Talk:Black people/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

Edit request on 18 November 2012

Please change- The term black people is used in some socially-based systems of racial classification for humans of a dark-skinned phenotype, relative to other racial groups represented in a particular social context. Should be changed to, The term black people is used in a European socially-based systems of racial classification for humans of a dark-skinned phenotype, relative to other racial groups represented in a particular social context. Because the term black people is a European pejorative term, Afrakans never called any of their ethnic groups by a color. There is no way of legal or scientifically way of classifying "black". Afrakans are more "brown" then black. Black is a term that is European by origin. Black is not a Asian or Afrakan term in origin. It is pejorative like calling an Asian "Yellow". People from India or Malaysia are not yellow. The term "black" was never from an Afrakans point of view. It was dictated like the terms "Colored","Negro", and "Black Afrakans" Please change-Fathia Nkrumah was another Egyptian with ties to Black Africa. Change to Fathia Nkrumah was another Egyptian with ties to Africa. Because "Black Africa" is offensive we don't all bear the same skin tone. Black sounds evil or negative. Why cant it just be Afraka. What is "Yellow Asia", "Red America", or "White Europe". Khoi Khoi people are not black, Amharas are not black. This term black is a stereotype say that all Afrakans bear the same skin tone. Afrakans are the most diverse race on the planet. There is no race(Asian,European or Afrakans) on the planet that bears the same hue or skin tone.Kneteru (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Kneteru (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Begoon talk 01:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest relocation of some material from the lead

I don't want to stir things up here with a WP:BOLD change to the lead, so I'll suggest this here.

Suggestion: Move the content of the final paragraph of the lead which begins "But, particularly in the United States and Canada, ..." to the North America section, with rewording as necessary to make it fit there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I made a similar change [1] which was later reverted. You will find that nearly all the content of that 2nd paragraph is a duplication of the intro to the North American section anyway. Tobus2 (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The lead policy iterates that intros ought to briefly summarize the page's key aspects. That's why there's some repetition there. Soupforone (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph is a good introduction and contains just about all the points that the seconds paragraph does. Can you highlight any particular points in the second paragraph that you feel aren't represented in the first? Perhaps we can merge them to create a single paragraph without the unnecessary repetition. Tobus2 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph plus the last sentence of the second paragraph should cover it. Soupforone (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this and have gone ahead an done it. Note that I also changed it to "not necessarily" instead of just "not" which I think is a bit more accurate - my reasoning being that if I said "this morning some black people helped me start my car", I think most people would assume this indicated some degree of dark skin pigmentation (without it necessarily being the sole or decisive factor in me using the term), so it can refer to skin colour, but "not necessarily". I also added an "a" which I thought was missing. Feel free to remove "necessarily" if you think it changes the meaning too much. Tobus2 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: Page direction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this "black people" article #1) discuss Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, Gypsies, and other relatively dark-skinned populations around the world, or should it be #2) reserved for discussion of individuals with predominant Black African ancestry? Soupforone (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively, #3) discuss cases where "black people" is used by a society to refer to a group of people of related ancestry, but not discuss cases where is it used purely a description of skin colour. Specifically, in relation to recent discussions on this page, this would allow for a section on how Australians use the term in relation in Aboriginal people, but not allow for discussion of Dravidians. Tobus2 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Note: Option #3 added after some of the comments below

