we have been fighting for months and months and months over content. Now everyone is just burned out.--Filll 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

i noticed that because it has been very quite, everyone is giving up, all the fire is gone.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Past a certain point, it is hard to care any more. There are many other articles here that need work, where contributions are welcomed. Maybe people just need to give this one a rest.--Filll 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Needed feedback

I've been busy with finals and stomach flu, but I haven't lost interest in this article. What does everyone think about the article on Social construction? Is it an adequate canopy article for this one? Or are there things that need to be added to it so that it will provide an adequate understanding for the background of this article? P0M 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Gallery Problems

The gallery includes the following phrases:

• are referred to as black
• is ... arguably black
• are arguably black
• Many scholars [uncited] believe that ... were black
• making him the first "black president" by some definitions.

"This article is about the different definitions of the term "black people"." If this is true, these sorts of weasel words cut against the very thing that this article purports to be about. I am deleting the gallery. Jd2718 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then remove it all together. As it is now it far from represents a global perspective of Black. --Ezeu 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it and make it better, now the page is boring, just fix it and add some more "black" people, without the weasel words.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding the right spot under the canopy

I will assume that if there are holes in any of the canopies I refer to below then editors will come forth to comment on them, and, hopefully, will patch them in appropriate ways.

One of the reasons for controversy and challenges to the neutrality of this article, implicitly mentioned in the article already, is that "Black people" is a social construct. I cannot think off hand of another category that would seem to have a "label" built right into the "product." If you view "black" as one set and "people" as another set, then "black people" ought to be the intersection of the two sets. As we have seen on this discussion page, people object vehemently to that simplistic view, and do so on various grounds.

The first element of the social construct may be the dark skins of humans who are well adapted to withstand high levels of UV. A "black" skin is the most easily perceived trait of the various groups of people that various observers call "black people." A minor problem with talking about this element is that the de facto definition of the word "black" is different from the definition the word is given in physics. It is helpful to realize that the definition actually used by most people corresponds more closely to what artists who work in oil paints and other such pigments call a "shade," i.e. a "darker shade" of any color on the artist's palette is obtained by mixing in some amount of a truly black substance like carbon black. As observers we are more sure that something is a "shade" of some color when the percentage of black pigment is high, and more doubtful about as sequentially less intense shades of that color are encountered. I would not, for instance, assert with much confidence that some of the photographs of "black" people that Filll provided had black pigment on their palettes. Those people, a very much lighter shade of dark, are accepted by some as "Black people", and yet the same judges may reject much darker people from S.E. Asia, so just discussing the dark skins does not adequately describe what some people mean by "Black people", so we have to take their criteria into account. (Factual component 1: pigments present in the skin.)

The second element of the social construct, at least for many people who use the term "Black people," appears to be close genetic connection to some but not all of the current populations of Africa. Without splitting hairs, it is easy to see what the intent and reasoning is here. The original inhabitants of Africa (L1, L2, and L3) all seem to be accepted as founding populations for the populations that are accepted as "Black Africans" today, and it is membership in the "Black African" family tree that is for many a sine qua non for membership in their version of the "Black people" category. Just as there is a kind of logical fuzziness with the idea of "black" coloration, there is also a kind of logical fuzziness with the idea of membership in the "Black African" family tree. The fundamental question is what status is appropriate for a person one of whose parents descends from a long line of ancestors isolated in "darkest Africa," and the other of whose parents descends from a long line of ancestors from some far part of the world, the Taiwanese aborigines for instance. (Factual component 2: genetic heritage of the individual.)

