Talk:Black people/Archive 23

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

"Institutionalized slavery"

Why is "a family history associated with institutionalized slavery" listed as a criterion for being "black" in the U.S.? This makes no sense, and is not sourced or cited. In fact, many of the sources in that Unites States sections are random opinion books, not reliable authorities about American racial/ethnic terminology. There is no requirement for someone to have "a family history associated with institutionalized slavery" to be considered "black" in the U.S. If this were so, native Africans and African immigrants would not be "black"; nor would Barack Obama be considered "black". This whole article needs a rewrite, as it seems to be a lot of improperly cited opinion, WP:OR, and irrelevant material. "Black", most anywhere in the world (with very few variations) including the U.S., simply means "negro" or "negroid" -- that is, of the race of indigenous sub-Saharan Africans, aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the association makes little sense to someone not steeped in the probably uniquely American Black/White confrontational culture. I'm an American who has lived outside of the U.S. for much of my life, including the past couple of decades and, though it makes little sense to me intellectually, I think that there is some validity to that in the U.S.
The label Black is equated to African American in the perceptions of most Americans whether they be black or white, and constant refreshing of cultural remembrance of slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries has a big impact on attitudes about the label Black -- at least that's the way I remember it and that's the way it seems from what I see on U.S. TV news I see here in the Philippines. The concept of "blackness" held by a Black British person, for example, probably isn't very close to that held by Al Sharpton and the many people in America who are influenced by Sharpton and Sharpton-alikes.
That said, I think that the article gets it about right when it says, "As a result, in the United States the term 'black people' is not an indicator of skin color or ethnic origin but is instead a socially based racial classification related to being African American, with a family history associated with institutionalized slavery." (citing this in support, which does not mention institutionalized slavery, but which does talk about "socially constructed beliefs or assumptions about people falling into that category"), and (at least as regards the U.S.) when it says, "in North America the term black people is not necessarily an indicator of skin color or ethnic origin but is instead a socially based racial classification related to being African American, with a family history associated with institutionalized slavery." in the lead section.
That is WP:OR, of course. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It's still completely untrue that only people with "a family history associated with institutionalized slavery" are considered black in the U.S. There are thousands of blacks in the U.S. who have no family history whatsoever of institutionalized slavery, Barack Obama (to the extent he is half-black) being a prime example. The article is full of such rambling nonsense, not only in the United States section, but in other sections as well. It has unfortunately been cobbled together by random editors over the years, and needs to get a complete overhaul. Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
That sounds about right. The "black" concept varies widely both between and within global societies, and it depends significantly on context. These various social constructs have also morphed over time. In many places around the world, the concept has no currency at all. Soupforone (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of pictures

I was wondering: why is it that this article contains so much more pictures of black people, than "Asian people" has pictures of Asians (0 to be precise) and "White people" has of white people? --87.211.43.32 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why? Probably because different articles are edited by different people, and accordingly may not be particularly consistent. The 'Asian people' article is something of a special case though, I suspect, in that the description 'Asian' is even less well-defined than 'White' or 'Black' are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The mass of pictures make the article look amateurish. On White people, it was agreed that because it is a self-identity with different definitions around the world, no images unless for historical reasons. Here, we get pictures of random individuals who are of the African diaspora, rather than what their country calls "Black people", which in some cases such terminology is not officially used. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I rescind the last statement. White people now has random images of people of fair complexion around the world to illustrate the definition. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Light skin is on lighter human pigmentation. This page is on the concept worldwide, which varies widely both between and within global societies and depends significantly on context. These various social constructs have also morphed over time. In many areas around the world, such as Indonesia and West Africa, the concept has no currency at all. Soupforone (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Black people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculously huge section on the USA as per usual, despite its short history. 188.220.36.29 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Arabslavetrade.com

