Talk:Black people/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Von Luschan's chromatic scale

Why is there an image for this scale associated with this page? It is severely outdated, and the data displayed in it was collected prior to the 1940's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

True. The data here is out of date, but that's hardly reason to dismiss it outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This data is 70 years of out date. You can't tell me that the data presented is accurate.

I don't see the reason to remove it outright without providing a more accurate replacement. Perhaps there is some wikipedia method of indicating the data is suspect? I'd rather see that than a straight up deletion.

Agreed and fanned. There needs to be something in the thum nail like "CAUTION: This is Old Information" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocman (talkcontribs) 02:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Offensive Title

I'm very concerned whether this article should be at "Black people" at all. To my mind it seems a very patronising and unencyclopedic 1950s term, and classifies a diverse group solely by an inaccurate description of their skin colour. Are there articles on "White people" and "Yellow People"? I know that Redskins diverts to "Native Americans." Are we going to have articles on "slanty-eyed people" next?

I know this is a touchy area, and "Negro" is also a word which is considered offensive for historical reasons, however I think we need a better title, and one that corresponds better with "African Americans"... "People of African Origin" would be ideal, however would tend to include all North Africans too. "People of sub-saharan African origin" is accurate but long-winded. However I think we need to look hard for an alternative. Xandar 02:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

One issue with changing the title to reflect African origin is that not all groups labeled "black" are connected to Africa. The last sentence of the intro reads: Other definitions of the term Black extend to any of the populations characterized by dark skin, a definition that also includes certain populations in Oceania, Southeast Asia.[1][2].
And yes, there are articles on white people and asian people. I'm not a big fan of this naming convention either (mostly for stylistic reasons). However, a solution is not immediately apparent to me. Personally I'd like it to be something like Black (somewordhere).Woland (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the the existence of this page is only justified as a linguistics article. It should show how the term 'black people' has been used historically and in different parts of the world for different purposes. It cannot and should not, in my opinion, try to show what the term 'really' means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Martin. This article currently attempts to be an ethnological article while using a title that is supremely unsuitable. The asian people article actually covers all the ethnic groups in the continent, rather than just a "colour" group. I think the White people article too should be moved to "Caucasian", since the current terminology is unscientific and originates more in pseudo-scientific racist circles than anywhere else. The linking of Africans and melanesians might be acceptable in an article describing English language usage, but not in an article describing the ethnic groups originating in sub-saharan Africa. Xandar 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both comments for the most part. The only small issue I see is that "black" isn't just an English usage thing. Other cultures/language groups also label various peoples as "black." But I may just be reading the above comment wrong. I guess someone should do a RFC. Woland (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For any given word for this subject, there is somebody who considers it offensive; for most of them, there is someone else who considers it the proper, inoffensive, and neutral word, the lasting solution to the problem. (The six-letter Southern coarseness probably does not have much of a fan club; but that's not what we're considering; and some members of the group have attempted to reclaim even that as self-identification.) If we move this, it will only have to be moved again, when the person shows up who objects to whatever we choose next. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not saying that the title of this article is offensive. I said that the article cannot possible attempt to explain the correct meaning of the term 'black people'. All it can do is explain how the term has been used, for various purposes, historically and throughout the world. As Septentrionalis says, any attempt to explain what the term 'really' means or what it should mean is bound to offend someone, rightly or wrongly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I lived in Africa for many years and I can confirm that in Africa, the term "black people" is regarded as highly offensive. Color coding is western culture. For example in early days, black people were termed as Nubians or Ethiops. Personally I find it offensive to color code human beings - especially with codes that have negative / dimunitive connotations. People coded as "white" benefit from its socio-political overtones whereas those coded as black are significantly disadvantaged by the label. Further more, those coded as "white people" coded themselves - and then coded the rest of the people. Given the era when this was done, the question of motive / intention behind the code "black" is rather significant. Hence we should use something more neutral like "People of African Desent"; "Indians of Kerala Descent" etc. etc. Lets put an end to covert racism. Thanks. ScottPAnderson (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an African, born in Africa, and I have never known an African who regards it as "highly offensive" to be called "black". In my language we call black Africans jo acol without any pejorative connotations. Jo acol means black people.Ezeu (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think that there is any way to title this without being insensitive to someone, because calling they are not all living in Africa or America or Britain, so the titles "Africans" and "African Americans" are out. Perhaps "People of African Descent". That's the best that I can think of. The Doomsday Machine! (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm black and I don't find this offensive at all. It is a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the use of expression an expression like African, African-American or Afro-brazilians to be more appropriate in a formal setting. It carries more weight in formal setting that calling people black white red yellow brown, etc. It denotes better the ethnicity and the place of origin of the people in question. Like the terms European or Japanese does (still sometimes people use "white" to designate a Caucasian or a person of European descent.). Also, as mentioned above, there's a significant number of people (especially Indian) with "black" skins but which are not of African descent but with very dark skins. The words black, white, red, yellow are already rough approximation of the real color of the skins of the people it designates. So yes, in a formal setting, I think, African people should use a more appropriate term than 'black' to designate themselves and their origin as the African-American did. Analyzer99 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A double standard is being applied to this article and other articles about Africans. The Yellow People article redirects to Mongoloid Race, which gives historical context for both terms, and especially their pseudoscience and anti-Asian origins. The same standard should be applied to this article. The people being discussed here are Africans. 'Black people' should redirect to a disambiguation noting that 'black' people refers to Africans in some contexts and Asians in others. An article on 'black' people should be an exploration of the term historically and politically, particularly noting its inaccuracy, its vernacular origin in the language of foreigners (that is, non Africans), and its basis in pseudoscience. The people being discussed in this article are already covered in African People, African American, and other articles. A note about the misnomer 'black' being applied to Africans should be noted in those articles. Points about geographical place are irrelevant here. African and African American refer to people who are ethnically African -- there is no confusion on this point. People who are not ethnically African but citizens or residents of African states should be noted in articles on those states and articles on their own place of origin or ethnic origin. This is the standard used in the Asian people article, which notes the common geographic origins of all Asians, and spends considerable time exploring the use of the term in places of citizenship and residence of people who're ethnically Asian. This is the correct standard, and it should be applied here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I find the title just ignorant and ambiguous. Indigenous Australians are described as black people in their home country, by people of all backgrounds. Please explain where they fit into this appallingly titled article? HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. 'Black,' should be a disambiguation entry that notes the word is often used informally to refer to Africans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Australian Aboriginals, and redirects to those articles. This article should be deleted.
I agree with deletion too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews

Ethiopians, and thereby Ethiopian Jews do not belong to this race classification.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So these people aren't black?

Wow, could have fooled me. Mind explaining your logic (or lack of) here? Going for the old Ethiopians/East Africans=Caucasoids argument? If they're not black, what exactly do you think they are?

Please remain civil! The human skin color is not a decisive factor to determine what a race classification is.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message)

I think we also need to remember that race is a social construct, so there is no one "correct" definition of who is and isn't black, only a series of interpretations. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Their being Black would depend on where in the world they were and together with whom. Different societies construct the category of black differently and some don't construct it at all. Do we have a reference that these people are considered black in any particular context?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources stating that Ethiopians are generally not considered to be black people's? Because I would say that's more relevant to the current topic.

AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message)

I see a clear misunderstanding of what the race classification really is. If this article is about the race, then it surely is not about the darkskins. The Semitic such like the Hamitic people are considered Caucasian. Another point is if these people are mixed up with any Negroids (probably with the Nilotic people) due to their extensive social relations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I hope this and this will help you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hamitic"? "Negroid"? "Darkskins?" These terns are totally outdated and scientifically invalid. Your comfort in using them is rather disturbing, especially in regards to this subject. Your links are haplogroup studies, and neither of them actually state Semitics or Ethiopians are "Caucasian". It is well known that Ethiopians share some Middle-Eastern ancestry. However, Y-DNA is simply a marker that denotes male ancestry. Haplogroups do not correlate with race. A very dark skinned, West African looking Black American could carry Western European R1b from an Caucasian ancestor a few generations back, does that automatically make him "Caucasian"? So far, nothing you have presented gives your case a solid foundation. It seems to entirely opinion-based.

AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message)

Then, we must step ahead and discuss the matter more seriously. Talking about the Ethiopian people is not well defined, but probably it is the Habesha, Oromo and Amhara people. In 1800, Joseph Meyer included the Semitic people in his lexicon as Caucasians. The famous anthropologist Carleton S. Coon in his work The Races of Europe, The White Race and the New World lists the people from the Horn of Africa as Caucasians. More recently, Karl Jan Reinhard divides the Semitic, along with Hamitic and Aryan peoples as the three main groups of Caucasians. If you'd like to continue the discussion, please provide reliable sources that the people really belong to the race classification you state on your own. And if the article is not about the race classification, but to the skin tone, we must change the introduction. Another point is that the Ethiopian people as an ethnic group do not exist, so I'd appreciate to detail it and make more comprehensive for the reader (the "Ethiopian Jews" are "Habesha Jews").--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the racial theories of Coon has had no currency in anthropology since the 1960'es. Who qualifies as "Black people" is completely dependent on the historical and social circumstances where the classification takes place. It is impossible to say that Ethiopian Jews are either black or not black, and it is also irrelevant to this article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well said indeed, but then we should entirely remove it from the article. However, it's impossible to say that any race classification exists due to the fact of mixed people, but in general such grouping of people is common as here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let us examine what is considered "Black" in the context of this very article. At the very top it states:

"It is also used to categorize a number of diverse populations together based on historical and prehistorical ancestral relationships. Some definitions of the term include only people of relatively recent Sub Saharan African descent (see African diaspora). Among the members of this group, dark skin is most often accompanied by the expression of natural afro-hair texture (although a recent scientific study notes that human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations). Other definitions of the term "black people" extend to other populations characterized by dark skin, including some indigenous to Oceania and Southeast Asia"

This article even mentions Oceanians and Southeast Asians (such as the Great Andamanese, Native Fijians, the Ati, and the Melanesians) even though these groups genetically have more in common with neighboring Asian populations and are very distant from other people who are considered Black Africans. Ethiopians are black Africans. Some of them have Middle-Eastern ancestry (Ethiopia is a short boat ride from Arabia), but that automatically does not make them an entirely mixed population; nor does it change the fact that their roots are mainly in Africa. Sicilians have some Middle-Eastern ancestry, but they are still considered European. Ancient Romans certainly referred to Ethiopians as black. They used the term "Ethiopian" to describe all Black Africans they came across, regardless of their location outside of East Africa (read this:

I went to the Beta Israel page and found two very clear references:

Ephraim Isaac (1974), The Falasha: Black Jews of Ethiopia. Dillard University Scholar Statesman Lecture Series.