Logically it MUST include ALL peoples who self identify as black and who are known as black by others in their community, such as Australian Aboriginal people. I cannot comprehend any other rational approach. (I don't know enough about the other groups to comment on them.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Australian Aboriginal people do not all identify as "black" as you suggest. Even if they did, this article is not merely about self-identification, but instead about racial classification. In any event, we already know your opinion. Please allow other editors the opportunity to weigh in as per the process. Thanks, Soupforone (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Pretty sure we all know your opinion too, and we don't seem to be able to silence you. (Nor would I want to.) Oh, and I didn't say that they ALL identify as black. Misrepresentation is never helpful. Your arrogance and faulty discussion style do not help your case. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, you clearly did refer to Australian Aboriginal people. You didn't say some Australian Aboriginal people. Anyway, there's nothing offensive about the request to please allow other editors the opportunity to respond. This was the point of the rfc; to break the stalemate above by inviting other editors to voice their opinion. Soupforone (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Not all African-Americans identify as "black" either. In any case, this is hardly a valid criterion for judging whether a particular term is a social construct for race or a descriptive skin colour reference. If you spent a few minutes researching the subject for yourself you would see that in Australia "black people" is a social construct very commonly used to refer to people who identify as Indigenous Australians with no direct relationship to their skin colour. It is used across the entrie spectrum of the population and occurs often in public and government sponsored media. If you think there's a better way to determine whether something is a "social construct" or not, feel free to let me know. Tobus2 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
In your first post you indicated that being "black" in Australia is "a social construct based on ancestry, self-identification and acceptance by the indigenous community." Now you appear to be stating the opposite, that self-identification doesn't matter. In any event, African Americans are mainly of so-called "Black African" descent. Australian Aborigines, on the other hand, are not. The latter are sometimes labeled "black" because of their typically dark skin color. Lighter-skinned Australians with some Aboriginal ancestry are for this reason at times contrasted as White Aborigines [2]. Soupforone (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Self-identification does matter (it's enshrined in the law), it's the tiny fraction of non-self-identification that you mentioned that is irrelevent. Indigenous Australians, like Africans may have been originally labeled "black" as a description of their dark skin colour, but in both cases the present use of the term applies to a race-based social construct, not to skin colour. The only times that light-skinned Aboriginals are called "White Aboriginals" is when a racist fringe theorist is trying to stir up trouble. Andrew Bolt, the author of the article you are using as a reference is an extremely controversial figure and was actually sued over the article you reference - an article that was widely criticised as "a nasty, personal rant against fair-skinned part-Aboriginal people who identify as indigenous Australians"[3]. Your use of his "White Aboriginal" theory to prove your point is akin to me saying that African-Americans aren't "black people" because someone once called one of them an "Oreo". It's racist, it's fringe and it's got no place in an intelligent discussion. Tobus2 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfitting analogy. African Americans are of so-called "Black African" descent, whereas Australian Aborigines are not. The term "White Aborigines" also refers to lighter-skinned Australians with some Aboriginal ancestry. By contrast, an oreo is simply a person of "Black African" descent who identifies as "white" or with "white people", with no mixture required. I only brought up the "White Aborigines" vs. "Black Aborigines" dichotomy to highlight the fact that Australian Aborigines are sometimes designated as "black people" specifically because of their typically dark skin color. The summary of the Eatock v. Bolt case thus uses the neutral expression "fair-skinned Aboriginal", but the pigmentation dichotomy remains the same. That case also highlights an exhibition by one such "fair-skinned Aboriginal" woman, artist Bindi Cole (whose father is Aboriginal and late mother was English and Jewish), that was "intended to challenge stereotypical assumptions about race and identity and the stereotype that a person who is not dark-skinned and not from a remote community is not really Aboriginal." Cole also complains in the case that "she perceived the Articles as reinforcing the stereotype of the "black" Aboriginal" and that "she perceived Mr Bolt as saying that she was not legitimately Aboriginal because she was not dark-skinned enough". So the association in Australia between Aboriginal people and dark skin is clearly widespread, and is encapsulated in the term "black" [4]. This is evidenced by the noun "stereotype", which implies a widely held, fixed and oversimplified belief [5]. Soupforone (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
As usual, you've totally missed the point Soupforone. The point is that the existence of a racial epithet doesn't disprove a social construct, whether "White Aboriginal" and "Oreo" mean the same thing is irrelevent. As Bindi Cole points out, the idea that "fair-skinned Aboriginals" living in the city aren't really Aboriginal is not valid - being a "black Australian" doesn't mean you have to have dark skin. Tobus2 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not what Bindi Cole asserts. What she states is that the notion of a "Black Aboriginal" is itself a stereotype, and that she rejects that stereotype because it puts into question her "Aboriginality" since she is fair-skinned. This is why she is so offended by Bolt's material, as she "perceived the Articles as reinforcing the stereotype of the “black Aboriginal"". In fact, per the court, her whole art exhibition showing photographs of "people who have pale skin colour, but whose faces have been painted black" was "intended to challenge stereotypical assumptions about race and identity and the stereotype that a person who is not dark-skinned and not from a remote community is not really Aboriginal." In short, "Black Aboriginal"="Dark-skinned Aboriginal"="True Aboriginal". That's the skin-color based stereotype. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Huh? She's saying that skin colour has nothing to do with being Aboriginal - all her uses of the word "black" are about skin colour, not about race. She's clearly saying that she's an Aborigine and she's not dark-skinned so the idea that all Aborigines have dark skin is wrong. I can't see how you can arrive at that 2nd last sentence ("Dark-skinned Aboriginal"="True Aboriginal") from the preceding ones - she's clearly saying the exact opposite. Can you point out which bit makes you think she's saying that she's not a 'true' Aboriginal?
Unless you think the "skin-color based stereotype" is what I'm talking about when I say that Indigenous Australians are "black people"? I've already explained that Bolt's skin-colour-based point of view is a very small racist fringe theory in Australia. The general consensus is with Bindi - being Aboriginal (aka "black" in Australia) has nothing to do with your actual skin colour. Tobus2 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I never stated that Bindi Cole is not a true aboriginal. I said that she basically indicates that the stereotype in Australia is that Black Aboriginal=Dark-Skinned Aboriginal=True Aboriginal. The fact of the matter is, the "fair-skinned Aboriginal" artist Cole already put together her photographic exhibition protesting that "Black Aboriginal" stereotype. And she did this well before Bolt ever wrote his review mocking that same photographic exhibition in which black powder is said to cover "her distressingly white face". This is why she "perceived the Articles as reinforcing the stereotype of the "black" Aboriginal" and "perceived Mr Bolt as saying that she was not legitimately Aboriginal because she was not dark-skinned enough". The inherently skin color-based notion that Black Aboriginal=Dark-skinned Aboriginal=True Aboriginal thus already existed in Australia as a widely held, fixed and oversimplified belief (a stereotype). Bolt's articles just reinforced what was already there and what Cole, as a "fair-skinned Aboriginal", was already fighting against. Soupforone (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I see now what you are getting at. By that logic though, "black people" when referring to African Americans would also have to be about skin colour because there are people who say Obama isn't "black", that Halley Berry isn't "black" or that Tiger Woods isn't "black" based on their skin colour. In my opinion, a minority view that disagrees with the norm doesn't change the norm. Tobus2 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
People say Obama, Halle Berry and Tiger Woods are not strictly "black" because of their respective non-Black parent and ancestry, not because of their lighter skin color. Such individuals are technically referred to as multi-racial (unless one part of their ancestry tends to predominate). The minority view in the present situation is the skin color-based (not ancestry-based) idea that Australian Aborigines are "black people". This notion is mainly restricted to Australia. It's also rejected by some peoples with Aboriginal ancestry, as the Eatock v Bolt lawsuit shows. Soupforone (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Absolute rubbish. You don't understand the Australian situation at all. My thoughts are in the post below from 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC). How about you try to believe someone who lives and works with Australian Aboriginal people, rather than stories associated with a professional bigot? HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with HiLo, you clearly have little experience of the Australian culture. There is a wealth of information out there about "black people" in Australia, did you try googling "Black Australia" as well as "White Aboriginal"? I suggest you spend some time researching the whole situation before deciding your viewpoint - you wouldn't want your sole informant to be a rascist nutjob who was successfully sued and nearly lost his job because of his very unpopular views. Tobus2 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Eatock v Bolt is not a story by Bolt. It's a lawsuit that you brought up. It's also an Australian court and a witness with Aboriginal ancestry that made those assertions. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It was Bolt who made the assertion that you have to have black skin to be an Aborigine. Eatock, the court and the artist all made the opposite assertion - that skin colour is irrelevant. I can see how someone with no exposure to Australian culture might assume from this single example that Bolt's "stereotype" is the one that all Australians use when they call Indigenous Australians "black people", but it isn't. A quick read of other material on "Black Australia" would have shown you this:
  • The National Library of Australia's "White Australia has a Black History" page[6] is not talking about the history of dark-skinned people, it's talking about the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
  • The National Film and Sound Archives "BlackScreen" initiative[7] is not showing films by people with dark skin, it's showing films by people with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry
  • The Special Broadcasting Service's "Living Black" television progam[8] is not about 'people-with-dark-skin' issues, it's about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues
  • The Australian Literary Resources "BlackWords" section[9] doesn't showcase works by dark-skinned writers and storytellers, it showcases works by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander writers and storytellers
  • The "Black On Track" initiative [10] doesn't provide services to dark-skinned people, it provides services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
These are just 5 examples I found in 2 minutes of searching, I could list a hundred more if I had all day. They clearly show the "black person" stereotype in Australia includes all people of Aboriginal ancestry regardless of their skin colour. Yes there might be individual examples of people like Bolt who hold a different view, but these are the minority not the norm. Before making sweeping statements about stereotypes within a culture you have no first-hand experience of, you might want to take some time to get your facts straight first. Tobus2 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did say that it's Bindi Cole who asserts that in Australia there's a stereotype that a Black Aboriginal is a dark-skinned Aboriginal, and that a dark-skinned Aboriginal is a true Aboriginal. I'm just passing on what she said. The links above also don't address whether or not this stereotype is widespread there. Anyway, please see my comment below on option #3. Soupforone (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
And Soupforone, for as long as you seek out material connected with Andrew Bolt for information regarding Aboriginal Australians, you're getting a very distorted view. There is masses of material on the subject. Use Bolt if you must, but look wider too. Find some material that has nothing to do with Bolt. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't "seek out" material by Bolt, actually. Those quotes and assertions above are also not from him. They are the words of an Australian court and a "fair-skinned Aboriginal" woman, taken from the same high profile lawsuit that Tobus2 brought up. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Not all dravidians are dark-skinned and there exists absolutely no sources that call dravidians as black people. I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment about the other communities. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No sources? None?