Inayity recently reinstated the Arabslavetrade.com source that was removed by Rupert loup. When I reverted Inayity, pointing as Rupert had done to this discussion at the RS noticeboard, Inayity reverted me, asking "What does that have to do with this article?". From my reading of the RS discussion, consensus was that the source is not reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem and I am might revert myself for other reasons. is Rupert Loup is an agenda editor with specific issues with Alik Shahadah. I have been cleaning up a mess he created. From MY READING, the consensus was nothing more than opinions, not arguments. It is not about WP:VOTING from that discussion not one single counter is made only "I do not like it". John of NYC like Rupert are specifically disagreeable with that site , Rupert being the most disagreeable. --Inayity (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The problem is that I don't see much support for your position there either. In fact, Townlake also disagreed that it was a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Not much support, is a problem I think Black editors have on Wikipedia hence why a lot of them have left. But I will leave that discussion. I believe to counter a position needs a counter. Did any of them give a good reason? Like I disagree with the ADL, and I do not think it is a RS can I go and delete it for the rationale they gave. It is partisan? Its an advocacy group? Of course not.--Inayity (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to go on. If the source is not RS for factual information like this Arabic text (hence why I reverted myself). It does not mean it is not RS for other stuff, like an EL, or an opinion, or something else. This is why RS is being abused, b/c ppl forget you must counter why it is not RS. Like why you do not use David Duke on an article about Judaism. But I am having an off topic day.--Inayity (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested to hear how you know whether editors are black or not, and how you know black editors have been leaving! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
the exact sameway you know if someone is Pro-Israel, or Pro-Guns. Not that hard. And [1] and if you want to discuss this with me on my page, trust me, I can show you. --Inayity (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The idea that you can just tell someone's race from their editing is alien to me. Anyway, from a quick browse through the site, it has a clear POV, which is pretty clear from the statement on the page about gay rights that "They have completely used every tool possible to defend and expand their homosexual ideology". Why anyone would want to use this source rather than a reliable, scholarly one, I don't know. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hold up a second, are we discussing Arab Slave trade? Because I just did a page search and I did not find any remarks about Homosexuality. I am sorry but everyone on this planet has a POV. The problem is White people are defaulted as NPOV and everyone else defaulted as "Unreliable" . So because something is not in agreement with you and others from your political pro-gay background means we do not include them. Correct? Well Molefi Asante is a "scholar" and made the statement similar to that in an "academic" journal. Wikipedia has to serve BALANCE, "reliability" is a tool used to keep things White male and Western. Hence my original complaint. --Inayity (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
They're on another page on the website, but that kind of obvious political POV makes me question whether the source should be used at all. At the very least, its POV should be attributed. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
no one is so wise and mighty to know everything. Look at this This never concerned anyone yet all the rules got broken out for one minority website NPOV, Who is Allen again? He is not biased? --Inayity (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
When you say Scholars who are not biased (free from POV) you mean like this guy Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Lewis, you see you proving my point again of the double standards on Wikipedia. Everyone is biased, justice is served by inclusion. --Inayity (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Double standards? When and where have I ever supported using Alan Dershowitz or Bernard Lewis as NPOV, reliable sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about you , I am talking about Wikipedia. and I am replying to this claim that something needs to be NPOV and not Bias. You said the Pan-African site was biased. Well who isnt biased?--Inayity (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I said it had a POV. The point about scholarly publications is that they are subject to quality control via peer review. As far as I can tell, Arabslavetrade.com doesn't have any real editorial policy, so it is essentially self-published. We wouldn't consider the self-published views of a scholar to have the same credence as their peer-reviewed output, so I don't see why it should be different here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Inayity How am I an agenda editor, in which basis? I'm who added this and this because Toyin Falola, Kwame Essien and Maulana Karenga, unlike Shahadah, they are acknowledged and notable academic scholars. You are who is in a campaing to have Shahadah across Wikipedia, against the consensus simply because your WP:POV and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, WP:FALSEBALANCE "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.". His pages fail WP:SOURCE and he fails WP:NOTE. I'm just following the consensus please stop the personal attacks and misrepresent me. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
So unless you teach at a University and have a PhD you are not worthy of opinions? Now take a look at what you deleted and on top of that you said it was Self Published. AHS published Karenga and Asante, Scholarship? Stop throwing policy around I am still waiting for you to deal with the content you are deleting. NOTABLE OPINIONS are welcomed even if you do not have a PhD. --Inayity (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Now someone on a mission is clearing out everything. Even WP:EL arabslavetrade.com is highly ranked on Google (just one argument) why was it deleted as a EL? What is the EL criteria? But if you interest was quality of Wikipedia you would have left it as an EL as a resouces on the topic considering the paucity of EL on the subject, certainly none are more complete. So I question your interest in all of these topics, as you have no contribution on the talk page and just searched and deleted. Moreover you have never addressed the problem with specific text you are deleting.--Inayity (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:EL states that a link must be meritable, which this link is not, and try to avoid "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources," and avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting," "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." which this page do, trying to sell the Shadahada documentaries, "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites." Also WP:ADV, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah. And even so verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, still it needs consensus WP:ONUS. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving the page

I suggest that we move the page Black people to African-American people, just to be a little less racist. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman2297 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not about African Americans. That article is African American. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You gotta love that no one would be complaining if this had been called "white people" but suddenly when it's called "black people" you're racist and it is supposed to be called "African American" even if the article isn't about americans! No one would be saying in the description of the white people article we gotta rename it "European American" or something like that. --174.102.9.42 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of images in the article

I disagree with the recent mass restoration of images. Most of these images do not seem relevant and/or helpful to the subject of this article. One or two images per section would be fine, or even a gallery. epic genius (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I reformatted and restored the files per the manual of style. It's unclear which policy if any there removal was based on. The manual of style specifies that the images should preferably be interspersed in the text, be relevant and should not overrun sections. The formatting now does that. Also, the slave route map is larger because it is one of the exceptional files containing important details per the policy. Soupforone (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether the images overrun sections depends on the reader's screen size and settings. For me, some of them do, for example the Nigerians are most of the way into North America, Obama is halfway into South America, and Tyson is entirely in South America. I'm going to remove Tyson, who is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Screen size and setting differences affect all files and fonts, and in any event are a non-issue with left formatting. The problem is if a file is irrelevant, controversial or otherwise contravenes the actual manual of style. Soupforone (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015

Remove content that belogs to the African diaspora article, and add link to that article.

or merge both.