The third element of the social construct, and one that I haven't mentioned before, is actually a group of learned behaviors -- things such as language, group-specific behavioral cues to group membership (hair styles, affective display conventions, dances and music, etc.). (I am reminded of being with my friends, the owners of a fruit stand in Taipei, their kids, and some of their frequent customers, when an American-born Chinese was being interviewed in Chinese on Chinese TV. His Mandarin was good, but his body language was totally aberrant--for a Chinese--because he was gesticulating "wildly" as any American teenager might. My friends seemed torn between being highly amused and being creeped out. I had the flip side of that experience one time watching a teenager approach a low-rise apartment building on a bike. I assumed he was an "Army brat" who was far off course and I was just speculating how a kid could get ten miles off course on a three-speed bike when he jumped off his bike and shouted toward a third-floor window, "Mama, wo hui lai le!" (Mom. I'm back!) He suddenly went from what he looked like (typical American teenager) to what he sounded like (typical Chinese teenager). He continued to look American, but I could tell in an instant that he hadn't been raised that way. Chinese people going back to around 200 BC would have predicted just this result whenever a "barbarian" child is raised in a Chinese household, or vice-versa. Just read Xun Zi.) (Factual component 3: ethnic heritage of the individual.)

Unless somebody can point out how these three factors fail the test of fairness in explaining how various groups conceptualize "Black people," I am going to add something to the intro paragraph to indicate that "Black people" is a family of concepts that involves a certain range of skin pigmentation, a certain range of genetic heritage, and a collection of ethnicities. P0M 07:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bible's role in defining blacks?

The Biblical section in question does not "define" blacks. It is important that what Genesis 9 actually says is presented. The section has plenty of info about what other groups or doctrines claim but what is the detail of the Biblical narrative itself? This info is directly relevant because Genesis makes no definition of blacks based on skin color or race. This is in contrast to assorted teachings that attempt to impose some racial hierarchy on the ancient narrative, but it contains no such hierarchies for 2 reeasons: (a) the "curse of Ham" relates to a prediction that was to befall certain Caananite peoples- conquest by ex-slaves out of Egypt. It does not mention any blacks or slavery at all. (b) As for the supposed inferiority of the Hamitic peoples, the Biblical narrative suggests the direct opposite. The highly civilized Egyptians, the powerful empire builder Nimrod of Cush, and the sophiscated urban and trade civilization of certain Caananite peoples clearly demolish any such claims. A lot of info on the section deals bounces back and forth with a wide range of scattered statements, like Jehovah Witness doctrine. The detail of the "original" source narrative needs to be clearly stated and presented before launching into these scattered fragments. Also, the book- Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (referenced in the article) provides scholarly background, and discusses traditional peoples and their associations- such as Mizraim (Egypt) Cush (Ethiopia, Sheba, Seba, Yemen) plus Libya, and Caanan (today's Palestine).Enriquecardova 09:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that other information in the section runs afield. I am trying to pare it down to what is directly relevant to defining (or not defining) "Black people." You could help by editing down the other parts that run on. Certainly, though, you've added back parts that are interesting, but not relevant. We should remove them.

The article should tell the reader about the claim that race is defined in the bible, who makes the claim, and what evidence the claim rests on. It should continue with just enough to disprove the claim. This is better than having to "balance" the two views. Further details belong in Noah and especially in sons of Noah. I suggest you take a look at those articles. Jd2718 13:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as to all the various views, but I think it is directly relevant to note clearly what the Biblical passages in question state or don't state. It is not a question of balancing various theologial views, but of the plain statement of the passages. Right now that is not as clearly stated as it should be and we have a number of other scattered items in there. Since the additional info was edited and retained by user Halaqah, am restoring pending further input from other editors. I will however trim down the wording per your suggestion and add a reference to curse of Ham article.Enriquecardova 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Those edits look much better. I am going to let it sit a while so other editors can read and think it over. In the meantime, do look at Noah and sons of Noah which seem to be offering different interpretations of the same verses that you are discussing here. Jd2718 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Different human traits associated with indigenous "Black" people

I found an informative and very well researched study based on physical characteristics of all human types in general; and the following link is a page mostly based on those defined universally as Blacks. Since we can't copy the image and use it here, I think we can get ideas out of it, and maybe use real photos rather than drawings if possible. I don't want to recommend linking to it since it would seem more like a free advertisement of it because this isn't exactly an official website based on that sort of stuff. Anyway here it is:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/34877428/ click on the thumbnail to enlarge it.

-Bélancourt

Interesting. Joumana has certainly done her homework, but nevertheless its original research, and not particularily relevant here. It may not be her intention, but her assumptions come forth as an attempt at scientific racism. --Ezeu 10:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)