  • J. W. Bond; Arnold Wright (1914). Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources. Asian Educational Services. p. 62. ISBN 978-81-206-1344-7.
  • André van Lysebeth (2002). Tantra: The Cult of Feminine. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 229. ISBN 978-81-208-1759-3.
  • Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (2003). The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-521-77111-5.
  • Runoko Rashidi; Ivan Van Sertima, Runoko Rashidi (1988). African Presence in Early Asia. Transaction Publishers. pp. 87. ISBN 978-0-88738-717-3. ("dravidian negroes")
  • T.R. Sesha Iyengar (1989). Dravidian India. Asian Educational Services. pp. 23. ISBN 978-81-206-0135-2.
possibly others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Still No. None of the sources explicitly calls dravidians as "Black people". I again repeat "Not all dravidians are dark-skinned" and 'dark-skinned' doesn't mean 'Black'. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not asserting that all dravidians are either dark-skinned or black. I am asserting that sources exist which, to use your words, "call dravidians as black people." I make no assertion regarding the correctness of so doing. Anthony G. Reddie (2010). Black Theology, Slavery and Contemporary Christianity: 200 Years and No Apology. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-7546-6727-8., for example, explicitly defines Dravidian as "Black Indian". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I've looked through those references and the instances of "black people" seem to be being used mainly as one-off groupings by skin colour rather than indicating a wide-spread or consistent social construct of Dravidians as a "black people". I can't see anything that would support the inclusion of Dravidians in the agreed scope of this article, but feel free to point out specific ones if you disagree. Due to the controversy on this issue I'm starting to think perhaps a "negative" section on Dravidians might be useful, explicitly stating that whlie some Dravidians may have dark skin, they are not considered a "black people" in any society... just an idea, but might stop future edits by people who think they are "missing" from the article? Tobus2 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if I've disruptively intruded on the discussion here; I tend to go into free-association mode after a too-long session with articles seen on my watchlist or in WP:huggle. Rather than belabor this tiny side issue, I'll let you folks get on with the larger discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The RFC is very poorly worded and needs to be rephrased so it doesn't refer to specific groups - each of the groups you mention exists in a different society and are subject to different social constructs/racial classifications, so it's possible that some groups should be included in the article while others shouldn't. For example, the way it's worded now you can't have Australians without also having Dravidians, but "black people" when used to refer to Australians has much more in common with the way it's used to refer to African-Amercians than it does when used (if it ever is) to refer to Dravidians. I want to say that Australians should be in and Dravidians out but the wording of the RFC doesn't allow for that. An apt analogy might be that you are trying to get agreement on 'apples' or 'oranges' by asking people to choose between red things or non-red things and providing no option that accounts for green apples. The way you've framed the RFC means we either have to say that Dravidians are "black people" (oranges are apples) or that Indigenous Australians aren't "black people" (green apples aren't apples) neither of which I agree with. Tobus2 (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The rfc is intended to ascertain the inclusion criteria for all populations. Dravidians and other typically dark-skinned, non-"Black African" peoples are mentioned in the opening question because in the recent past one editor argued that they too are "black people", due to their oftentimes dark skin color. Australian Aborigines are mentioned there for the same reason [11]. Soupforone (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. If Andrew Bolt is your source of information on Aboriginal Australians, it's no wonder you're talking nonsense. He is a right wing commentator paid by the Murdoch media to write and talk provocative garbage. A print and television version of a shock jock. The rednecks and bigots love him. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I clicked on that wikipage and did not see any of those labels you've attached to the fellow. And by Murdock I'll presume you mean Rupert Murdoch (whose parent company owns The Wall Street Journal, among other mainstream media outlets). In any event, most of what the writer references is drawn from an actual Australian law, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Soupforone (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Have you paid attention to the media scandals in the UK recently? Murdoch is hardly an innocent, impartial observer. Nor is Bolt. You seem to be in the habit of selectively finding material to support a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't "selectively find" anything, actually. I just Googled "White Aborigines", and that was one of the first links that appeared [12]. Soupforone (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
And that's no surprise, because it's a very rare term in Australia. Only bigots, and journalists pandering to that demographic tend to use it. By Googling it, you were being selective. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of what term is selected (I could have highlighted the Australian court's term "fair-skinned Aboriginal" too, you know), the stereotype of the "black" Aboriginal itself originates from the typically dark skin color of Australian Aborigines. Soupforone (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The stereotype of "black" African also originates from the typically dark skin colour of Niger-Congo speaking Africans. The stereotype of "black" American also originates from the typically dark skin colour of African slaves brough to America. You'd be hard-pressed to find any reference to "black people" that didn't reflect phenotype to some degree. In terms of this article though, the origin of the "black" reference is irrelevent. If the term is used a social construct to refer to a group of people then it should be included in the page. If the term is used to describe skin colour then it should not be included. In cases where it does both (say the "black" designation under Apartheid) then I'd say it should be included if the social aspect is significant. In respect to Indigenous Australians, you'll find even "fair-skinned Aboriginals" are still considered to be "black people" in the general sense so the skin colour issue is a red herring. Tobus2 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If the average African American and Togolese travel to a foreign country, they will both be regarded as part of the same "Black African" community. This will not be the situation for the average Australian Aborigine. This is because the very classification of Aboriginals as "black people" is mainly restricted to Australia and is inherently based on their typically dark skin color. It is not predicated on the fact that Australian Aborigines are primarily of "Black African" ancestry (which they aren't). The Eatock v Bolt case thus decries the "Black Aboriginal"="Dark-Skinned Aboriginal"="True Aboriginal" stereotype in Australia. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
... and the fact that Bolt lost that case would mean that he was wrong. Being Aboriginal has nothing to do with skin colour. Tobus2 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Bolt lost the case means that he was found guilty of writing articles that "conveyed offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people, by saying that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending to be Aboriginal so they could access benefits that are available to Aboriginal people". That's what Eatock actually charged him with. Soupforone (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel the inclusion criteria have already been decided by the previous consensus - "social constructs" are in, "skin colour" descriptions are out. All that needs to be done is for each different use of "black people" to be assessed as either a social construct or a skin colour based on the available evidence. Making the page limited to specific populations would be unnecessary and could prevent potential improvements to the page if the evidence is debunked/improved in the future (y'all thought "black people" in Australia was a reference to skin colour 3 months ago!). More importantly, and as I already explained, the RFC's wording doesn't allow for all possible outcomes so as it stands it's going to be impossible to get a consensus. Tobus2 (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The designation of Australian Aborigines as "black people" is itself inherently skin color-based. In any event, the page necessarily must be limited to certain populations since not all populations around the world are racially so-called "black people". An inclusion criteria is therefore required to guide and refer future editors to. WP:SCOPE indicates that "article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus[...] scope should have little to do with NPOV[...] NPOV is to do with how much of the article is given over to any given thing, scope is to do with whether it even can be mentioned or summarised or not." We disagreed with what the previous rfc's consensus was on that inclusion criteria. After much fruitless argumentation, you suggested dispute resolution. I thought that was a good idea, so here we are in a new rfc to finalize the page's scope. Soupforone (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me, but you could have at least framed the RFC is a way that I could agree with one of the two options provided. Tobus2 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I dont think there would be many editors here who would comment on all Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, Gypsies, etc. Someone please break the discussion in different groups for ease of understanding. I, for example, have no say on Australians and Gypsies. Please facilitate editors like me in understanding the right flow. Mixed discussions would lead to no conclusions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The rfc is a choice between a broad inclusion criteria based on skin color that includes all relatively dark-skinned world populations (option #1), or a more narrow but mainstream inclusion criteria that is limited to individuals with predominant Black African ancestry (option #2). Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, "black people" is not a designation of skin colour. In the United States, where most of the people who are daily using of being subjected to this English phrase live, most people do not possess a literally 'black' skin colour, but a wide range of skin tones and hues. Rather, "black people" is a social categorisation that takes place in many societies, across history, in different ways. Therefore, even if current Australians are not all, or even mostly, comfortable with the designation, we would still have to cite the historical circumstances in which this phrase came into, and then perhaps fell out of use in Australia. The point in this article is not to create some kind of racial phenotype chart, blathering on about head shapes and the like, but to sensibly discuss the social category, its formal and informal uses in a wide variety of societies. For example, in most of West, Central, Southern or East Africa, the phrase 'black people' is barely used at all in everyday parlance or even in the media - because in most of those societies, 'race' in the US sense is not a primary social issue. Yet, when people from those countries travel to places such as the UK, Canada, US or Brazil - where race remains a key question, they become subject to racialization processes which have already been established. They may or may not accept that, but it happens - in part because of a perceived physical commonality with West African descendants in the Americas who have already been categorized as black. So, the answer is not either broad or narrow, marginal or mainstream - but a rational and, if possible, non-racist summary of the various social constructs of blackness and race.Ackees (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Black people is indeed not a designation of skin color but of racial ancestry when its most common usage, as a reference to Black Africans, is taken into consideration. Thus, Jamaicans, Nigerians, Namibians and Ugandans are all "Black Africans" pretty much universally. This, however, is not the case with Australian Aborigines since they are not predominantly of Black African ancestry. The only place where Australian Aborigines are sometimes referred to as "black" with any consistency is in Australia. And this stereotype stems from their typically dark skin color, not from them actually being mainly of Black African descent. The same applies to Tamils, Gypsies, etc. Soupforone (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong! But I have hope. There's an old saying - "Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is permanent." I shall keep trying to point you in the direction of real knowledge. (You won't get it from Bolt.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Dharmadhyaksha is right. I count at least 3 people supporting the inclusion of Indigenous Australians, at least 4 people supporting the exclusion of Dravidians. According the the words of the RFC this looks like a 4:3 split, but consider that only 1 person is supporting the exclusion of both and no one supports the inclusion of both. If the RFC were worded to better reflect the views of the community it could be a 6:1 near-consensus. The RFC should be changed if we honestly intend to reach a consensus based on it. Tobus2 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure who the one person for the inclusion of Dravidians is there. But I, for one, am for the standard understanding of "black people", which is basically restricted to peoples of predominant Black African ancestry i.e., option #2 in the opening question. This would exclude both Dravidians and Australian Aborigines. Based on their remarks, Shrikanthv and Anbu21 seem to be for this option as well. I've contacted Dharmadhyaksha for clarification on his position. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Rather than "the standard understanding", that's obviously the US centric view. Not a great look for a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