187.250.49.223 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eteethan(talk) 12:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2016

The article requires validation in light of current science. There is sufficient discussion concerning race, that distills old knowledge giving the reader fair representation of knowledge and facilitate critical analysis - skill demanded in higher education and among employers. The recommended text to be added is not included, the request helps to form a basis for the addition. This may be better than creating a new page. http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/05/race-in-a-genetic-world-html http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm http://www.jstor.org/stable/20058572?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2815&context=facpubs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlack_people&preload=Template%3ASubmit+an+edit+request%2Fpreload&action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template%3AEdit+semi-protected%2Feditintro&preloadtitle=Semi-protected+edit+request+on+26+January+2016&preloadparams%5B%5D=edit+semi-protected&preloadparams%5B%5D=Black+people# KimJH (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) KimJH (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No specific edit requested. Discuss away. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Image of the black immigrant child in Israel

The debate began with a edit war between Malik Shabazz and me, i will try to explain as was i added to "An African Hebrew Israelite of Jerusalem child in Dimona" with a "An African Hebrew Israelite of Jerusalem (descendents of African American inmigrants) child in Dimona".

that began the editwar he answered me "That's why there's a Wikilink -- for interested readers to click and learn more about the subject."

and say "that long term lends itself to a lot of confusion, with this clarifies to the people that really is not "Hebrew" or "Israelite" or of Jerusalem, but a descendent of a recent inmigrant".

he say me "that's why there's a Wikilink -- besides, it's the caption of an image"

and i say, "you see cuz i see, a black person with a kind of old hebrew clothe, and below say that is a hebrew israelite of jerusalem, at first i think like all seeing this that is probably the earliest hebrew in israel, 3 months later i passed by this page again i surprised althoug i knew before but i get confused, that is ajust a descendent of a fanatic afro american people with a very possible a invented story, to believe some that they possibly not linked, and emigrated to israel, you see?, in mid 20th century. that of course like me cuz i am normal person like you in this world, and the average happened the same, i mean you sell a story on wikipedia and possibly other websites, and some believe your story, is the true, i not far of the subject. i say the the consequences with not make a true description of this image, like many other images that has the correct description in other articles, as this, images that need a small description."

please we need more people that debate but that not just that they are from a one side or just one etcnic (with the normal respect), cuz we need people that get a consensus, not just a "fight" of a 20 people agaisnt me just cuz i delete some that feel more great over others although that be false--Vvven (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand a word of what you wrote. I undid your addition to the caption because it's nonsensical, it's overkill, and it's a caption. Anybody who wants to know about the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem can click on the blue link to learn more about them. Or they could look at the text of the paragraph to the left of the image, which says the Israelites are descendants of African Americans who emigrated to Israel in the 20th century. Writing that in the caption is unnecessary. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

ok, so i difficult to say you something, because i talking in English or at least in Simple English, i not talk perfectly, but you can understand much more than a word, yu answered me so you understand. But well, i dont need a traductor, you are understand me. With the subject, at least at the caption you also could put a " before and after of the phrase, cuz, is like, my family or i, nicknamed my self "first true egyptians", im white, a and i become famous, so in the wikipedia the link that link me could put its captions that im one of the first true egyptians, do you could or great part of the population could let that captions, or at least put in change i dont know, other that i suggested, for me that have sense, and thats not overkill, dont you see for example the caption of the same page saying "Ati woman, Philippines – the Negritos are an indigenous people of Southeast Asia." are not only linked negritos, there it explained what are negritos, is just the first i found--Vvven (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The use of "scare quotes" is not allowed per WP:SCAREQUOTES.
Please see MOS:CAPTION, which says (in part):
Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text.
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does Sub-Saharan Africans redirect here?

I was looking for an article about the various ethnic groups and cultures found in Sub-Saharan Africa, instead I'm directed to this article on a racial classification. Many of the groups covered here, like Indigenous Australians or Negritos, aren't even from Africa in the first place. Philip72 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Who (or what link) directed you here? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. It does seems like Sub-Saharan Africans should redirect to Sub-Saharan Africa, doesn't it? Part of the problem is that the redirect was to Black people#Sub-Saharan Africa, a section that no longer exists, so you were taken to the top of this article instead of a more appropriate section. I have changed the redirect. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs more material

This article feels very incomplete - there's almost a palpable desire in its flow to gloss over Africans. So it's got "North Africa" and "South Africa", but the vast majority of Black people in Africa live in the bit of the continent between those two extremes. I seem to recall that there was a more comprehensive article here addressing just that, but it seems to have been replaced by this one. That's not a bad thing, but this should then be filled out to ensure that if it is addressing "Black People" in Africa using geographical zones, the centre, west and east of the continent must not be left out. Art any rate, a more comprehensive article on African people clearly is needed. 114.134.3.143 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem odd. I would expect there to be a main article somewere. We do have Black Africa but that redirects to Sub-Saharan Africa which isn't quite right. It may not make sense to lump together all sub-Saharan black Africans together in a single article, since it's a fairly diverse group. But if there is no main article there should be a lot more info here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason why most of the regions in Africa are left out is because, most of Africa do not recognize or use race classifications. Only South and North Africa has a substantial classification based on race. Race is a social construct, with a definition that significantly varies across regions in the world, therefore you can't slap terms on other societies based on the definition of another society.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

If reviewed and submitted, I believe this edit will be around the article area of europe and balkans.