Simon D. Messing (1982). The Story of the Falashas "Black Jews of Ethiopia". Brooklyn. ISBN 0-9615946-9-1

Here's more from another article (

Rebhun, Uzi, Jews in Israel: contemporary social and cultural patterns

"The Israeli government has airlifted black Ethiopian Jews to Israel and given them citizenship in the same way it has been a haven to Jews oppressed throughout the Middle East and Africa" [1]

"She told RT: “They don't want poor or black children and Depo-Provera gave them the opportunity to have control. If she [a patient] keeps taking an injection every three months, she is not going to have children – you know it is a 100 per cent secure from children I think.”

Hedva says the policy is working – the number of black babies in Israel is decreasing, but there are no official statistics to back up her claim. For community workers and Ethiopian women here, statistics are unnecessary – they feel their reality speaks for itself.

The Health Ministry admits it issues the drug, but says it was never its policy only to administer it to Ethiopian women and reduce the number of black babies in the country." [2]

I would say that makes Ethiopian Jew's a valid part of this article.

AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message)

I would say that you're right.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's fine, but there is not even mentioned any race classification. If the "black people" as you state are considered as such, including the Ethiopian Jews, more comprehensive is to change the lead sentence. Thus, if it's a color race classification, it should be in the lead.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Instead of "The term black people usually refers to a racial classification of humans.", it should be "Black people is a racial, societal and political term which refers to people with dark-colored skin." Thus, we'll avoid the entire race classification in this group.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid wording in the lede

The lede currently states:

> The term black people is used is a category sometimes used in systems of racial classification about humans perceived to be of a dark skinned phenotype, relative to other racial groups.

As a black person, when I read this kind of sentence, I just roll my eyes. I find it extremely condescending and an affront to the intelligence of black people. Protip: We do have darker skin. It's not a matter of perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably because of the basic stupidity of a lot of the people who feel the need to classify people on the simplistic basis of skin colour. It's very hard to describe such behaviour rationally and in an encyclopaedic way. HiLo48 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason it is necessary to have a vague word like "perceived" is of course because blackness is relative and a person whose skin is classified as white in the Dominican Republic or Brazil may be classified as Black in the US. What counts as "Darkness" and what doesn't is at least partly in the eye of the beholder.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that recognizing the differences between people is stupid. People are born, for instance, with different color hair, but if I told you, "Brotha-man, see dat fly lookin' chick with the blonde hair over there?", I assume you wouldn't be offended (unless you were offended by my use of the black vernacular, in which case, =p). Yet somehow if I pointed out a white (resp. black) guy on the street for one reason or another, your previous response gives the impression that you would condemn my noting of their race (or whatever the most anodyne term is for that kind of thing nowadays. I bet it contains "ethno" and "geographical").
That is to say, I think that willful ignorance about the fact that different groups of people from different parts of the world have different features is far more pernicious than simple stupidity or ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, given that both the options you compare include ignorance as a component, I won't argue too strenuously. The bigger problem is when people attribute other major perceived group differences to individuals, based exclusively on skin colour. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And I would absolutely not dispute that claim. My point is that if we want to combat racism, disputing whether or not the concept of "race" is legitimate is highly unconvincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
But "race" primarily based on perceived skin colour is a big problem. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is This Article a Joke?

"intense sun killed off the progeny with any lighter skin" where is any proof or citation for any of this?

The entire article is absolutely ridiculous and should be deleted immediately. (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that's just a very poorly worded sentence. The expression "killed off" is not very encyclopaedic at all. I've had a go at changing the wording. I agree with your general thoughts on the article, but for somewhat different reasons, which I've touched on above. This section is one of the few that has a point. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL - Blackness

Half of the text in the section on "blackness" is about Bill Clinton ("the jazz musician") ! (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

anwar sadat

regarding anwar sadat's mother , she is not "black" Sudanese she was dark-skinned from an arab tribe from Kurdufan as mentioned by his wife ,check the interview here 1 --Prince jasim ali (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First things first prince, Black is not an ethnicity. I have never see any Black ethnic groups in Africa. Certainly the Amhara, Oromo, Somali, Fulani are not black (by your ongoing assault on black across various wiki pages). Black is something someone else is calling a group of people. Like how the Amhara called the Gambella people certain names. I am sure the Gambella over time start calling themselves these names but black-African is a very offensive term used by the colonialist. So we get Arabized people in Sudan and various different non-Arabized people. Sadats mother was an African woman. Had she grew up in Harlem she would be all across the board called African-American. So worldview becomes an issue.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Al Mansour

The Article says his mother was Fulani, there is no mention of this in what his contemporaries wrote about him. Where is the basis for this claim? I believe that there has been some mix up with another Moroccan Sultan, Moulay Ismail favorite concubine was Black (Possibly Fulani or other) and thus made her son heir to the throne . You can Also, mention a Black king that ruled in Egypt sometime during the 10th century. His name was Abu al-Misk Kafur. He's originally a black slave, he was ridiculed during his reign for being Black by a famous Arab poet Al-Mutanabbi (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Population ranking

In the article, the US is said to have roughly 150 million African Americans. Later on, it claims Brazil has the largest population of African descendants outside of Africa at 80 million. Something isn't right there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely we should just be counting people we think have black skin (see article title), not caring where some ancestor came from at an arbitrarily chosen distance back in time. If the Out of Africa theory is correct, all Americans, and Brazilians, are African Americans. (<- Deliberately facetious comment referring to the silliness and racist overtones of the article title.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiki is not a forum it only mirrors what is reality and gives a NPOV and balance reporting on the subject. So even as silly as race, or Black identity )my skin is brown but I am called Black or Negro) it is a reality.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Not treating Wikipedia as a forum. Simply trying to improve the article. It's such a vague subject that the lead is almost meaningless in trying clarify the unclarifiable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
And we don't see your complaint in the white people article hilo. - The Osirica — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
An equally stupid name for an article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Long ago

I was banned from contributing so I had to contribute in ways that avoided my contributions being retracted. And after so much effort, especially when the Owen Alik nonsense came out of nowhere to mess up the process... I must say, I am now satisfied with the outcome. And I thank those who helped me. For those of you who resisted. Look at the article and recognize that your ignorance in defining black people in such cynical ways has failed. We can now use this article in schools and can deconstruct racism in various institutions. Sincerely yours - "The Osirica" et. Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg Nominated for Deletion

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Second Paragraph- Incorrect Referencing?

The text in Question: "Different societies apply different criteria regarding who is classified as "black", and often social variables such as class, socio-economic status also plays a role so that relatively dark-skinned people can be classified as white if they fulfill other social criteria of whiteness and relatively light-skinned people can be classified as black if they fulfill the social criteria for blackness." I have read and explored the article to which this text has been referenced, and I can find none of the material opinions or views expressed on Wikipedia within the said reference ( I would be grateful if you could please cite the actual reference which formed the genesis of the opinions expressed, or I will be led to assume that these are merely the offensive ramblings of an individual who thought they could be legitimised via reference to an irrelevant article.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