One person for inclusion of Dravidians? You've misunderstood what I said, it's 0 people want to include Dravidians, and one person (guess who?) wants to exlude both. I've added to the original RFC to include a #3 option that I can agree with, I trust you will point this option out to people who you are trying to get a firm position from, as it wasn't there when they made their original comments.
For the record, I've counted Anbu, Dharmadhyaksha and Shrikanthv as "no-Dravidian" supporters: Anbu and Dharmadhyaksha state they can't comment on non-Dravidian societies, Shrikanthv's comments could be taken multiple ways and he doesn't mention Australia so I can't count him as "no-both" at this stage. I'm hoping that option #3 will clear things up. Tobus2 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how accurate are those tabulations. The first part of option #3 does, on the other hand, have potential: "discuss cases where "black people" is used by a society to refer to a group of people of related ancestry, but not discuss cases where is it used purely a description of skin colour." However, I think the phrase "purely a description of skin color" should be changed to "mainly a description of skin colour". It would also be preferable if "related ancestry" were changed to "closely related ancestry" - this way we at least have some idea of the required degree of relatedness. Soupforone (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well? Soupforone (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fine the way it is. Tobus2 (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The wording requires greater precision. It's too open-ended and ambiguous in its present format. In specific terms, "purely a description of skin colour" should be changed to "mainly a description of skin colour". While relatively dark skin color is the main impetus in the non-mainstream labeling of some populations as "black", other factors may in some instances also be at play (as with peoples from the Caucasus in Russia). Additionally, "related ancestry" should be changed to "closely related ancestry", so that there's at least some concrete guiding principle as to the requisite degree of intra-group relatedness. Soupforone (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I had you pegged as supporting #1... does your insistence on changing the wording of #3 mean that you support #3 now? Tobus2 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It has potential. However, the wording needs tightening as it's somewhat ambiguous in its current format. Soupforone (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Would you support the inclusion of Indigenous Australians if the wording was changed? Tobus2 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
That largely depends on the wording. Soupforone (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
If the wording were changed to "mainly a description of skin colour" and "closely related ancestry" as you suggested. Tobus2 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
That wording, and perhaps also a phrase specifying that the matter pertains to populations with predominant "black" ancestry. This seems necessary because it has been shown that many modern populations around the world, including groups in Europe and more so in the Middle East, have at least some degree of Black African ancestry. Many "black" populations in the Americas in turn have a degree of European ancestry. It would nonetheless be inappropriate to discuss the latter as "white people" on the white people page since that mixture in most instances does not constitute the majority of their ancestry. Soupforone (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
So is that a "yes" or a "no" to supporting a section on Indigenous Australians if the wording is changed as per your suggestions? Tobus2 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please present a preview of the wording below, then I can answer your question. Soupforone (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? You're the one who suggested the changes! From what you've said above it'd be: "This 'black people' page should discuss cases where "black people" is used by a society to refer to a group of people of closely related ancestry, but not discuss cases where is it used mainly as a description of skin colour. Specifically, in relation to recent discussions on this page, this would allow for a section on how Australians use the term in relation in Aboriginal people, but not allow for discussion of Dravidians." Tobus2 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The wording is missing the phrase just discussed; the phrase specifying that the scope pertains to populations with predominant "black" ancestry. Soupforone (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
So that's a "no" then? Tobus2 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be quicker if you finished the following sentence: "I would accept the inclusion of a section on Indigenous Australians in the the "Black People" wikipage if the wording of option #3 was changed to ...." Tobus2 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an observation. "Group of closely related people of predominant Sub-Saharan African [or Indigenous Australian] ancestry" would be an example of the aforementioned phrasing. Soupforone (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been very patient but have been unable to get a straight answer out of you for over a week now. If you are serious about supporting the inclusion of Indigenous Australians if the wording of option #3 is changed then please provide your suggested wording, in full, preceded by a phrase like "I would accept the inclusion of a section on Indigenous Australians in the the "Black People" wikipage if the wording of option #3 was changed to:". Tobus2 (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of the phrase amendment was to improve option #3's precision and to remove the evident ambiguity within it. You asked if I was prepared to sign on to that option if the wording were changed, but I of course couldn't do that without first actually seeing the exact wording you had in mind. When you did preview that wording, it didn't include some of the suggestions I had made. This is why the discussion has dragged on. Anyway, I've just italicized the proposed wording amendment for option #3. If that part of option #3 is adjusted accordingly, then it would seem a viable alternative to option #2. Soupforone (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Still no straight answer, and your italics don't even mention your "mainly" suggestion! No matter, I've considered your proposed fragments and have decided not to implement them. This is partly because they are your own personal opinions and aren't representative of the views given by other editors in the RFC discussion - nobody else has mentioned a requirement about degree of skin colour correlation or degree of related ancestry. On top of this there are a number of problems with your suggestions which I think would introduce more problems than they solve. For the record, and by that I mean I don't intend to enter any further discussion on the matter, the problems I see are as follows:
  • "mainly" instead of "purely": In Apartheid-era South African assignment to the "white/coloured/black" constructs was almost totally skin-colour based. The "black" designation in that social contruct could be considered "mainly a description of skin colour" but it is still considered valid content for this page. "Purely" is the better choice as it allows for social contructs that happen to be aligned with skin colour, but rejects descriptions of skin colour that have no social context.
  • "closely related": The main subject of the page, Africans, are not "closely related". African mtDNA lineages are vey old and some (eg L0/L1) even diverged prior to the Out Of Africa event and most diverged before the European/Asian split. This means that if you take a random Mende from Sierra Leone and a random Zulu from South Africa, it's possible that they are actually less related than any two non-Africans - George Washington, Chairman Mao and Mahatma Ghandi could be more closely related than any two "black Africans". The same applies to African-Americans, who are descended from a wide range of African populations, and when you add European admixture into the picture it's possible that such "black people" as Halle Berry, Tiger Woods and Barack Obama are all more related to George Washington (and hence Mao and Ghandi) than they are to Samuel L. Jackson even though the social construct groups them the other way. "Related" is better than "closely related" because it allows the relationship between the group members to be socially defined rather than requiring a degree of physically-verifiable affinity that isn't consistent with the construct.
  • "predominant Sub-Saharan African [or Indigenous Australian] ancestry": This has the same problem as "closely related" - the social constructs we are talking about are about perceived, not actual ancestry, so a requirement for "predominant ... ancestry" isn't going to work. Also, since the discussion has only been about Aboriginal or Dravidian people, it's not appropriate to limit the page to only 2 specific populations. Instead of prejudging other societies/people who haven't been discussed it would be better to only refer to those populations which have been discussed.
As I said above I don't think discussing the wording of option #3 will be productive - so thank you for your suggestions but the wording will stay as it is. I suggest we work towards summarising the community's views on the matter of including a section on Indigenous Australians on the page and I will propose such a summary at the bottom of the section. Tobus2 (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I did give a straight answer: If that part of option #3 is adjusted accordingly, then it would seem a viable alternative to option #2. This means that options #3 and #2 are both viable options to me if the proposed wording amendments to option #3 are made. You have now rejected those proposed phrasing changes, which you are entitled to do. However, that does nothing to resolve the inherent ambiguity in that option. Australian Aborigines and many South Asians, for one thing, are not exactly unrelated peoples. They "share many cultural, linguistic, physical and genetic features" [13]. Yet option #3 in its present, open-ended form would include one while excluding the other. Also, you have proposed what is in effect an entirely new option below, citing the previous rfc. That is not how the process works, though. Per WP:RFC, an rfc statement is placed by the originator at the top of the rfc (that would be me). "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." I have not closed the RfC, as no decision has been reached yet on the three available options. Whichever of those three options is selected is what shall be observed. Soupforone (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I see the issue here - you think that Dravidians and Australians are more related than Dravidians and other Eurasians. I can see how the title of the article ("Direct Genetic Link between Australia and India...") could lead the uninformed reader to jump to that conclusion, but if you read and understand the text it's saying the exact opposite of that. The 'genetic link' it's talking about are two mtDNA haplogroups found in a individuals from a "few isolated tribes in India" (not "many South Asians" like you put it) and Aboriginal Australians. I'm not sure how much you know about genetics, but mtDNA is a small fragment of the genome only passed from the mother. A shared mtDNA haplogroup between two individuals means that at some point in their ancestry they shared the same great-great-great-etc. grandmother. In the study they calculate time of the last common ancestor to be 55 thousand years ago. I'm not sure if you know your history of the human race, but 55,000 years ago was long before the European and Asian lineages split... all Eurasians are descendants of the "non-Aboriginal" people who remained in southern Asia after the Australians went south. This means that present-day Dravidians, Europeans and Asians all share a more recent common ancestor (and hence are more "closely related") than Australians and Dravidians do. The results of the study prove that people came to Australia via the coastal Indian route, not that Australians and Dravidians are close to each other genetically. So you don't need to worry, Australians and Dravidians aren't related and there's no ambiguity in that regard. In any case, the page discusses socials contexts not biology, it'd be perfectly acceptable to include one group and exclude another if one is subject to a social context and one isn't.
I should also point out that the quote you took from the article to back up your point was taken out of context - the authors were actually comparing modern Indians with ancient Indians, not Australians ("These groups (vis. 'such as the Baiga of central India and the Birhor of eastern India') are often called “relic populations” because they are believed to share many cultural, linguistic, physical and genetic features with the region’s ancient inhabitants.").
Tobus2 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
My final suggestion would be to stick to wiki guidlines and put only races if you can prove that the natives are being termed "black" by the local people through guidlines of WIKI pedia notablity and references guildines.