Afro-Bulgarians

Afro-Bulgarian Track Runner Karin Okolie Representing Bulgaria at the Olympic Trials

During the mid-period of the First Bulgarian Empire, the economy had flourished greatly under Tsar Simeon the Great becoming if not the most powerful economy in all of Europe and the world. Due to this golden era, many migrants, including many from continental Africa settled in what was then, Medieval Bulgaria. King Simeon along with many other notable Bulgarian Tsars specifically selected Africans as servants and mercenaries. Through strict laws written by past Kings, all people including Africans were to be treated equally or be severely punished. Through this, Bulgaria was one of few European nations to never impose slavery upon their African population, but instead live in harmony with them. In result, a majority of the settled Africans were treated with great respect by high nobility, often given gifts and high ranks due to their great cooperation and accomplishments. This trend continued greatly on through to the Second Bulgarian Empire until the mid-1800 period when Bulgaria began their conquest and defeat of the Ottoman Empire. In present day Bulgaria, mixed populations and communities of Afro-Bulgars are quite common especially in the popular Bulgarian cities of Sofia, Varna, Burgas and Plovdiv. 141.215.74.37 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Presuming you are proposing this be added as a section somewhere under the Europe heading, sources need to be provided to support all of these statements Cannolis (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

Hello, i recently dug in to some deep history of black people regarding the Bulgarian nation and have found some very interesting facts and descriptions. Hopefully this paragraph written up, can be reviewed and placed in this article somewhere before or after the Balkan section in the Eastern Europe area of the article. Thank you very much.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Afro-Bulgarians

Afro-Bulgarian Track Runner Karin Okolie Representing Bulgaria at the Olympic Trials

During the mid-period of the First Bulgarian Empire, the economy had flourished greatly under Tsar Simeon the Great becoming if not the most powerful economy in all of Europe and the world. Due to this golden era, many migrants, including many from continental Africa settled in what was then, Medieval Bulgaria. King Simeon along with many other notable Bulgarian Tsars specifically selected Africans as servants and mercenaries. Through strict laws written by past Kings, all people including Africans were to be treated equally or be severely punished. Through this, Bulgaria was one of few European nations to never impose slavery upon their African population, but instead live in harmony with them. In result, a majority of the settled Africans were treated with great respect by high nobility, often given gifts and high ranks due to their great cooperation and accomplishments. This trend continued greatly on through to the Second Bulgarian Empire until the mid-1800 period when Bulgaria began their conquest and defeat of the Ottoman Empire. In present day Bulgaria, mixed populations and communities of Afro-Bulgars are quite common especially in the popular Bulgarian cities of Sofia, Varna, Burgas and Plovdiv.

141.215.74.127 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Layout of article Suggestion

I have just added a layout tag to this article. The lead is currently completely unreferenced and does not draw on the body text. There should be an over-arching 'history', 'etymology' or similar section at the start of the article before it drills down into country and regional information with no pre-amble, then the lead could drawon that information and potentially key facts from specific regions that are referenced below. Please comment and update. Mountaincirque 10:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The lede already summarizes the body, as the social constructs necessarily vary per global region. However, a preambular etymology does seem apt, so I've appended the extant one from here. Soupforone (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I tagged the section as off-topic. I don't think anybody who reads this article cares about the etymology of the word "black". They may be interested in the history of the use of the word "black" as it has been applied to people, but what you copied and pasted is useless with respect to the subject of this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is what an etymology actually is (i.e., the origin of a word). Anyway, point taken. I've fixed it, noting that the earliest ancestral usage in English dates to at least the 16th century. However, in other global areas, the social constructs usually have much older roots, often dating to the antique period. They also evolved in very different situational contexts and languages, so they are dealt with in their respective regions. Soupforone (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"Etymology"

@Soupforone: I reverted this addition of yours; it really doesn't make much sense. I think you're misunderstanding what an etymology is. For instance, the statement "etymological roots of the term black vary globally" is meaningless (etymological roots cannot vary, they are fixed). The statement "equivalents of "black" in other languages usually have much older roots, often dating to the antique period" also doesn't make sense – the etymological roots of English words are exactly as old as in any other language, and "antique period" is not an academic term. Finally, the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't published until the 19th century, and the source you've provided doesn't actually support the statements you've made. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem not to have looked at the page history or the preceding section, I'll just copy/paste my comment from yesterday here:
I tagged the section as off-topic. I don't think anybody who reads this article cares about the etymology of the word "black". They may be interested in the history of the use of the word "black" as it has been applied to people, but what you copied and pasted is useless with respect to the subject of this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Malik asked for the etymology to be focused on the use of the word "black" as it has been applied to people rather than on the actual color; so I adjusted it accordingly. The wiki phrase indicated that the OED of 1595 first used the term in the context of intimate unions producing biracial children, but it's apparently a 1595 novel (which the OED wrote on) that first used the term in this sense. The rest of the phrase on the three "species" was, however, correct [2]. As regards what is meant by the etymological roots of the term "black" vary globally, this means that equivalents of the term outside of the Anglosphere necessarily vary because the actual languages are different as are the local social constructs. For example, the Romance equivalent "negro" has older roots than "black" does in English (in an ancestral connotation). This is because ancient Greek and Roman exploration itself is older, and so the Romance languages evolved such terms early on, which reflect this greater period of contact with other, non-European populations. Soupforone (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to talk about the history of the word "black" as applied to people. However, I think you've misread that source. It talks about the etymology of the word mulatto, not the word black. Also, all societies have members whose skin is darker than others, so I would be very surprised if the Germanic languages only began applying colour terms to skin when they came into contact with Africans. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The various social constructs are dealt with in each global region. I'm aware that the link is on the first use of mulatto. However, it is on the earliest such usage in relation to black and white; hence, the three separate "species". Every society indeed has members that are of varying complexions, and this is even truer of continents (such as Africa and Asia). Germans probably did, therefore, have terms for autochthones who hadn't quite yet depigmented as much [3], but those terms were undoubtedly different. Anyway, point taken. Soupforone (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Slave! Slave! Slave! Slave! Slave! That's all I got from this article. Terrible!