New Brazilian stats say Brazilians of African heritage in majority

Headlines read "Brazil census shows African-Brazilians in the majority for the first time" [3]. I have changed the sentence to include people who have African ancestry, therefore no need for the tag--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone did a misinterpretation. I'm Brazilian and Pardo means NOT afrodescendant in a way that makes sense in the said sentence (White people majoritarily are also of some African ancestry). Brazil is 48,4% branco and 42,4% pardo. One can not exactly say the ethnic origins of someone simply because of his/her "pardoness". Pardo is a skin color, and includes people of all possible combinations by miscigenation in Brazil (except European x East Asian and Middle Eastern x East Asian), including people with mostly or full Amerindian and mostly European ancestry. It is correct to say that most of us possess varying degrees of descent from indigenous peoples, European (mostly Portuguese, but some Spanish and very seldom Dutch exceptions) settlers and African slave descent, but how much it will influence in the person's identity and phenotype (what really means for Race in Brazil), there is no reliable data to confirmation. As such, according to genetic research a Brazilian Negro will possess about 30-50% European ancestry, a Pardo 50-75% European ancestry and a Branco >70%. Amerindian descent is about 10% in most of the Brazilian regions, except Northern Brazil where it is averagely 20% or more. If Pardos possess such percent of mostly European ancestry and most of them outside the areas of historical slavery are Caboclos, westernized Amerindians and tri-racials (also present in the said areas), it is highly doubtful to suppose Brazil "half Black". One can say that we're about 25-40% Black, mulatto, tri-racial and cafuzo, but higher percents are ignoring the fact that Pardo is not a synonym to noticeable afrodescendant.
Anyway, there are no reliable statistics that divide Pardos between the noticeable Amerindian-descendants, the noticeable Afrodescendants and those which are both. Brazilians don't even tell the difference because in popular use, there's no world of races, there's a world of skin colors (to the extent that IBGE call East Asians Amarelos, or "yellows"). They see Blackness, Brownness and to some extent Whiteness more of a physical characteristic such as be tall or short than ethnicity, in fact most of people ethnically see themselves as plainly Brazilians (this nevertheless do not apply to "Mongolicness": Japanese Brazilians are always deemed as ethnic Japanese, or Oriental). What explain why the Black movement wants to turn all Pardos into a subgroup of Negros in its ideology: people that really identify with the African origins are more of a minority certainly lesser than 30%, I would say (without necessary sources) 20% — there are even less White people which feel identified with Europe or the Western world except for recent immigrants, their families and people very influenced by foreign ideas. People never sawed miscegenation as a "killing of culture" as in many places of the world but just discontinuation of phenotypes. Outside some historically European Brazilian-majority areas and shocks with Indigenous cultures, racism here is something more of class prejudice than ethnic hatred, we call this "pervasive racism" or "social apartheid".
Fewer people that are racist against persons of color are also racist against Asians, Middle Easterners and Jews (or even Amerindians). Advocacy of pure White race is both historically and currently rare, really rare, and limited to certain "problematic" regions, because racist Brazilians don't simply want a more European world (this social construct of white people is imported), it is very complex. That is, persons of African descent can be empowered, and many of them were since ancient times. Our construction of "who is a Black" is not empowered, but they are a minority among the former group. Call everyone historically discriminated Black and use it interchangeably with historically discriminated Black and Pardo afrodescendant communities is simply absurd for Brazil. Someone with <19 in Von Luschan skin color scale, light, light-mixed or mixed eyes and/or stereotypically White/mestizo in phenotypically features such as hair texture, nose and lips shape, and ~25% African descent is not a Black or a Pardo in Brazil. Caboclos are always Pardos (someone called mestizo in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay or USA can be either called branco or caboclo in Brazil, the definition of "mestizoness" is little stricter). Lguipontes (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I see your point and def agree that the group could also include people who are non-White, but also non-African and hence it is a mistake to combine the two as a "Black population" thanks for the deep explanation. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

altered material -- general and specific queries

I added some material a while ago, and, revisiting the article today, found it gone. As this is such a contentious article, perhaps it is better that the paragraph be scrutinised here, rather than my risking being too bold. I'll make these separate subsections, for ease of reference.

My top-level query is, has this article achieved any stability with regard to what it covers? In other words, is it about sub-Saharan African people and their diaspora, or is it about groups of dark-skinned people around the world, who are viewed and labelled as distinct both by themselves collectively and by other communities around them, and who often suffer discrimination or racism because of this perceived difference? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Those people considered black in Russia

In late May, a number of edits were performed by User:Soupforone. Some of these were useful, and some included a clear edit summary, but not all. Many links were removed; some of these links were spurious but others seem of value - for example here, Italians of African descent was deleted. Whole sections, some with distinguished sources and some with none, were removed, including one (moderately well sourced, I thought) that I had had a hand in. I'll reproduce it here for convenience:

A cultural classification of people as "black" exists in Russia. Certain groups of people who are ethnically different, and generally darker, than ethnic Russians are pejoratively referred to as "blacks" (chernye), and face specific sorts of social exclusion (see Racism in Russia). Roma, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category.[1] Those referred to as "black" are from the former Soviet republics, predominantly peoples of the Caucasus, for example, Chechens.[2] Although "Caucasian" is used in American English to mean "white people", in Russian – and most other varieties of English – it only refers to the Caucasus, not European people in general.

The edit summary said:

Absurd. Gypsies, Georgians and Tartars are not black people nor does the source claim they are. Even if it had, that would still be fringe - cleanup

I went back to the main source to check. The Unmaking of Soviet Life: Everyday Economies After Socialism by Caroline Humphrey was published by Cornell University in 2002. The relevant quotes are:

Page 36: "Russian villagers call gypsies black and suppose them to have 'black powers' (Lemon, 1996)." Page 37: with reference to the non-Russian republics of the USSR: "For the villagers of the domains, those other people who had previously been hazily regarded as distant members of the Soviet Union, 'younger brothers', and so forth, but now appeared on the doorstep, making no bones about their foreignness, could be readily assigned to such mythic generalized categories of the alien; for example in Ivanovo province Russian peasants talk about 'the blacks' (chernye), which includes Georgians, Tatars, and Gypsies." Page 92: "The Georgians, by contrast, advocate the older, 'pure' criminal tradition that eschews contacts with business. Despite such newspaper reports, people in general firmly link trade, crime, and disorder with 'blacks' in a mutually self-reinforcing circle."

Certainly these peoples are not African, but it would appear from the literature that they are considered black by the Russians among whom they live. So the question relates back to my query above: does this article aim to encompass all groups labelled as black? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Misquotation of source text

This diff, the same one as in the immediately preceding section, inserted a word into a direct quotation. The paragraph used to read:

As of August, 2008, The Migration Information Source article noted that "A Nigerian Embassy spokesman estimated that Nigerians possibly make up the largest group of Africans in China, with about 2,000 to 3,000 Nigerians in Guangdong in 2006. Most businessmen only stay temporarily."[3][4]

and was changed to "...the largest group of Black Africans in China..." (emphasis mine). I have checked the source text, from Migration Information Source, "China and Africa: Stronger Economic Ties Mean More Migration" by Malia Politzer, August 2008, and it does not include the word "black" in that sentence. I find this insertion of material into what purports to be a direct quote somewhat troubling. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Black people in Israel and India

This diff is particularly wide-ranging, in removing several sorts of material. The following was removed from the Israel section:

Over 16,000 African asylum seekers have entered Israel in recent years.[5] A smaller but significant group is the Black Jews of Kerala, many of whom settled in the moshavs (agricultural settlements) of the Negev (southern desert)[6]
The Black Jews of Kerala, whose origins in India date back two if not three thousand years, appear identical to the surrounding Tamil population. For centuries they faced racism from the neighboring community of White Jews, who excluded them from the Paradesi Synagogue. This apartheid-like situation improved only in the twentieth century with the rise of the "Jewish Gandhi", a local lawyer named Abraham Barak Salem. Most of the Cochin Jews migrated to Israel, where their race makes them stand out and in some cases draws racist comments.[7]

Within the same diff, this paragraph:

In South India there are also several communities of Black African descent, such as the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, the Sheedis/Siddis, specifically the Siddis of Karnataka, who descend from East African slaves. Other ethnic groups in India with dark skin and/or broad facial features are the Bonda, Gondi, Bhil, Dongria Kondha.[8]

was changed to this, removing its only reference, and adding an unsourced final sentence:

In South India there are also several communities of Black African descent, such as the Sheedis/Siddis, specifically the Siddis of Karnataka, who descend from Zanj (Black African) slaves. In Pakistan, Zanj descendants are known as the Makrani.

I am not going to reinstate the material in its entirety, but if this article is supposed to comprehensively cover all groups of black people, then it is hard to see why sourced material such as this should be removed. If, on the other hand, the article is only about black Africans, then a lot more material will need to be deleted. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Genetically, South Asian people of a wide range of phenotypes, as far I understand it, are of the same "race". There is no "racial" difference between Indo-Aryan speakers of lighter skin tones and Dravidian-speakers of darker skin tones, according to genetic researches. So attributing blackness to these peoples only based on their physical appearance, according to many anthropological points of view, is an ethnocentric practice. Just to make things clear (I think), we can not even label the sexual practices of Ancient Roman and Greeks as bisexual hebiphilia nowadays (and obviously recorded accepted homosexuality in the Antiquity means that there were people of homosexual or bisexual orientations in the past, but NO, we can not label people with these identities which can only make sense in the contemporary West and civilizations influenced by it). So, we can not call people of some *put any race here*-looking phenotype, but absent of cultural, historical or even genetic connection to other peoples of the said racial phenotype, as part of that race. It is inaccurate as calling the Ainu white people. Lguipontes (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(Lguipontes) is correct. I get the point with homosexuality. Where the gay identity (modern) and the act are different. A even better example is the issue with Pedophilia, then 1/2 the old world would be perverts. Assigning color based race classifications to people in antiquity is problematic (an very eurocentric view of the "other") And it always needs a disclaimer. eg "in our modern times we would call the Ancient Egyptians African-Americans had they lived in America". (for example).--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Blacks called "Abd" in the Middle East

Living in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, and being a native speaker of Arabic of Algerian origin, I have never ever heard anyone from the various North African and Middle Eastern community of expats refer to Blacks as "Abd". The article Abd (Arabic summarizes it well, though it neglects to add that "Abd" is often used in a religious/traditional context to refer to humans and people in general, regardless of religious or ethnic background.

Looking at the Washington post article, it does seem a bit suspicious - a five year old being bullied at school for her racial background. I don't see how can this be applied to the rest of the Middle East. It seems her mother working as a maid for a "white" family - or as white as Iraqis can get - did give her her fare share of racism and prejudice towards a low income member of an ethnic minority - if it can even be called that, as Arabs don't differentiate between blacks and whites, at least not in urban centers and places where no native black community lives. Lots of Libyans, Sudanese, Yemenis and Emaratis here that are ethnically what you'd call an African Arab but no one distinguishes them by any term other than some local term for dark-skinned. However, derogatory terms are used jokingly against each other as many locals are themselves dark skinned, given Persian, Pakistani, Arabian, Yemenite, or recently Ethiopian and Somali refugee ancestries.