As for Australians are concerend please try to bring reliable sources suggesting they are termed "blacks" by local people (usually mainstream newspapers, works of some reputable authors etc) and not a references to personal websites. I guess it would be right to put this in black people list Shrikanthv (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Requests like that are silly, and again, US centric. Such requirements aren't placed on Americans and American claims. It's a "sky is blue" fact to Australians. I'm Australian. Believe me. I believe sensible Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a few:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

so black people are only black if they have African ancestors? I disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.192.152 (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Note: Originally posted in a new section and was removed due to blatant insults. I've restored it here in it's chronological location and paraphrased the insults in italics as it is relevant to the RFC discussion. Tobus2 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion here has pretty much wound up. It's obvious that there is significant support for the page to include a section on the Australian-sepecific usage of "black people" to refer to Indigenous Australians. I'll write up something and add it to the page in the next day or two. Tobus2 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording for option #3 is still unsettled. I don't believe Shrinkanthv and Anbu21 are even aware of its existence. Soupforone (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The wording for option #3 is now settled - it will remain the way it is. Both Shrikanthv and Anbu21 have already made their opinions clear. The intent of the community is obvious - everybody but the original poster has expressed a view that is consistent with the inclusion of Indigenous Australians and the exclusion of Dravidians. I suggest we resolve to support the previous consenus and add a clarification in regards to the Australians and Dravidians. Something like:
This RFC confirms the previous consensus that this "black people" article is set aside for discussion of "black" social constructs and not for discussion of the biology and range of human skin coloration. Accordingly, the article includes discussion of Indigenous Australians but does not include discussion of Dravidians
Tobus2 (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Both Shrinkanthv and Anbu21 have shared their opinions. However, neither has commented on your option #3, which was presented after they each last weighed in. It's safe to assume that they would be okay with the part of option #3 that rules out Dravidians, but not necessarily the open-ended first part. The choice is also between the options at the top of the rfc, not this new italicized phrase. See my comment above on appropriate protocol. Soupforone (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The original motivation behind this RFC was for the broader community to clarify whether a section on Australia is allowed in the article and the broad community view is clearly that it is allowed. Everybody either explicitly supports an Australian section (eg Shrikhanthv: "As for Australians .... I guess it would be right to put this in black people list") or implicitly supports one by refusing to rule it out (eg Anbu121: "I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment about the other communities"). I can understand if you want to wait for further confirmation before resolving the RFC, but even you would have to agree that regardless of the wording, any resolution is going to be along "Australians in, Dravidians out" lines. Tobus2 (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If we assume based on his responses that Shrikanthv would be okay with all of option #3, the most we can say for Anbu121 is that he opposes any option that would include Dravidians. This last point seems to be unanimous. However, neither editor appears to be aware of the multi-layered connections between Australian Aborigines and many South Asians. Had they, perhaps they would feel differently about excluding one and not the other. I've therefore contacted them for clarification on this final matter. If they nonetheless come out in favor of option #3, then that's the option that shall be observed, and I will remove the rfc tag accordingly. Soupforone (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, although I'd say they're not aware of any "multi-layered connections" because there aren't any. South Asians are much more like other Eurasians genetically than they are to Australians, and they aren't subject to the same social constructs as Australians are. We are talking about two completely separate populations in two completely separate societies and I don't know why they were ever grouped together for this RFC in the first place. Tobus2 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey

some popular belief of US and some European states cannot be enforced over the world, as discused in previous RFC's this should not be allowed, If this is being allowed we may have to catagories all of the black "toned" races including south americans, indonesians etc as blacks. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it, then, that you're for option #2 in the opening question (i.e. what most people think of when they contemplate "black people")? Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
As i have informed above the simple answer would be to stick to WIKI guidlines, and making sure it is not surpassing some ideas like WP:SYNTH , so if they want to add australians in Black its better the go through the criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Silly questionSurely the article is about this very subject, who is considered a black person, by whom, and why. There is no universally accepted definition of a black person, which is essentially why we have this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support #3: race is a social construct, so the only meaningful discussion can be of those groups historically or current referred to or perceived as black by reliable sources. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 11:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support

If below is the option 3 I would also support it This RFC confirms the previous consensus that this "black people" article is set aside for discussion of "black" social constructs and not for discussion of the biology and range of human skin coloration. And proof of solid sources of references have to be established for sourcing it as a social construct , this means also calling ethopians should not be called black people unless if the local ethopian society has this social construct of calling themselves black people. any fact other than a social construct should not be considered Shrikanthv (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. Option #3 it is, then, per the above. This rfc is now officially closed. Soupforone (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

Considering recent discussion here, and considering the carefully limited definition of the article topic stated in the lead paragraph, I'm wondering about the suitability of the article title. The Wikipedia policy on Article titles lists five characteristics of a good Wikipedia article title:

  • Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.
  • Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously identify the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise.
  • Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.
  • Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

It seems to me that the title Black people for this article content lacks four of these five characteristics. The title also leads to contradictions between articles (as between this article and the Brown people article, both of which probably ought to be tagged {{contradict other}}), and I note that Yellow people is currently a redirect to Mongoloid, Red people is a redirect to Redskin (slang).

Also, hundreds of other articles wikilink to this article and lots of other articles (Black race, Black (racial term), Black as a skin color identity, and Black (race) among them) redirect here -- I haven't surveyed the lot, but I did examine a small number of them. None of those which I examined were placing the wikilink in a context which suggested that they were referencing an article about what the lead paragraph of this article describes. That is certainly true of links from the Brown people and White people articles. The Barbados article uses it in a piped wikilink as |ethnic_groups=[[Black people|Afro-Bajan]] in the {{infobox country}}. The Leukemia article uses it in a sentence which reads, "Race is known to play a role, with some racial groups being more at risk than others. Hispanics, especially those under the age of 20, are at the highest risk for leukemia, while whites, Native Americans, Asians, and Alaska Natives are at higher risk than blacks." (citing [14], which uses black to refer to a grouping by genetics or by skin color, but certainly not to a grouping by a social group).

It seems to me that article content about Black as a metaphor for race would be more appropriate for this article title, with a {{for}} reference in that article to this article content under a different title.

Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be right Wt.. with such a broad scope used as the title it may not be wise to limit the article to a single concept. Many people with many different interests are going to come across the page and it makes sense to provide them with the information they want rather than force a particular viewpoint on them. This page is supposed to be a pair with "White People" but I'm starting to think that that's not really feasible. "White" skin has only existed for 10-20ky and there's effectively only one "white" race. "Black" skin has existed since modern humans began over 200kya and (depending on how you want to split them up) there are at least 6 "races" that could fit the "black" category based on skin colour, plus a host of society-specific meanings. That the issue is massively confused is shown by quotes like the Leukemia one identifying Native Americans, Asians and Alaskans(!) as separate races, but then grouping some 90% of modern human diversity under a single "blacks" label. Perhaps the content of this current page can be retitled to something US-specific ("Black People in American Society"?) and a new "Black People" page be created which briefly outlines the various meanings of the term and provides See Also links to the respective pages - a bit like a "portal" if you will. I feel that would improve Wikipedia by better catering for all the possible interests people have when searching for "black people". The other alternative would be to find all the links/references/redirects and change them go to a more relevant page than this one (Human Skin Colour, Negroid, African Americans etc. etc.). Having said that, the idea expressed in the lead that "black people" is not a concrete term and can refer to people of any skin colour if they satisfy other social criteria is an important one I think, so I'd prefer not to see "Black People" devolve into just a disambiguation page - I think a short overview of each different usage of the term is warranted and would be an informative and interesting article in itself. Tobus2 (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The current article content includes quite of a bit of material which fits an article direction of "Black as a metaphor for race." It looks to me as if a split of the current content is called for rather than a simple change of title. The split would be Black people (1) as a metaphor for race and (2) as a societal group. (1) and (2) might be presented as separate sections in a single article or, if that gets too long, as separate articles. If this article is split into two articles, the article ending up titled Black people ought to be compatible with the many wikilinks out there in a context suggesting a racial metaphor. Also, the WP:LEAD section of the Black people article ought to briefly describe both usages. Consensus here would be needed before starting work on that reorganization. I'm currently too busy with other things to get very involved in this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Color terminology for race article is already set aside for the first usage. This article is reserved for the "Black people" racial group. The wikipage's title thus reflects this WP:COMMONNAME. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There's also already pages set aside for "black race" (although that term redirects here) and also for "black Americans".
The problem is that "black people" is used in many different contexts than just the one you are referring to, as Wtmitchell pointed out rather conclusively. Given that many people are redirecting, linking and arriving at this page on the assumption it contains different content to what it does, I think it would be "better for Wikipedia" to either rename this current page to better reflect it's specific content, or to add the other possible meanings to this page... or to do both. Tobus2 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is reserved for the "black people" racial category specifically (which, generally speaking, considerably overlaps with the Negroid concept [15]). It is not set aside for other random contexts. Wtmitchell asserts that consensus is first required for any reorganization of the lede; a sensible remark since this is what policy indicates as well. The ongoing rfc above is intended to finalize that consensus. That's what ultimately will determine the page's scope/inclusion criteria. Soupforone (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

An important, but problematic article!

Clearly, this article has serious problems - which, left unchecked, will lower Wikipedia's credibility in the eyes of the general public.

For example, the primary everyday use of the English term 'black people' in the contemporary world, and historically, is in fact in the United States, where race has always been, and remains a prominent socio-political issue, followed by South Africa and then, probably the UK, France, Latin America and Brazil. Yet, North America and Brazil feature far down the list, after readers will have waded through sections on China, Israel and the Balkans! Thus, it makes sense to completely re-order the article to reflect relevant realities, both historic and current.

Then, the first section about 'Culture' appears somewhat ridiculous as it begins with a rambling treatise on North Africa that is internally incoherent - it talks about Swahili, for instance - which is a language of the East African coast, not North Africa. It claims that Arab slave-trading was sex-biased due to 'patriarchy', which appears to be pure O.R. More likely, (if at all) it was sex-biased due to a requirement for male labour and skills.