All I got from this article is slave! Slave! Slave! Slave! Slave! There is nothing rich about this article. Yes, slavery should be documented, but it should not take up almost the entire article. Are you trying to tell me slavery is all there is to black? This article is mostly written from an American/Western point of view. Absolutely terrible. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Papuan diaspora

Papuans emigrated to mainly the Netherlands and Great Britain. They don't know slavery, but deriving from West Papua were witnessing suppression by Indonesia. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

ANUAKS People

Anuka people are peple that are from ethiopia theur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.83.8 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017

Gael4016 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Respect black people

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Black people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong information

BLACK IS A RACE And ethnicity is under the race of black or any race to be exact. Black means your ancestors come from Africa or also referred to the aboriginal Australians. That classification came in the 1400’s when Europeans came to America. You can be a Black hispanic, latino, Jamaican. Race: Black, white, Asians etc Ethnicity: Chinese, Indian, African American, Jamaican, Dominican. How you gonna write a wrong as report Ksia 00:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted) Ksia 00:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please specify where the problem is with the article. I don't see anything that mismatches what you are saying. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Caps fix request

The section Black_people#United_States has several overcapitalizations of Civil Rights Movement and Civil Rights movement. Per recent RM, should not be treated as a proper name; see civil rights movement. Please change to lowercase civil rights movement. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. It was marked as fully protected, and the log looks like it was protected, but I was indeed able to edit (I though I had tried before and failed, but I'm not sure; maybe I was logged out). No matter. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Article clean up

There have been previous concerns in the talk page archives about this article; namely that:

a) Information about sub-Saharan Africa is missing.

b) The article is entirely focused on the "slavery" narrative. See [[4]

In this regard, I have attempted to clean up and rationalize the entry viz adding new material and merging some text into the appropriate category.--DanJazzy (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This page isn't about Sub-Saharan Africa, but rather about the black social construct in respective global regions. The "black" construct in many of these areas is tied to the slave trade, as slavery was often the mechanism by which the populations came to exist. Soupforone (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is primarily about Black people, not social constructs. Black population is found in largest proportions in sub-saharan Africa. In addition, black people identity is not only slavery. There are cultural, social, political, economic and other aspects to identify them. The article as it stands is purely on slavery 100%. It is inconceivable why this is given undue weight. Lastly, you say that the page isn't about Sub-Saharan Africa but there was a very large section on South Africa.--DanJazzy (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You may also note the "to do list" at the infobox on the top of this article with the following guidelines:-

  • Find and add citations to reliable sources.
  • Remove unverifiable material and original research.
  • Show a multi dimensional view of Black people across the world, not merely an American perspective.
  • Remove "undue weight" per WP:CSB and WP:NPOV.
  • Give more information on the diversity of peoples within African, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc.

DanJazzy (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello DanJazzy; as it has been stated already, this article is about a social construct, not about Africa. We already have articles discussing Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. The reason why Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have a heavy presence in the article, is simply because "Black" construct is not present in most African countries. South Africa and North Africa, where there's a significant racial construct have been properly represented in the article. Your additions about hominids and the rest are really not related to this article; add them to the appropriate articles. Cheers.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Jamie Tubers, the article is about the people not social constructs. See White people or Asian people for comparison. Further the consensus were the folllowing:-

-Remove "undue weight" per WP:CSB and WP:NPOV. -Give more information on the diversity of peoples within African, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc.