The article also quotes Jinaa, who refers to himself as a Abd according to the article. This is troubling because; first, he himself has African ancestry and this denotes a bias when sticking to term such as "free" and "slave"; it doesn't mean the wider Arab community, even where he lives, still use the term; second, what version of "abd" did he use? He said it in plural, does that mean he used "abeed" or "ebad"? The former is plural for slaves and the latter is plural for one of the synonyms of humans and are not freedom dependent; and third, he says he referred to whites using the word for free, but what word is this? The article does not specify. I hardly see this article as qualifying as proof for abd being a common Arabic word for negro.

The second source has this to say: "Nevertheless. elsewhere in the Arab world, the relationship of blackness of skin to slavery continues to be reflected in many dialects; i.e. abd = blacks. In 1995 in Nigeria, when I was speaking in Arabic with a Lebanese, the man simply referred to Nigerians as abid, and a modern dictionary of Egyptian spoken Arabic also defines abd as, first "slave" and "secondly "negro"."

So we have two obscure examples. If Egyptian and Lebanese people truly did refer to blacks as "abid", then why have I never heard any of them, who make up the majority of Arab expats over here in Dubai, do so? The most logical explanation I could think of is that "abd" is a conscious slur or tease utilized by Arabs in reference to the history of Blacks, and not in itself a de facto Arabic term for Black people. In this sense, does that mean that every English or any other language native speaker who teases or slurs Blacks as slaves must shame his entire linguistic family into bearing the fact that in their language, "Black = Slave"? I find this to be truly horrifying as it is beginning to be picked up by right wing rhetoric as a tool to use against Arabs and Muslims. It is unfounded and not true at all to say that "The term "abd", (Arabic: عبد‎,) "slave," remains a common term for black people in the Middle East, often though not always derogatory." just because a Washington Post article cites the story of a low income maid and her daughter meeting abuse by their employers. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So why dont you bring some of the explanations in a summarized form to this article to add clarity?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

quote by owen alik shahada

I propose deletion of the quote by owen alik shahada for two reasons:

1) owen alik shahada is not notable enough to be the only person quoted in an entire article about a 1 billion+ population 2) i believe owen alik shahada posted the quote himself (conflict of interest) due to the fact that the user halaqah seems to be a cover for owen alik shahada (halaqa has extensively edited the owen alik shahada article, halaqa espouses views and pushes povs that are the same as that of owen alik shahada as shown in his writings/websites, halaqa included his quote in this article and keeps linking to his site and also the name of owen alik shahada's media production company is....SHOCKER....halaqa).

For these reasons, I believe the quote should be deleted; in the LEAST because of the clear conflict of interest with halaqa/owen alik shahada.

And, FYI halaqa, owen alik shahada's name is spelled incorrectly in the article, it should be\شهادة‎ a soft ha sound, not the heavy ha sound that's written out in arabic.

Whoishalaqa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

conflict of interest already admitted; owen alik shahada quote should be removed as it is self-promotion

I guess the conflict of interest has already been admitted in the information below:

current 14:05, 17 June 2006 Thumbnail for version as of 14:05, 17 June 2006 500 × 299 (45 KB) Halaqah (talk | contribs) (Halaqah Media is the owner/author of this image and we are the research wing of Halaqah Media Films.


therefore, for conflict of interest reasons, (owen alik shahada is their primary client/owner) the quote from halaqah by owen alik shahada should be removed as it seems to be promotion (only quote by a person in an article about a 1B+ population)

Other articles showing conflict:

500 years later (film by owen alik shahada) Motherland (film by owen alik shahada) owen alik shahada halaqah media group (media group of owen alik shahada) the idea (film by owen alik shahada) mafaa (quotes by owen alik shahada by halaqa media) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoishalaqa (talkcontribs) 17:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

richburg quote

PLEASE let africans speak for themselves when talking about Africa, it is strange that African Americans dominate the discussion of African viewpoints. That should not be allowed in the sections pertaining specifically to AFRICAN viewpoints (they are VERY welcome in viewpoints about BLACK people GENERALLY around the world, but when talking about cultural CONTINENTAL (not DIASPORIC) AFRICAN viewpoints, it is absurd to assume that African AMERICANS can speak of AFRICAN viewpoints when the vast majority cannot speak the language AT ALL NOR have visited the continent (not in the case of Richburg who was washington post bureau chief in nairobi but for OTHERS). THAT is ESSENTIALIZING african culture so that anyone with DARK SKIN can speak about african Cultural viewpoints as a REPRESENTATIVE. That would be like WHITE AMERICANS speaking CULTURALLY about FRENCH or ITALIAN or BRITISH MODERN CULTURAL viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoishalaqa (talkcontribs) 00:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop shouting. Also, please don't assume that when a book's author is African American, the views expressed in it are exclusively those of African Americans. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Do u mind telling me HOW it is improperly sourced? Pass a Method talk 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(Refers to this edit). It's your responsibility to make sure that whatever you add conforms to policy. So, do you want to explain how what you added is appropriate? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Using an 1843 guidebook to Africa and a first-person narrative as two of your sources is very problematic. The third source indicates that Americans think about race based on noses and lips—hardly appropriate for an article about black people around the world. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as an Australian, I remind you that there are people here sometimes called Black. They are more closely related to me as a person with northern European ancestry than to American blacks. Most (all?) American literature ignores their existence. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Whereis India and related countires? Many Sri Lankans call themselves blacks (Tamils). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is a subsection on India and Southeast Asia, but it doesn't mention Tamils. If you have some well sourced material on it, please add something to the article. It will just add to the total confusion. (You may be able to tell that I think this is a fairly pointless article.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


The article seems to have lost a bit of its focus; especially with the addition of image galleries of Dravidians and others. Besides constituting a misuse of the gallery function according to WP:Galleries, this was not the original purpose of the article. The page was originally meant to focus on the (debatable) 'black' term used in various socially-centered racial classifications, not on the recent African origin theory for all modern humans or any random people with dark skin. Hence, why its white people companion article does not discuss East Asians although many have so-called 'white' skin color. Per WP:BRD, future edits attempting to change the direction of the article first require discussion and must then obtain consensus. Soupforone (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a global article about black people, people with relative dark skin color. This article is not (only) about the United States and what the definition of "black people" means there. For that, see Black Americans article or create an article for "Black people in the United States". I removed your edit from the lede which is higly US-specific, and which you copied from the Culture/United States section. There should not be any country-specific definitions in the lede as that would mean undue weight in the lead, and including all specific social definitions there would be impossible. You can find the American cultural / social definitions under the United States section of the article. Your removal of black Southeast Asians and Indians was unwarranted as they were clearly supported by references. You removed the pictures showing the diversity of black people which I suppose stems from your limited definition of "black people". In different parts of the world different people are referred to as "black". The recent African origin of modern humans is not a hypothesis but the most widely accepted model among scientists for the origin of modern humans; and is supported by the reference which you have deleted. FonsScientiae (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't copy the lede from any other article. I restored the original, long-standing lede that was recently changed without discussion much less consensus. The recent African origin of modern humans is one of several theories as to the origins of modern humans in general, not just black people. Discussing it here is tantamount to implying that the original human groups that are suggested to have migrated out of Africa several millenia ago and given birth to Eurasians were "black people". This is a notion that is certainly not supported by any of the cited sources, which don't even make reference to "black people". Before you removed the race template and various links that clearly outlined the original direction of the article, the page was not about "people with relative dark skin". And "people with relative dark skin" is not in itself equivalent to "black people". The latter is a fringe view mainly held by Afrocentrists, who routinely claim relations with people as far away as Australia largely based on dark skin color and other features they collectively refer to as "Africoid" [4]. The article now almost approximates in content the old "Africoid" wikipage, a deleted essay created by a banned editor. The fact remains that the companion article to this one is white people, not olive skin (an actual skin color article). And that white people page still features the race templates and category demonstrating its original purpose. This is why it does not discuss East Asians, despite the fact that many East Asians have skin color just as, and often-times more, light than many Europeans. Anyway, please stop attempting to force through these direction-changing edits and galleries until a firm WP:CONSENSUS has been established. I have already posted a request for input/feedback on the relevant South Asia wikiproject, and that should get the ball rolling. Soupforone (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You didn't copy part of the lede from any other article, you copied it from the US subsection of this article. But even if you copied it from an older version of the article it is still Geographic bias and undue weight in the lead. The recent African origin of modern humans is only mentioned here to give explanation why humans in Africa are the most diverse, and is mentioned in the source relating to African genetic variety.
The Oxford Dictionary gives the definition of black: "Belonging to or denoting any human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry". Merriam-Webster: of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin. 'Black skin' and 'Dark skin' redirects here.
Honestly, I don't know what you mean when talking about things like Afrocentrists and Africoid, but as it is stated this article is about dark-skinned people who have little genetic similarity (black Africans and black Melanesians, or even diverse black populations in Africa), and has nothing to do with your mentioned concepts.
Black, white, olive, brown are all used to describe people with certain skin color. What you're doing is trying to force your Americentric viewpoint of concepts, but this article is global, and in this context 'black' is not a "race" (whatever that means), it's a skin color. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
For the third time, I restored the lede that was already in the article and which you unilaterally altered. In any event, you are mistaken about the original purpose of this article. It and its companion white people wikipage were originally earmarked for discussion of the race-based social categories/constructs "black people" and "white people", respectively, and in their proper historical contexts. They were not meant to discuss "black skin" or "white skin" alone, as you seem to believe. This was made clear here on the fringe noticeboard, where I opened up a discussion at the recommendation of another editor. You and all readers are encouraged to join the conversation/continue the discussion there to try and form an actual community-wide consensus on this issue. Soupforone (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
There are articles for Negroid and Caucasoid concepts of race. Those articles state that the terms are independent of skin color. This is an article about and with a title of "Black people" and not "black race". If you want to create a race-centered article make it with an appropriate title.
I changed the lede because it showed geographic bias. Even if this was an article about "black race", that part of the lede would not be appropriate.
You should realize that the term "black" is used around the world to describe people with relative dark skin color. Many people whom you recognize as black in the US would be considered white in Senegal (1). Race is social concept which has relevance in some countries, but not in others. But everyone sees colors. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I asked for a third opinion. And doing double edits only for making reverting more difficult is very uncivil. FonsScientiae (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What is actually inappropriate is reverting while a discussion is ongoing to try and build a community-wide consensus vis-a-vis those very edits. Anyway, the term "black people" has many definitions. The dominant one historically, however, has been as a synonym for "Negroid"; this is true of both the black and white communities in the Americas and Europe alike [5]. I've explained the situation further on the consensus-building discussion. Please direct all future responses there. Soupforone (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have converted the extant consensus-building discussion on the white people talk page to a formal Rfc so as to attract more editor comments. Rfcs are preferable here over third opinions since they are less informal and typically generate more responses. Also, we already essentially received a third opinion on the fringe noticeboard. Soupforone (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

India section - Removed inconsistencies, irrelevant data and misquoted statements.