The 'Culture' heading itself is apparently pointless, there are no other analogous sub-headings (such as 'politics' or 'geography') - all the other headings are geo-political regional names.

To make the article chronologically coherent, I suggest that, after the lede, a new section describes the general subject in more detail, with a focus on the historic generalities, and even etymology of the term, as well as its synonyms in other languages. Obviously, a page such as this will always be the target of various neo-nazi maniacs - but that does not mean it has to succumb to their crazed desires.

With regard to the inclusion of sections on those Aboriginal peoples of Oceania and Asia who are, or have historically been, classified as 'black' I agree that sections on them need to be included, with references as to the changing usage of the term in English and other languages.

I created the lede with its emphasis on the cultural specifics of the term. I do not subscribe to pseudo-scientific theories asserting the biological existence of discrete races. Nevertheless, the term 'black people' and its cognates remains socially relevant. Ackees (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a section on "Race" would be warranted, with a brief discussion on the original assumption that "black" people were a single race and the gradual dispelling of this idea as science discovered more about genetics and anthropology? Tobus2 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
As it is, the article is race related. The genetics of skin coloration are dealt with on the human skin color article, and the anthropological aspects are handled on the Negroid page. The population scope of this article is to be decided in the rfc above. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What Does the 'Wikipedia Reader' Expect from this article?

We have to focus on the readership. What do people expect when they look up the phrase 'black people'. Is it a load of pseudo-scientific 'stuff' about Carlton Coon, Gobineau, Jansyck and Grettle blathering on about head shapes, I.Q. and other nonsense? Is it because they want to pleasure themselves by drooling over crime stats?

No, readers who want to learn 'black people' come to Wikipedia to find out about the social history, geographic distribution and culture of people who have historically been known as 'black'. No doubt theories of 'race' will be interesting to some, and for them, we can cater. But, fellow editors, it is completely unacceptable that, when school kids in the US and around the English speaking world (such as Nigeria, Jamaica, Canada) look up 'Black People' they are first confronted with pseudo-science. To allow that only brings the entire site into total disrepute.Ackees (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So, while keeping a reference to 'race', I created a new template specific to 'black people'.Ackees (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
So, who are the "people who have historically been known as 'black'." ? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How many blacks are alive on Earth?

I can't see this in the article. I assume blacks in Africa are unable to count their numbers but surely an estimate should be included? 68.228.240.147 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There are figures for world population by race in a blog posting at http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/9181-World-population-by-race. That is not a reliable source, of course. The figures there are asserted to have been sourced (or compiled?) from the The CIA World Factbook. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, using the term 'blacks' to refer to black people in the way that you have is considered offensive by some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction:

Article states that New Orleans has only had black mayors since the 1970s.

That information is incorrect. The current mayor (2013) is white. Mitch Landrieu was elected in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.205.111 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Africa Come First

Considering the largest number of black people are located in Africa AND it's alphabetically first, should the section about Africa not precede the section about black people in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.55.169 (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The term 'black people' is an English-language term to describe a social group. The phrase first came into widespread use in the Americas (the Caribbean and the US). Therefore, it makes sense that the use of the term in the U.S. is given prominence. The re-order put 'North Africa' as the first location, when in fact it should be South Africa - the next country where the term 'black people' is in fairly widespread use.

An alphabetical order is silly because the alphabet is an entirely arbitrary order - what sense is there in putting the marginal use of the term 'black people' in China ahead of the U.S. - which actually has a black president?Ackees (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Doubled paragraph

Hi there,

The paragraph "The Negritos were the earliest inhabitants of Southeast Asia. Negritos means “little black people”; it is what the Spanish called the short black people they saw in the Philippines.[107]" occurs twice under the "Asia" heading.

T 83.109.182.93 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have learned nothing from this article other than slavery

I have learned absolutely nothing from this article. This article is written from the view point of Americans (or the West, e.g. Europe, but mainly Americans). First I don't know what is black, who is a true black and how it is determined. E.g. How can you call a pure black African with no admixture "Black", yet at the same time call someone like "Obama" (or mixed people like him) "black" or even African Americans (who have a very high admixture) "black"? This does not make sense. I do not know who is black and how it is determined. It looks like any dick and harry is referred to as black when they are not. Also, this whole article devote most of its time talking about slavery. Are you telling me that's all black people got going for them (as slaves with no history, etc.)? Terrible. Absolutely terrible! I think this whole article should be brought down and started again.86.1.102.119 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem you are having is that you believe that "black people" is an objective term with a consistent definition. It isn't. It's a subjective term with a definition that varies from society to society and can mean different things at different times or to different groups within a given society. If you read the first two paragraphs of the article you will learn that the answer to your question "what is black, who is a true black and how it is determined", is essentially: "it depends who you talk to".
You should note that your comment comes across as very aggressive and borderline trolling which is probably why it was removed twice. If you have genuine suggestions for improving the page I suggest you use a more friendly tone, refer to specific sentences/sections/wording that you think can be improved and where appropriate, provide independently verifiable 3rd party sources that support your suggestions.
Tobus2 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Order Of Continents

I don't understand why the United States is first in the section beneath the description? Why not rank in order of alphabet? Black people aren't specific to the US and nor is the interest in this article. Nebuliser (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are the details of a previous discussion that lead to the reversal of my alphabetising by Ackees:

"Considering the largest number of black people are located in Africa AND it's alphabetically first, should the section about Africa not precede the section about black people in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.55.169 (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The term 'black people' is an English-language term to describe a social group. The phrase first came into widespread use in the Americas (the Caribbean and the US). Therefore, it makes sense that the use of the term in the U.S. is given prominence. The re-order put 'North Africa' as the first location, when in fact it should be South Africa - the next country where the term 'black people' is in fairly widespread use.

An alphabetical order is silly because the alphabet is an entirely arbitrary order - what sense is there in putting the marginal use of the term 'black people' in China ahead of the U.S. - which actually has a black president?Ackees (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)"

The discussion was closed without resolution or consensus.

My argument for alphabetisation is because the current order makes little sense. United States followed by South America? If we're to suppose the US first is because of 'widespread use of the term black', then how does that logic apply to South America, where English isn't widely spoke and the term 'black' rarely used? Then after South America it is Africa. Why Africa after South America? Why Europe after Africa?

If any body has any idea as to why the current order is superior to an alphabetised order, please let me know. Or alternatively we could order them based on the estimations of black people within each continent? Nebuliser (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a consensus reached here[16] that the page would be be about social constructs and not skin colour. The US was placed first since the US idea of "black people" has the most prominent usage in a global sense and thus should be given the most attention as per WP:Weight - most people searching for "black people" will be looking for the US section so it makes sense to have it first. As for 2nd and third, I think the order is pretty much correct in terms of what readers would be looking for - what "black" means in South America and then South Africa, the two most common usages of "black" outside the US in order of their global prominence. This leads to a workable grouping by continent, the order of which is fairly irrelevant after the first 3 since people looking for the less frequent usages will be using the table of contents to jump straight to it anyway. Tobus2 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was that the page would be about social constructs, but it was also that Europe generally has the same traditional concept of 'black people' as the US. Where is the evidence that the US idea of 'black people' has the most prominent usage in a global sense? I'm not saying the United States should not be first, only that I'm not convinced that the racial categorisation of black people in the United States is any more important, than, say, the European racial categorisation (which has historically been the same) and therefore warranting greater prominence on the page, especially considering African American is its own page, I'd just like some more reasons or evidence. In fact if you refer to White people, you can see they have ordered the locations by alphabet - favouring alphabetisation over what seems at the moment a presumption about audience.