Please look at the article's talk page infobox for further guidance. Thanks--DanJazzy (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that phrase on "Khoisan..." dates from 2007 and there was no consensus for it [5]. It has no bearing on the current page. Soupforone (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As Jamie Tubers explained above, there is no consensus for that stuff. I've restored the Sahara region social construct and corrected the meaning of shanqella as per the url. I also removed the file of the Prince Bandar, who is considered Arab in his native land rather than "black". Likewise, Beta Israel are officially recognized as Jews in Israel and allowed to become Israeli citizens under the 1973 Law of Return2 rather than as a "black" sect like the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. Please respect this or I will ask CambridgeBayWeather to protect the page again. Soupforone (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Soupforone...You may have noticed that Beta Israel are in the same article, so why is a picture of their Spiritual leader controversial? If the article is on social constructs, then Beta Israel are considered black in Israel. Here's a source: [6] Where are your sources that say Bander is considered "Arab"? His mother is an African. Lastly, why didn't you mention that you also removed the picture of Ivan Gannibal? Are you disputing whether he was black or not? You also removed a picture of the Brazilian martial art Capoiera and gave no explanation for it. PS Just for the record, I'm the one who requested for page protection. DanJazzy (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You did request page protection yet CambridgeBayWeather protected it in the status quo version since there was no consensus for those edits. Anyway, I didn't remove the capoeira file, though I easily could have, as there was no consensus for replacing the jongo file with it to begin with. As per the 1973 Law of Return, Beta Israel are officially recognized as Jews in Israel and allowed to become Israeli citizens. An author claiming them otherwise has no bearing on that official classification. It is members of the Black Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem whom are officially not recognized as Jews [7]. Prince Bandar's mother was apparently a native commoner [8]. Even if she had instead been an immigrant, he would still be recognized as Arab because of his royal status and patrilineal descent. Also, the consensus is that Russian nobleman of African origin is the most appropriate descriptor for Ivan Gannibal's father, Abram Gannibal, and not Afro-Russian [9]. This is cause Abram's birthplace and ethnic affiliation are unknown - there isn't even an existing authentic portrait of the man. He has alternately been claimed as being of negro and non-negro origin [10]. Soupforone (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'am sorry Soupforone but Wikipedia does not allow original research. Beta Israel are known by the "black" social construct in Israel. There are sources that prove this. It is not in your place to promulgate your personal opinion into an article. Secondly, Ivan Gannibal was a black man in Medieval Russia, not sure why you removed this portrait. The word "Afro-Russian" does not appear in the text and I'am not sure why you're bringing this up either. The word "negro" was not used in Medieval Russia, the correct word then to describe a black person was "Арап" or "Arap" in English. You have not provided any source that describes Bandar bin Sultan as an "Arab". You posted an article from the Guardian newspaper that does not claim what you're proposing. This appears like you're attempting to WP:OWN this article by presenting your own opinion and refusing properly cited alternative point of views or reasonable debate. I'm left with no choice but to seek administrative assistance.--DanJazzy (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • DanJazzy you claim this article is not about a social construct, but people; yet, you keep using the word "construct" in your arguments. Like I said before, if you want to add information about African people, you can do that in the appropriate article. This article is about the construct, which isn't a global one. For every addition made, you need to provide a clear source which proves that such construct indeed exists for the country or region or society you're adding. Anything asides that, you'd need to get a proper consensus to change the direction of the article. It's funny how the template on your userpage claims you belong to "WikiProject Countering Systemic bias" yet, you are actually trying to reinstate a popular bias.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jamie Tubers, the consensus is that the article needs to include more information on the diversity of African peoples. See infobox here on this talk page. This is the same practice that has been adopted for Asian people and White people so I don't understand why it does not apply here. Further, it has been noted before that this article is not balanced [[11] . It it 100% focused on the narrative that black people are slaves. I'm sure you do not think that this is the only social construct that black people can be identified with. Lastly, if you look at the edit history, addition of images for Bandar bin Sultan, Ivan Gannibal and Raphael Hadane in the appropriate sections of the article are being opposed by an editor, even with proper citations. If that is not WP:BIAS then I don't know what is.--DanJazzy (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • DanJazzy "Asia" is a name of a continent. It's only natural that an article called "Asian people" should talk about people in that continent. "Black" is not a continent. If you want to talk about Africans, you take to an article about African people. The "White people" article clearly only talks about countries where the construct is valid, no extra. This article doesn't talk so much about African countries, simply because the construct is not valid or recognized in most African countries. Simple! This has been repeated to you several times. Really, it's not rocket science. The tag was created by non-Africans and still being propagated mostly by non-Africans. Don't try to create a generalized narrative that doesn't exist. If you want to add a specific African country that hasn't been added already, provide a local source that validates the use of "black" in that country. This shouldn't be difficult for you. If you can't do this, then you're only trying to vandalize the page.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Jamie Tubers . Please read this article [12] and then try and see an alternative argument on the subject. In any case, my main point is that the article is extremely biased. Black people's social construct and identity is not all about slavery. This is the narrative that this article is weaving and it is a classic case of WP:BIAS--DanJazzy (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As explained, Beta Israel are legally recognized in Israel as ethnic Jews as per the 1973 Law of Return. Part of the reason for their repatriation to Israel was actually to save them from assimilation by Gentiles (p.73 [13]). Besides the fact that Bandar's mother was a commoner (apparently not an immigrant), he is a blood member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [14]. I mentioned Afro-Russian because it was linked to right above the Gannibal file. However, Abram Gannibal's birthplace and ethnic origin are unknown, and there is no existing authentic portrait of him either. The ethnic affinities of his descendants are therefore also uncertain ("There exists no authentic portrait of Abram Gannibal[...] Nor can one draw any conclusion from the portraits of his progeny as to what blood predominated in Abram, Negro or Caucasian." [15]). Soupforone (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I've already posted a link from the University of Alabama [16] that clearly shows Beta Israel have a "black" social construct in Israel. You have posted a copy of the Israeli law of return which does not prove your assertion. Again, you have not provided any evidence to prove that Bandar bin Sultan is considered an "Arab" despite his African mother. I have already debunked your irrelevant Guardian link. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Ivan Gannibal is the son of Abram Gannibal a black Russian of African origin. Please see consensus at Afro-Russians in which Soupforone participated in an RfC.DanJazzy (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That url is from the Journal of Black Studies, an advocacy publication whose founding editor is the Afrocentric writer Molefi Kete Asante. Even if it had been a reliable source (which it is not as per WP:NOTADVOCATE), that wouldn't alter the fact that Beta Israel are legally recognized in Israel as ethnic Jews under the 1973 Law of Return. Bandar is a blood member of the House of Saud, which belongs to the Anazzah and Hanifa Arab tribes as the infobox notes. Do, though, consider Abram Gannibal as you wish. His ethnic origins remain unknown. Soupforone (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone The author cited is from the University of Alabama and not "afrocentric" (whatever that means). Unless you're doubting the academic veracity of the university of Alabama, your claims are nonsensical. It is equally unclear whether the University of Alabama is an "afrocentric" institution. Is Jared Diamond, a Pulitzer prize winner, "afrocentric" as well? Again, you've not provided any evidence that Bandar bin Sultan is of" Arab" construct. You're engaging in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow.DanJazzy (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone, the Journal of Black Studies, until proven otherwise, is an academic, peer-reviewed publication. Your NOTADVOCATE argument is nonsense. And you say "Afrocentric" like it's a bad word--well, if Afrocentrism is about bringing Africa back from the edges of scholarship, and that makes it not neutral, then its opposite (what is that? "transparent" Eurocentrism?) is just as not-neutral. In other words, I see no reason to accept your argument that somehow that article is not a reliable or acceptable source. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Danjazzy, many Afrocentric, Eurocentric, Zionist, etcetera writers are or were professors and/or journal editors (ex. Cheikh Anta Diop, David Irving). These are known as tenured radicals; that does not mean a priori that their works are reliable. Publications like Molefi Asante's Journal of Black Studies are not considered reliable sources because they are Template:Partisan sources (I didn't indicate anything about Jared Diamond). See for example here [17]. As to the House of Saud's Prince Bandar, he and his family are of Arabian lineage, like the House of Jordan [18]-- "It took an Arab, Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan, the Saudi ambassador, remonstrating with another Arab, King Hussein of Jordan, to tell the truth about Israel and the Palestinians". Soupforone (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Soupforone You're bang out of order as Drmies has informed you above. The Wikilink you've posted does not mention the Journal of Black Studies. In any case my citation was a book by Dr. Durrenda Ojanuga, formerly of the University of Alabama and current Professor of Wayne State University [19]. He is a Fulbright Scholar. Your insult of such a dignified academic by comparing him to the anti-Semite and Fascist [20] David Irving shows your tendentious and immoral tactics. As for Bandar, please read this article by the New York Times[21] specifically, para 9. Or is the NYT "afrocentrist" as well? --DanJazzy (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Allow me to quote for you WP:CIV-- "try not to get too intense[...], avoid editing while you're in a bad mood[...] be professional[...] avoid name-calling[...] avoid condescension[...] avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." With that noted, WP:RS indicates that "the word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book)[...] the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)[...] the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)[...] Any of the three can affect reliability." Your url indicates that the publisher of that Ojanuga article is the Journal of Black Studies, which is an Afrocentric/partisan publisher. As to the Prince Bandar, that url appears to suggest that his mother was of foreign descent, a common misconception which is apparently an amusement for him (under Excerpts [22])-- "It has been a common misconception in the U.S. press that the prince's mother was African. Bandar often derives curious enjoyment from knowing the truth of a situation while the media speculates endlessly and wrongly about him, and he has made no attempt to explain the geographical background to his mother's heritage." Soupforone (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
        • (What's with the compulsive outdenting?) Soupforone, kindly stop patronizing with your "calm down" warnings. You point to a 2014 discussion about something else to prove that the Journal of Black Studies--seriously? And "Publications like Molefi Asante's Journal of Black Studies are not considered reliable sources...": the use of the passive indicates this is a weasel statement. As for "These are known as tenured radicals..."--I suppose we can take your word for it; the alternative is of course that we accept the normal policies of WP:RS rather than go by an anonymous person's opinion. "Tenured radicals" have at least one thing going for them: they are tenured, and have thus undergone extensive vetting by academics. Same with their books and their journal articles. DanJazzy, you may consider taking this to WP:RS or calling in editors who actually understand something about academic publishing: DGG, Mike Christie, Randykitty come to mind. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
          • The reliable source discussion was specifically about Afrocentric publications, so it does seem to be relevant. Durrenda Ojanuga is an academic but according to Santiago Slabodsky, his piece is indeed an Afrocentric interpretation-- "it is interesting to read a self-referential "Afrocentric" interpretation of it in Durrenda Ojanuga" [23]. The publisher Journal of Black Studies is also an Afrocentric publication whose founding editor is the writer Molefi Kete Asante, the president of the Molefi Kete Asante Institute for Afrocentric Studies-- "The department also serves as home to several Afro-American Studies/Afrocentric journals: The Journal of Black Studies, edited by Asante" [24]. Anyway, I've asked for clarification on this at WP:RS [25]. Soupforone (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I agree that this article is most usefully about "black" populations outside Africa, or in mixed populations within Africa. If it were to cover African people as a whole it would be completely different, and obviously under a different title. But the lead should point to Demographics of Africa (where African people redirects) and List of ethnic groups of Africa. DanJazzy quotes the to-do list at the top of this page - I see that this is mostly over 10 years old, and relates to very different versions of the article at that time. Much of it should be removed - I don't think the article can now reasonably be accused of being only about North America for example. DanJazzy recently reverted the removal of " Give more information on the diversity of peoples within African, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc". I for one would support this removal from the list, although perhaps adding a short summary para would be ok. Probably we need a better article on African people, but it certainly should not be here, under this title. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, African people is obviously a different concept. Homfet (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