  • First of all, the section had an elaborate description about India's population count, which has no relevance here. Removed it. This page is about the black populations across the world.
  • Mention on "Ancestral North Indian" & "Ancestral South Indian" had nothing to do with black populations, as the contribs/data and their corresponding sources(American society of human genetics and Nature international weekly journal of science) had no mention about any of the two classifications being BLACK(which happens to be the core subject of this page). Totally irrelevant to this page due to which i had to remove this too.
  • Removed the line - "The genetic analysis affirms previous ethno-linguistic studies that identified two major populations and linguistic groups, known as "Indo-Aryan" and "Dravidian" - This line, and its corresponding citations haven't mentioned anything about the groups being black.
  • Finally, I've removed the highly misquoted statement - "Some Dravidians and Tamils are referred to as black, implying their dark skin pigmentation" - Here a user had compiled "a set of disjoint sources" together as a single citation, to support his/her claim. Three sources - George Orwell's shooting an elephant; Guardian.UK; Nanyang university artcile, were compiled into one citation, which was used for the misquoted statement. First of all, as mentioned before, the 3 sources are disjoint without any link to one another. In the first source(Shooting an Elephant, by George Orwell, published by New Uk Writing), the writer(some author, but not an anthropoligist or genealogist) used the term "black dravidian" as a rhetoric/his own opinion/a relative term and not as an official classification of the dravidian people. The article has not mentioned anything about any present/former government or organization/rule/kingdom identifying the class of people as blacks. In the second source (Guardian.Uk) the article refers to an "LTTE rebel" as a black tiger- Here, it is about a tamil speaking Sri Lankan and not an Indian. Also, the term "black tiger" could mean anything(like a nickname, codename, their uniform, etc), and there is nothing to prove/conclude that it was used for her raciality. Also, as mentioned before, it is about a tamil speaking Sri Lankan and not an Indian, so what is the need to mention it under India?? Finally, in the third source(Nanyang University article), the author mentions about a town in Tamil Nadu as "black town" and that "kala means tamil", but it does not say anything about tamil people being called as blacks. I've explained the reason for the deletion, in detail.
  • Now, it is just the part about the "Andamanese tribes" that is left in the section, which happens to be the only relevant data under the section. Henceforth I changed the section's title to "The Andaman & Nicobar Islands of India". According to both official & social systems of race classifications, except the andamanase tribals, no other "native community of India" is classified black. Except the images of andamanese tribes, nicobarese tribals & siddi immigrants, the addition of any other Indian caste's photo should be removed right away. I hereby request trusted senior editors(such as those listed under hugglewhitelist, etc) and admins to intervene & moderate, in cases of POV PUSHING & vandalism.
  • A user(who is new to wikipedia) had previously mentioned the wiki' pages(tertiary sources) of "black july & tamil tigers" in his edit comments, to support his claims in one of his previous edits(made on August 1st). Although I don't have any knowledge on Sri Lanka, i went through the two wiki' articles, thoroughly. It isn't mentioned anywhere that tamils are blacks. The name "Black July" is something like "Black september"(Jordan-palestinian conflict), and has nothing to do with one's raciality. Also, it has nothing to do with India.
  • Note: Every country in the world racially classifies the "the dravidian people of India(inc' telugu, tamil, malayali people)" as Asians or South Asians along with the rest of India, and they're not classified as blacks anywhere. Also, there are indo-aryans in southern India(South indian brahmins) who actually happen to be ancestral north indians.
  • See here:Vasundhara Das, Meenakshi Seshadri - Although, they are tamil speaking people, they are brahmins(who actually happen to be ancestral north indians - brahmin is an exclusive indo-aryan/priestly caste originating from the vedic aryans). Do they even look like tamils? Defifinitely not, and the first one clearly looks like a european. As i said, these people are indo-aryans in southern India(South indian brahmins) who happen to be ancestral north indians. This is where you need subject knowledge, as most Non-Indians fail to understand this. Therefore using the term "dravidian/tamilian" to refer to the whole of "south india or tamil nadu" is not even remotely accurate.' Not even all tamils in India are dravidian.
  • See here:Jim Ankan Deka - This person speaks assamese(an indo-aryan language), but seemingly looks mongoloid/sino-tibetan. Race in India has much to do with the caste system, and not the languages. There's no possiblity that non-indian guys would have any knowledge on this subject. I suppose i've sufficiently explained the reasons as to why i made the deletions. Hari7478 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Good job and Excellent explanation. I thought of doing this, but couldn't find time to analyse the sources. I will keep this page in my watchlist and monitor the content. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good breakdown guys. A consensus has just formed in this discussion that this article and its companion white people wikipage are to be devoted to the race-based social categories/constructs and not to "black skin" or "white skin", respectively. So the material is effectively offtopic, as is all discussion here of genetics, phenotype, etc. The latter is to be dealt with on the main human skin color article devoted to the topic. The color terminology for race wikipage handles the nomenclature. Soupforone (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As only an occasional visitor to this page, I don't think it's a good explanation at all. Absolute statements like "Every country in the world racially classifies the "the dravidian people of India(inc' telugu, tamil, malayali people)" as Asians or South Asians along with the rest of India" are simply not true. In much of the world (The US and Australia, to my knowledge) the term Asian is reserved for slanty eyed people such as Chinese and Vietnamese. It does NOT include Indian people. I see where people are going with the redefinition, but the article's lead needs to become an awful lot clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See U.S. race classification of Indians:Asian American includes "Indians" in the U.S. Other countries like Australia who reserve the term(Asian) for other people(Chinese, Vietnamese), classify the Indians as "South Asian", as mentioned before. Indians are never classified as blacks anywhere. Regarding the reason for the deletion, I hope i've explained everything adequately. I hope all of you looked into every single point that i had mentioned above. Hari7478 (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As an Australian of over 60 years, I can assure you that it would be very rare to hear an Indian described as "South Asian". Most Australians simply use the inaccurate term "Indian" to describe anyone from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. And you've just made another absolute claim - "Indians are never classified as blacks anywhere." You cannot possibly know that for certain. And yes, I DID look at every single point you made. Your absolute certainty in some of them actually weakens your case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"Indians are never classified as blacks anywhere." Little Black Sambo was an indian. It is far from uncommon for Indians to be described as black [6]. Paul B (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The American Census considers Indians as a part of Asians (see U.S Census Bereau page no.2). The explanation provided was for removing statements about dravidians which were synthesized using vague sources, not to include a statement saying that Indians are considered as asians in Australia. You are just bringing an unnecessary and irrelevant deviation to the discussion. --Anbu121 (talk me) 00:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
And that post completely missed the point of my post. I'm NOT American!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That was meant to counter your earlier statement that Indians are not considered as Asians in USA. Had an edit conflict. --Anbu121 (talk me) 00:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Before your post about removal we have reached part-consensus on the white people article that this article was about "black race". All edits I made, I made believing the articles were about skin color, and how people describe themselves according to it. It also included a lot of superfluous material. Your removals therefore are justified.
But, every material I have added to the article are not justified to remain. Andamanese people are described as "Negritos" and Khoisan people as "Capoid race" by the sources. The inclusion of Oceanians isn't supported by sources as none of them describes Oceanians as "black race". The sources don't state the Andamanese, or Khoisans would be "black people" or even "black race". Partial removal of human groups who you don't think are "black" and leaving others who you think are "black" is POV. The race template should be restored (which was by the way removed by me), and edits by me removed. There is an ongoing discussion on the 'white people' article whether to change the title of this racial article to a title that indicates that it's topic is black as a racial term. FonsScientiae (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Page direction

A consensus was recently concluded on the direction of this black people wikipage and its companion white people article. Please see here for the details. Soupforone (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been moved here Tobus2 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Hey, can hou swap 'Eastern Europe' to Central and Eastern Europe? European Midpoint is in Lithuania. If you want to include countries of Central Europe like Poland, you must add Central, otherwise it just gets loaded and nasty. For Central Europeans being relegated to Eastern Europe is something like being called nigger. --Charmingmyself (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Melanesia" Section

The "Melanesia" section lumps a range of social constructs for "black people" under one geographically-based heading that doesn't relate to the regions these social constructs are used. ie. "Black" has different society-specific meanings in Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia and none of these are in Melanesia.