As for option 2: what 'black people' means in South America isn't, in fact, the same as what 'black' means in the US. They have different racial categories and associated social constructs in places like Brazil as per [17]. I don't agree that South America should be 2nd.

As for option 3: South Africa has its own cultural ideas and terms for black people as well as numerous and notable black ethnic groups with their own associations. Why should it be 3rd?

Why would North Africa not be of greater relevance within the page? Why would Europe not be? Basically I'm not convinced there has been a consensus on the order, only what exactly the term 'black people' is referring to (the racial category prominent in the US and Europe). I'm also not satisfied that it's reasonable to order the first three locations by weight, then order the subsequent locations without any logical basis because you say it's 'irrelevant'. What do you think? Nebuliser (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that Tobus2 has the right idea – 'black people' is a social concept establishing racial difference in societies where 'race' is an important element in everyday social relations. Although this is true in many societies, in the English language sense of the term, the concept has most everyday prominence in more racialized societies such as the US, Brazil, Australia the UK and South Africa. In that sense, it is probably in some ways arbitrary which order. But, as the US is the largest English speaking country (black people is an English term) and is highly racialized and has a large population classified as black, then I think it deserves to be first on the list. First in this instance should not be taken to mean best, greatest, worst or least. It probably means 'most obvious'.Ackees (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I agree about what the page for 'black people' is focusing on. I can also see the logic in the US being first. But there's difficulty when trying to establish the order for the other locations. I'm also not convinced there's any greater value in ordering it by weight compared to ordering by alphabet, as per White people - which I feel is more neutral in its perspective. At least alphabetising the locations would apply the same ordering system to the entire page. Nebuliser (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking through this page, I can see at least 5 sections defining different social constructs for "black people": USA/Global, South America, South Africa, Australia and South East Asia. By and large, the other areas listed in the page - North Africa, China etc., assume one of these constructs (typically the US/global one) and report the history and/or population of "black people" as defined by that construct. In terms of ordering, it makes sense to put the definitions first, especially those that are used by or have a relevance to other sections in the page. Your previous alphabetical ordering put North Africa first which lead to the page saying that the definition of "black" varies depending on where/who you are (in the intro) and then immediately using "Black African", "black slave" and "black people" without defining what it means (in the North Africa section). If we are going to assume a usage of "black" in a section then we need to define that usage before we use it. Alphabetical ordering won't do this.
I note that the "white people" page doesn't have this problem as there is really only one construct they need to define and all of the alphabetical sections under "Census and social definitions in different regions" can assume "white" means essentially the same thing.
A possible solution might be to separate the definitions from the history/population reporting. The definitions could be done first sorted by 'obviousness' and the reporting done second alphabetically. This could be within the current structure or could be structured similarly to the white people page's 1. and 2. sections, but with the 1. section containing 5 (or more) society-specific usages. Tobus2 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The section on people in the UK should be changed?

Black population of UK is at least 3.3% of UK population. The source can be located on the Black British page. BBCjj11 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues

Regarding this edit[18], the proposed section is way out of character with the rest of the article and is more appropriate for other articles, such as Racism. It also only presents one very simplified aspect of an extremely large and complex issue. I have removed it, please don't add it back until there is a consensus on what, if any, aspects of this issue should be included. Tobus2 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Soupforone (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons category: How come missing?

Please add the {{Commons category|People with black skin}} to the article. 31.210.177.165 (talk)

Recent edits

Recent edits to the article broke apart related sentences that are sourced together and inserted between them unsourced material. They also added material elsewhere that lacked sources. This is inappropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the source for blaqueamiento so please do not revert again. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I also added sources for the other signifiers other than skin color so please do not revert without further discussion. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Your changes have a number of problems:
  • This page is primarily about social constructs, not physical attributes.. your edits are all highlighting stereotypical phenotypes that may or may not apply in different geographical and historical contexts
  • Your statements are generalised but all your sources are about Latin American perspectives, except the middle one one that undermines what you are saying ("we unconsciously think of physiological "whiteness" as something that permeates the whole body, inhering not merely in skin color, facial features, and hair texture...").
  • Your wikilinks are misapplied, see WP:EGG
  • As Malik pointed out, your additions split existing related and commonly sourced sentences and so are poorly placed
There has been contention from a number of users, and as per WP:BRD the article should stay in the pre-contentious state until consensus is reached. Your reinstating and insisting that nobody revert again is at odds with WP policy. I have reverted your changes, please get agreement here before reinstating.
Tobus (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay sorry-
  • I am not sure what the related and commonly sourced sentences were that were split-can you please identify them as I am unsure from either of your claims. I think you should just edit it then because issues of style do not trump sourced and referenced information and justify deleting it. I think that just requires you to edit what you see as poor style and not delete the content.
  • If it is about social constructs then why is dark skin mentioned at all? Blackness is not defined only by dark skin and never has been, otherwise there should be a section relating to the Dravidian populations in India who also have dark skin and their relation to blackness. I have provided sources for this issue I do not think it is required that I provided sources for every area of the world or otherwise every other source cited in the article should do the same. It is laughable that you are claiming blackness is only defined by dark skin. I am happy to provide 100+citations to the contrary in the article to keep you from reverting that section which I will now proceed to do.
  • I still do not understand why you are reverting the South America portion of the paragraph-it follows clearly from the North America section. What is your specific justification for deleting that sourced and referenced material which is exactly parallel to the North America section? Wikipedia is not just for those living in the United States and there have been active efforts to avoid the US-centric bias found throughout Wikipedia and it is unjustified for you to delete the information on South America while retaining the information for North America. What exactly is your justification? I am sure I do not need to reach consensus in order to include well-referenced and sourced material like that.

Regards, Andajara120000 ([[User

I just added a reference to a quote specifically noting the contrast between the US definitions of blackness and those in the Caribbean and South America. Wikipedia is not only for American readers, so kindly please discuss on the talk page why the US definition of blackness is the only one that should be referenced in the lead when there are 5x more people of African descent in South America and the Caribbean? Paul Christopher Johnson, Diaspora Conversions: Black Carib Religion (2007), books.google.com/books?isbn=0520940210, p. 219:"This is not the place for a history of United States race theory, though, broadly speaking, its idiosyncratic character is based on four factors: the breadth of the category of blackness...a monopolistic closure on the basis of skin color...whereas in Brazil and the Caribbean blackness is gauged not only by color but also by class, family history, hair texture, facial features" This US-centered bias has to stop, there are other black people in the world as well. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well said! I am a South African, and by our standards hardly any African-Americans would be regarded as "black". Wdford (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes they would all be regarded as coloured/mulatto like in South America and the Caribbean. Likewise in some other parts of Africa and Asia. And I think the South Africa section sets that forth adequately, the definition in that country. But the point is no one's definition of black is "right."I just want the article to be balanced between all the definitions and don't like how the lead assumes the US definition is universal or "right". I think the current status of the page is now okay because it doesn't give undue emphasis to any one perspective but just summarizes all of them and then allows each section on each region to speak for itself. I think that is the ideal solution. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_people/Archive_21&oldid=593811447"