Also there is a statement "Because of this, it has been deemed controversial to label them [non-Africans] black people" with no reference - where did it come from and who deemed it controversial? It certainly isn't controversial in those societies and "black" is commonly used as self-identification by both Aborigines and Polynesians.

I suggest creating separate "Australia" and "Polynesia" ("New Zealand"??) headings under "Oceania" with discussions of the current and historical social constructs for "black people" within those societies.

Tobus2 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


Several of the links in this offtopic section say nothing about Australia. They are instead about South Africa [7] and Obama [8], respectively. In any case, the recent rfc discussion on the direction of this page and its companion white people article overwhelmingly concluded that each article is to be devoted to the mainstream "black people" and "white people" social constructs, not to idiosyncratic views or skin-color based arguments. The notion of Austrian Aborigines as "black people" is not a mainstream concept but a fringe one based entirely on skin color, so it falls outside the purview of this article. As was additionally conceded in the rfc, the page will also by consequence focus a lot on North America because that is where the social construct is most pronounced. Please respect the community's consensus. Thanks, Soupforone (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The notion of Australian (not Austrian BTW) Aborigines as "black people" is a very mainstream concept in Australia... there is the "Black Deaths in Custody" report, a TV show called "Living Black", the indigenous activist slogan "White Australia has a Black History" and on and on. Many indigenous Australians self-identify as "black" and everybody knows that "blackfella" (Aboriginal pidgin for "black fellow") refers to an indigenous person. As pointed out by the legal definition, being "black" in Australia isn't "based entirely on skin color" as you claim. Skin colour is not mentioned at all.. it's a social construct based on ancestry, self-identification and acceptance by the indigenous community. This was recently highlighted in the media when an Aboriginal boxer had a go at another Aboriginal boxer for not being "black" enough and was widely panned as a rascist: ... quite clearly "black" in Australia is a social construct referring to Aboriginal people and skin colour has nothing to do with it. So unless the article is "Black people as a North American social construct", I think it would be remiss not to include a small section of what the term means in Australia as it is different to what it means elsewhere.

In regards to the "offtopic" links, they are all examples of mainstream Australian media showing the term "black" being used as a social construct, so they're about how Australian's use the term "black people" and what it means to them - the links in question show Australian's refering to "black Africans" as opposed to "white Africans" in South Africa, and Obama as a "black" president... both seem relevant to a section on what the social construct "black people" means in Australia.

I think the section is within the community consensus and should be reinstated - it outlines the mainstream "black people" social constructs as they exist in Australia with references as examples. It's also very short and in a sub-sub-section clearly labeled Australia, so the article will still "focus a lot on North America" as the primary social construct. The section will be informative to those who wish to learn about Australia's specific uses of the construct, but will not distract or confuse people who want to read about the mainstream North American construct. I don't believe the section is large or off-topic enough to warrant a separate article of its own, so a sub-section within this article is the best place for it. Tobus2 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Those links are offtopic and they don't mention Australians Aborigines. They are simply AFP and BBC articles on South Africans and Barack Obama, respectively, that were republished on Australian websites. Even if they had discussed indigenous Australians, it wouldn't make a difference because Australian Aborigines and Oceanians in general are outside the purview of this article. Australian Aborigines as "black" is not the same racial construct as the mainstream one discussed on this page. It is not a mainstream concept that Aboriginal Australians are "black people" in the same way that many Africans are. These are different concepts, using similar color terminology for race. Per the rfc consensus, this article is reserved for discussion of the mainstream "black people" social construct discussed at length in there. Soupforone (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments Soup, I get what you are saying but I still can't see why you have a problem with this. Perhaps we are interpreting the "consensus" differently:

The consensus is: 1) the white people and black people articles are set aside for discussion of the "white" and "black" social constructs, and 2) the human skin color article is set aside for discussion of the biology and range of human skin coloration.

From my reading of this the Australian-specific social construct for "black people" is allowed. In particular I note that the use of plural for "constructs", and that there is no mention of "mainstream", meaning that alternate constructs are included. The first sentence could be taken to mean that there is only one construct each for "white" and "black", but since the first paragraphs on both the the "White People" page ("The definition of 'white person' differs according to geographical and historical context.") and the "Black People" page ("Different societies apply different criteria regarding who is classified as 'black'") say the exact opposite, I don't think this is what the other participants intended when creating the consensus.

In an attempt to understand your concerns, I have gone back over the consensus discussion and re-read your comments in regards to indigenous Australians. I can see some misconceptions about the situation which may be why you don't feel comfortable with the section I submitted:

a) WP:WEIGHT states that articles should cite views in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. The idea that Australian Aborigines or Dravidians, among others, are "black people" is - though certainly in circulation as a meme in some quarters - definitely not prominent. This was made clear on the fringe noticeboard discussion.
b) While in some circles the term "black people" may include far-flung groups like Dravidians or Australian Aborigines, this is not the term's predominant usage
c) You quoting Paul B: (even though everyonme is part of an Afican diaspora; if you are going to argue that people who happen to be dark skinned in Australia or India are part of it, you may as well argue that Norwegians are part of it)

My thoughts:

a) according to WP:WEIGHT the viewpoint that "black people" refers to indigenous Australians should be proportionally represented in the article, not excluded entirely. A small subsection of approximately 1% of the total article content doesn't seem to be out of proportion.

a/b) Australian Aborigines and Dravidians don't group together in a social context. They live in completely different societies - social constructs that apply to one will not apply to the other. I don't know of any societies where "black people" refers to Dravidians as a social group.

b) Australian Aborigines are not "far-flung" to themselves nor to other Australians. Just because something is not prominent on a global level that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or should be ignored.

c) People who use "black people" to refer to indigenous Australians aren't using it to indicate any affinity with Africans - there's no afrocentric conspiracy going on down under. If it makes you feel more comfortable perhaps we can put a "doesn't mean they are African" sentence in the Australian subsection.

To summarise, I think the points you are trying to make are (please correct me if I'm wrong): a) that there is a global acceptance that "black people" refers to Africans and their descendants, and b) that "black people" doesn't automatically apply to any racial group that has dark skin

I agree with you in both respects. My points are: a) that you have incorrectly associated indigenous Australians (who are refered to as "black people" within their society) with Dravidians (who aren't), and b) that minority views deserve some level of representation in a global forum, especially when they apply to an entire nation.

I don't think any of our points are mutually exclusive. I see my point a) as being a parenthesis to your point a) - "there is a global acceptance that 'black people' refers to Africans and their descendants (except in Australia where it usually refers to Aborigines)". My suggestion for resolving the situation is that we work together to create an "Australian" subsection that is acceptable to both of us. I would expect it to be a small subsection which doesn't distract from the main thrust of the article.


In regards to the links about the non-Aboriginal construct, perhaps you can advise. I normally only contibute to scientific articles (BTW thanks for reformatting the Human Skin Colour - Genetics section, much better looking now than what I did originally), so I'm not sure of the standard way to provide a reference that "proves" a social construct. My idea was to reference a popular media source that uses the construct as this shows the construct is accepted within the society to some degree, hence links to Australian media outlets referring to Obama being a "black" president and the "black/white" split in South Africa. If there's a better way to do it please let me know - perhaps no reference is needed at all?


Sorry if this seems off-topic, but it was part of the edit you reverted: I don't see the point of the 2nd paragraph of the article - it seems to repeat concepts from either the 1st paragraph or the North America section - base phenotype, skin colour range, "socially-based race classification" etc. The only "new" thing is slavery, which seems out of place to me. I'm not sure what it's trying to say ("North America" maybe?), but perhaps it can be distilled to a sentence and incorporated into the 1st para so the article doesn't get too long winded before it even begins.

Tobus2 (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are BBC and AFP syndicated articles. They are just hosted/re-published on Australian websites, among others. Anyway, the notion of Australians, Dravidians, etc. as "black people" was one of the very reasons for the recent rfc. The conclusion of that extensive, community-wide discussion was that 1) that notion is not mainstream; 2) this page is to focus on the mainstream black people concept, which by default is largely characteristic of North American societies; 3) skin color is to be dealt with on the relevant human skin color page. In short, this means that "black people" is primarily synonymous with peoples who are believed to have so-called "Black African" ancestry, regardless of their actual skin color. This would not include Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, and many other dark-skinned peoples around the world. That was the community's consensus, so there's no point in rehashing the discussion. Editors had ample opportunity to participate in that discussion. It was linked to on this talk page, among several others, and they were urged to take part in it. Please also have a look at the WP:GOI guide on post-consensus etiquette. Soupforone (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for you comments, but you don't seem to have read anything I said. You've just come back with the same arguments that you did before even though I have provided independently verifiable evidence that they are wrong. Can you please take the time to read what I am saying and either agree with it or provide evidence that refutes it. If you just keep stating your opinion over and over again with nothing to back it up we'll just keep going round in circles.
To recap:
a) You keep saying that the consensus is that the article can only discuss the "mainstream" social constructs, but the consensus does not say that. What it says is that this article is for social constructs, and there is another one for skin colour. The pre-consensus discussion points out that there is a single predominate "black people" construct that will dominate the article, but there is nothing about other genuine constructs being excluded. If you can show me where the consensus excludes non-mainstream constructs please do, otherwise, please stop saying that it does.
b) You keep grouping Aboriginals and Dravidians together but they come from completely separate societies and have been genetically separate for some 50,000 years - longer than White Americans and Dravidians have been separate. Grouping them to advance your argument just because they both have dark skin is exremely disrespectful and, well, ultimately rascist. Please stop doing this.
Tobus2 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, the consensus of the discussion was exactly what's written above. I issued the rfc so I ought to know. The entire discussion was prompted by an account making similar arguments as your own. From the complaints that the lede is North America-centric, to the insistence that so-called Black Africans have a wide range of physical features, to the notion that Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, etc. are "black people" like many Africans, it's all been seen, discussed and resolved. Not only in the rfc, but in the protracted discussion above that led to it and an earlier fringe noticeboard discussion i.e. through various channels/processes. Multiple editors weighed in all of these conversations. Taken together, the community consensus went overwhelmingly against that user's arguments, a fact which he himself conceded in the rfc. He consequently personally removed from this page the offtopic Australian Aborigine/Dradividan, etc. material that he had added [9]. Like WP:GOI states, "after it has been determined, often through multiple processes, that a certain result will stand, it makes no sense to continue fighting." Regards -- Soupforone (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Please, I'd like to get this resolved and we're getting nowhwere, can you please provide evidence to support what you are saying, in particular:
a) Can you please quote the part of the consensus that is "exactly what's written above"
b) Can you please quote where I've posited "that Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, etc. are 'black people' like many Africans"
c) Can you please give examples of where FonsScientiae was making "similar arguments as [my] own?"
Tobus2 (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Aboriginal Australian material you added that begins "the term "black people" is commonly used in Australia to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" [10] is quite similar to the Aboriginal Australian material that the Fons username added that begins "the term "blacks" has often been applied to Indigenous Australians" [11]. In any event, consensus has been reached that that material is offtopic. The user himself conceded as much when he personally removed it at the conclusion of the rfc [12]. Please respect the community's decision. Thanks - Soupforone (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You neglected to give quotes for the other two issues (rephrased here to reflect your latest words on the subject):
a) Can you please quote the part of the consensus that says the material I've provided is offtopic (and/or the part that I'm not respecting)
b) Can you please quote the part of my section that implies Aboriginal Australians are like Africans?
c) Thank you very much for your reply. I can see why, based on these 2 short sentences, you might believe that I am repeating what the previous editor(*) was saying - you managed to find a sentence that was nearly identical to mine! There are three differences I will point out though, in the hope that you will understand that I'm saying something different to FonsScientae and reassess its conformity with the consensus on it's own merits:
1) Sources. The sentence you quoted doesn't supply any sources so it's impossible to tell whether it refers to a social construct or to skin colour. In constrast, my text has 3 references which I think show it clearly shows "black" being used to refer to Indigenous Australians as a social construct, not as a reference to skin colour.
2) Validity. The very next sentence after the one you quote says that the term "owes more to skin colour than ethnology, as it categorises Indigenous Australians among other black people in Asia and Africa". This is a completely false statement. My article says no such thing.
3) Relevence. The sentence you quote is part of 450+ word subsection describing Indigenous Australians and their history. It is within a much larger "Geographic Distribution" section that describes a range of other dark-skinned populations in the same way - physical, historical and geographic descriptions with no reference or relevance to social constructs. When removing this section, FonsScientae said "All edits I made, I made believing the articles were about skin color, and how people describe themselves according to it.". This is completely different to my article, which solely focuses on "black people" as a social construct in Australia, providing references and a legal definition that shows that skin colour is not a factor.
As you can see, I consider my contribution to be of a completely different order to what FonsScientae was doing. He thought the article was about skin colour and added large descriptions of various dark-skinned communites. I know the article is about social constructs and added a short description of the construct as used in Australia. He falsely assumed that "black" in Australia was a skin colour reference. I know that it's not and provide references and a definition to show it. While there may be a surface similarity in that we both state that "black people" refers to Indigenous Australians, that is where the similarity ends. The content, validity and relevance to the article are completely different. I would appreciate it if you would consider my article on its own merits, without any reference to previous sections/editors that you (rightly) had issues with. I am of course open to edits/suggestions if you feel my original text is unclear and would lead people to make the same mistake you did regarding its meaning.
(*) I should note that it's probably not actually FonsScientae's words - it looks like he's lifted the paragraph wholesale from the Indigenous Australians page ([13] is the version before my recent edit).
Tobus2 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The point is, Australian Aborigines as "black people" is not the same racial construct as the one discussed on this page. It is not a mainstream concept that Aboriginal Australians are part of the same "black people" racial group as are many Africans. This article is devoted to that very racial construct. Its white people companion wikipage is reserved for the "white people" racial group (both being social constructs). That was the consensus. That's why text and images of Australian Aborigines as "black people" are off-topic here. The same applies to material on Gypsies, Georgians or Chechens being labeled "black" in Russia.

Some quotes explaining the consensus, from the rfc:

  • Being "white" is not about skincolor, but about race (i.e. it is a socially constructed group of people perceived to belong to a "white" racial group in a specific place and time). This kind of racial thinking is particularly common in the US, which is why the article will necessarily become biased towards US definitions and views.
  • White people and black people are Primarily social constructs[...] White people details the development of the social construct, whose status depended on national origin, ineligibility for slavery, ancestry, and other criteria over time[...] Biological attributes rarely allow people to be re-classified across these lines: darker-skinned European descendants in the United States remain "white," while lighter-skinned Mexicans and Brazilians are often "not white," at least to many. Similarly, albino Africans are not reclassified as not "black" and South Asians are categorized with a single social status in the Americas regardless of their variety of skin colors.
  • anything about black/white skin color that does not come under racial context comes under biological context and hence should be left to the article Human skin color.

Hopefully the community's decision is clear now. Regards- Soupforone (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd better rewrite the lead then. As I read it, the first paragraph can easily include the usage of the word "black" to label Aboriginal people in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
@SoupForOne: Thank you for providing quotes to support your viewpoint, these quotes clearly show the consensus that this page is about social constructs of "black people" and not about skin colour, with which I respect completely and am 100% happy to comply with. After reading your quotes however, I still cannot see how any of them say this article is only for the discussion of a single social construct ("devoted to that very construct" as you word it this time). The first quote actually undermines this assertion by saying the article will necessarily become biased towards US definitions and views., clearly implying that there are non-US definitions and views that will be less represented in the article. If you can find a quote in consensus that actually states that only the US construct can be discussed then please post it. Otherwise, please stop saying that it does.
Also, I note that you are now saying "racial group" which makes me wonder if this is the root of the problem. Perhaps you believe that there exists a single "black" race and that this page is about it? If this is your reasoning behind the statements that the consensus excludes other definitions of "black people", can you please provide quotes from the consensus that show that all other editors who took part in the consensus were agreeing to this. It seems very far from the idea of "black" as a society-defined construct that I understand from my reading of the consensus discussion.
@HiLo48: The lede as I read it is in accordance with the consensus. Rather than change the lede to reflect one man's interpretation of the consensus, I suggest we change one man's interpretation of the consensus to reflect the lead.
Tobus2 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a global encyclopaedia. The article must clearly state the narrow perspective it is taking right from the start. That some don't realise it's narrow probably reflects their own perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I was confusing HiLo, I hope you realise that you're not the "one man" I'm talking about. From my point of view the article shouldn't take a narrow perspective and so the lede is accurate in that respect - it includes multiple definitions of "black people" and so should the article. I was referring to Soupforone's insistence that only the US definition is allowed to be discussed... are you saying that you agree and that the only concept of "black people" that should be discussed in the article is the US one? Tobus2 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it's obvious that the term "black people" is used with similar intent in many places. With the title we have, that's what the article should reflect. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article should reflect the phrase as generally understood by most people. All I'm talking about is adding a sentence or two down under an "Australia" section with a link to the main [Indigenous Australia] page. Tobus2 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus does not require that all participants share the same view. It just requires that most are in agreement i.e. a rough consensus. This is overwhelmingly what happened in the rfc discussion. My opening remarks there sought to determine whether the "white people" and "black people" sister pages are "intended for the discussion of the race-based "white" and "black" social categories/constructs, respectively, or whether they are soley meant to discuss skin color". The comments by other editors that followed agreed with the former. None of the participants subscribed to the Fons username's de facto skin color-based arguments. Maunus stated plainly that the subject is race, not skin color. Carwill responded that "I wholly agree with Maunus", to which I also agreed. Anbu121's comment there in support is self-explanatory, as is Shrikanthv's assertion that "it makes no sence to have blackness scale for skin tone to term a ethnicity as "Black people"". In short, the "black people" racial category in question is itself a social construct, and Australian Aborigines, like Dravidians, are not traditionally regarded as part of it. The other party himself admitted as much: "I strongly doubt that black Australians, Oceanians, or African blacks could be considered the same race in a racial classification". Hence, why, due to "consensus on White people:talk", he personally removed the text and images of Aboriginal Australians, Dravidians, etc. from this Category:Race (human classification) article at the conclusion of the rfc [14]. Soupforone (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying Soupforone, and I agree with everything you have said here: the article is about social constructs, not skin colour and "Black Australians" are not part of the "traditional" US/European construct of "black people". I hope you can see that neither this nor the consensus means that the article is solely devoted to a single construct or that the mention of non-traditional social constructs of "black people" is prohibited. It may be something you personally believe, but it does not reflect the community decision. In the Australian social context, Indigenous Australians (unlike Dravidians) are routinely referred to as "black people", a term indicating race/ancestry with no dependence on the actual skin colour of the individual(s) being referred to. In accordance with WP:WEIGHT, a small section on this Australian-specific usage is warranted in the article. Tobus2 (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing this page with the Color terminology for race page. The classification of Australian Aborigines and Dravidians as "black people" was understood by the posters in the rfc and the processes leading up to it as being non-mainstream and primarily based on the dark skin color of folks in Australia and India. Paul B thus wrote on the fringe noticeboard that "More recently some African-American writers have tried to construct a model of an "African diaspora", which includes any people deemed "black", in their view: which fact somehow makes them part of an African diaspora (even though everyonme is part of an Afican diaspora; if you are going to argue that people who happen to be dark skinned in Australia or India are part of it, you may as well argue that Norwegians are part of it)". In the end, the consensus was that this material is offtopic, so the other party personally removed it. Soupforone (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be going round in circles again. I've already shown, conclusively, with references, that the social context referring Indigenous Australians as "black people" in Australia is neither a reference to skin colour, nor has anything to do with India or Africa and as such should be proportionally represented in the article. You are supposed to be showing me where in the consensus it says that only the US social construct for "black people" can be discussed... does your silence on this front indicate that you accept that it does not say that? Tobus2 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The other party already argued unsuccessfully that the concept of Australian Aborigines as "black people" falls within the scope of this article. He cited both dark skin color and self-identification as determining factors (as does, incidentally, the webpage you cited [15]). He quoted dictionary definitions along the way to support his position, only to be told that "dictionaries are not suitable for defining complex topics like this". He was also explained that the topic was "not about skincolor, but about race", and that "this kind of racial thinking is particularly common in the US, which is why the article will necessarily become biased towards US definitions and views". These are comments one user made to which other posters were in agreement. That's the consensus and why the Australian Aborigine material is not any more on-topic here than is the Dravidian material. Anyway, I've contacted one of the posters that participated in both the rfc and some of the processes leading up to it, so he can clarify the matter. Soupforone (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I note you are moving your argument away from "the consensus says we can only discuss the mainstream social construct of 'black people'" and are now claiming that "Indigenous Australians as 'black people' is about skin colour and not a social construct". Before I respond to that, can you please confirm your agreement that the consensus allows for the discussion of more than one social construct. There's not much point discussing the validity of particular social construct if you're just going to revert to your "mainstream" argument if proven wrong. Tobus2 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I wrote in the OP that "the notion of Austrian Aborigines as "black people" is not a mainstream concept but a fringe one based entirely on skin color, so it falls outside the purview of this article". This was echoed by other editors in the rfc and the processes leading up to it, such as Paul B (quoted earlier). Bottom line, all categorizations based primarily on skin color are off-topic. This includes material on Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, etc. i.e. peoples of non-"Black African" ancestry who are in some instances labeled "black" because of their typically dark skin color. Anyway, the user seems to be away for the moment. So in the meantime I've contacted another one of the posters that participated in the rfc; he can also provide clarification on the matter. Soupforone (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I know you think "the notion of Austrian Aborigines as "black people" is not a mainstream concept but a fringe one based entirely on skin color", but you are wrong - it's a mainstream concept in Australia and it's not "entirely about skin colour". I'm happy to show you this if you're happy to accept that once I show you, you will allow a section on Ingidenous Australians in this article. Agreed? Tobus2 (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Some inputs and outcomes of previous discussions.
  • 1) we tried to acertain upto what color tone can a human be termed as "black" and there was no official answer for that and dropped down to moving this discussion to biological topic of human skin colour .
  • 2) we also found that the whole concept of black people is more popular in Americas than any other parts of the world. so it was decided not to put or name anymore indigineous people or humans from other parts of the world black as this would leed to misleading notion of terming all human beings with some melanin pigmentation as black (without any official or scientific definition).

according to me the term and concept of Black people is more related and attached to American history and culture, and the whole struggle and evolution of Black people in America is quiet different compared to rest of the world. so if you start mixing up the Black people concept of America to rest of the world, you are going to dilute the concept of black people and history being why they were named black people. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)06:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I will show your thoughts to some of the Australian Aboriginal teenagers at my high school tomorrow. I'll see what they think of your declaration that their self identification as black people is rudely diluting the far more important American view. You simply can't dismiss a group of people like that, even if they're not American. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
@Shrikanthv: That's why it should go in it's own section labeled "Australia", to make it clear that it's talking about a different construct to the US one. I agree with HiLo, the "fringe theory" argument is quite an insulting attitude and completely at odds with WP:Weight. We're talking about a concept held by an entire nation here, not just a few crackpots from Woolloomooloo. Tobus2 (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
What Shrikanthv has just described is the consensus. One doesn't have to like the outcome, but that is nonetheless the community's decision. Soupforone (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
What community? The one I wasn't part of until after that "consensus" was reached? Can you imagine how much I respect a wrong, US-centric decision from such a community? Consensus can change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
An rfc outcome represents the community's consensus on a given issue. Shrikanthv, who took part in that discussion, has just described what the community's decision was. Editors here had ample opportunity to participate in that consensus discussion. It was linked to prominently on this very page, among others. In fact, they were urged to take part in it. Consensus can indeed change, but it doesn't have to. It is also typically only years later that a given issue is revisited, not mere weeks. Soupforone (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
@HiLo:I share your indignation at the "US-centric" line that Soupforone is taking, and I don't think it's got much community supprt. I've read the "consensus" and can't see any community decision about banning non-US/mainstream interpretations of "black people" in general, nor any decision that "black people" as it is used in Australia is banned specifically.
If you want to read it for yourself, the consensus Soupforone is referring to is this discussion in August on the White People talk page on whether that page an this one are "intended for the discussion of the race-based 'white' and 'black' social categories/constructs" or "soley meant to discuss skin color.". Most of it is an argument between FonsScientae, who had added a lot of content on populations who have dark skin, and Soupforone, who felt the content wasn't suitable for the page. The result of the discussion was summed up by Soupforone himself as follows:
The consensus is: 1) the white people and black people articles are set aside for discussion of the "white" and "black" social constructs, and 2) the human skin color article is set aside for discussion of the biology and range of human skin coloration. (Soupforone (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC))
and agreed to by the other major party FonsScientae, who removed all the content he had added (which included some on Indigenous Australians):
Agreed, and emphasizing that white people and black people are for discussion for 'black' and 'white' as social concepts of race. (FonsScientiae (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC))
@Soupforone: I've asked you twice to show evidence that the consensus restricts discussion to a single mainstream social construct and you have failed to provide it. In order to reach a resolution on this issue you either have to stop saying it, or backup your claims with evidence. I'll be happy to discuss the relevance of Australian content in particular once we have agreement on what the consensus means. Alternatively we could refer the matter to dispute resolution. Tobus2 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
With respect, that is a strawman argument. The rfc was never between one or more social constructs. All editors that took part in that consensus discussion, including the Fons username, understood the issue of Australian Aborigines as "black people" to be primarily based on their dark skin color. Fons even quoted a dictionary definition asserting as much. And as Shrikanthv just explained, "it was decided not to put or name anymore indigineous people or humans from other parts of the world black as this would leed to misleading notion of terming all human beings with some melanin pigmentation as black (without any official or scientific definition)." That is why Fons himself personally removed the material on Australian Aborigines as "black people", which he had added in the first place. You can say that you disagree with the verdict, but you can't very well deny its existence. Anyway, I'm not going to bother again arguing the obvious. I've started another rfc below for the broader community to decide on. Soupforone (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Strawman? So you didn't say:
  • Per the rfc consensus, this article is reserved for discussion of the mainstream "black people" social construct discussed at length in there. (Soupforone (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC))
  • The conclusion of that extensive, community-wide discussion was that 1) that notion is not mainstream; 2) this page is to focus on the mainstream black people concept, which by default is largely characteristic of North American societies (Soupforone (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
  • The point is, Australian Aborigines as "black people" is not the same racial construct as the one discussed on this page. It is not a mainstream concept that Aboriginal Australians are part of the same "black people" racial group as are many Africans. This article is devoted to that very racial construct (Soupforone (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC))
That's at least 3 times you have repeated that the consensus limits the article to a single "mainstream" social construct. I've read the consensus discussion and I came to the opposite conclusion. If you can show me where it says it I'll change my mind (for as John Maynard Keynes allegedly said, "When I'm wrong I change my mind... what do you do?").
I'm not trying to be combatative here, I'm just trying to resolve the issue in a logical manner. I have identified the two main arguments you seem to be repeating ("article is devoted to a single construct" and "Australian version of 'black people' is invalid/insignificant"), either of which, if correct, would justify your revert. I am trying to come to a verifiable agreement with you on the first one. After a few exchanges on it, your last few posts have stopped saying it and I'm trying to see if you have abandoned it because you accept it's not true, or if the matter is still unresolved and will surface at a later point. Once we have agreement on that issue, we can move on to assess the specific context in regards to Indigenous Australians and come to agreement on its inclusion/exclusion in the page. So before we discuss the assumption (and its ramifications) that other editors "understood the issue of Australian Aborigines as 'black people' to be primarily based on their dark skin color" (which clearly falls under the "invalid/insignificant" argument), can you please either accept that multiple social constructs for "black people" are allowed on the page, or show me where the consensus says only the "mainstream" one can be discussed. Accepting that you were wrong on this point would not mean, in and of itself, that you accept a section on Indigenous Australians. It would mean that, in principal, if there were other valid social constructs beside the "mainstream" one they would be allowed. Tobus2 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion again, Please refrain yourself from attaching to things you have written (in wiki) or things you know it to be true (as both leads to misjudgment ) .

if you still beleive in naming some of Australian as black i think we may to go with RFC. and please do not think that merely not allowing Australians in black article is depriving of them of something, or making them insignificant, the mere idea is to remove the American or european idea of viewing the world. and trying to have a world view. you may also know that eventhough native Americans were red Indians they are no where realated to actual India, because some europeans mistoke there identity does not mean they are really realted to India and can never come under races related to India what importance or objective is achieved in classifying Native australians as "blacks" Shrikanthv (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The objective achieved in classifying Native australians as "blacks" is truth, and reality, and facing the facts,and honesty. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)