these are a species who want to be a part of society and are called by others, "wieners" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MostEpicGamer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Caucasian

Please, add to the article the link to Abkhazians of African descent - ethnic Caucasian subgroup of African descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.1.77 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

I would like to edit the Horn of Africa section. If you don't mind. It has been altered from its original form and I would like to restore the actual information. It had what happened in history, but was deleted by someone who does not realize facts and wants to hide it. HornerWarrior (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for precise change requests to an article. Requests to lower protection level can be made at WP:RFPP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

Update the section on black people in the uk if new statistics. Eg

Black residents constituted around 3 per cent of the United Kingdom's population in 2011. The figures have increased from the 1991 census when 1.63% of the population were recorded as Black or Black British to 1.15 million residents in 2001, or 2 per cent of the population, this further increased to just over 1.9 million in 2011. Over 95% of Black British live in England, particularly in England's larger urban areas, with most (over a million) Black British living in Greater London. Britain encouraged the immigration of workers from the Caribbean after World War II; the first symbolic movement was those who came on the ship the Empire Windrush. The preferred official umbrella term is "black and minority ethnic" (BME), but sometimes the term "black" is used on its own, to express unified opposition to racism, as in the Southall Black Sisters, which started with a mainly British Asian constituency, and the National Black Police Association, which has a membership of "African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin".[66] 190.100.75.246 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 00:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Paleopercentage not mentioned

Non-blacks have a genetic percentage of a. Neanderthal, b. Denisovan, c. Unspecified peoples.

African blacks have also a genetic percentage of Unspecified peoples.

The statistical way to find it is by comparing regions with more differentiation, like for example microsatellites which aren't boosted to evolve for a useful reason that might excuse it.

Of course the Unspecified contribution will always remain problematic, but we should respect all our ancestors and also science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8479:8800:3060:E6E8:A680:A948 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Black supremacy article

As it placed 'White supremacy' in the section 'See also' in the White people article, I will place it the same 'Black supremacy' in this article.--BrugesFR (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

Ok, so i would really like to put on here how black people are usually treated different from whites and i want to write how cops dont like blacks Porkypine69 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Ppl" redirects

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Black ppl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Black ppl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blk ppl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Blk ppl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Black Ppl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Black Ppl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Indigenious people of south-east asia and the indian subcontinent are not called black, they are brown, so i just wanted to delete the part that says that they are black (Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent), this part right after the comma after oceania in the first paragraph. Evidence: on another wikipedia page called brown people, it says that people from south-east asia and the indian subcontinent are called brown. There is also a map on that same wikipedia page that describes this. 

Nadev2007 (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Similarly, please be clear exactly which sentence(s) you believe should be removed.@Nadev2007: RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nadev2007: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyway, these two statement are not mutually exclusive, somebody could derogatorily and/or incorrectly refer to Asian people as "black" or some equivalent. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 04:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

This page does not include a world population of black people unlike the white people page. Please add. 2607:FEA8:720:1C31:E010:A0CA:DF22:C4AA (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also point out that any such number (in either article) is going to be inaccurate and the result of guesswork. Many countries, including mine, Australia, don't classify people according to the apparent colour of their skin, and have no numbers for such things, so where global totals come from has always been a mystery to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

information is inaccurate and was correct before:

It is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of India, Southeast Asia and Oceania. Indigenous African societies do not use the term black as a racial identity outside of influences brought by Western cultures. 2600:1010:B012:A166:2C3D:B22C:4199:7DA8 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, please cite a WP:RS to backup your assertion that those statements are "inaccurate" (one that says the exact opposite, or one that says explicitly that this is a frequent misconception). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

change X: It is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of Oceania.

to Y: It is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia, India, and Oceania. 2600:1702:3C80:9850:5CDF:CDCE:F4AE:D885 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That would have to be "certain indigenous groups in Southeast Asia" if added. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A source for "Southeast Asia, India" being added is necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

Here are some references to the black construct in India/Pakistan that I added: Pakistan:

  • William Ackah, Pan-Africanism (1999), books.google.com/books?isbn=1840143754, p. 98:"A fascinating insight the programme revealed was that in being rejected by Pakistan, these black Pakistanis sought to look for their identity elsewhere. Their search took them not automatically to Africa the place of their origins, but to the fashion and statements and music of michael Jackson."
  • National Institute of Folk and Traditional Heritage, Folk Heritage of Pakistan (1977), p. 78, books.google.com/books?id=TGZWAAAAMAAJ:"Most people outside Pakistan, Mr. Mufti explained, do not know that there are black Pakistanis and none was particularly delighted with the reception this group enjoyed."
  • The Herald, Volume 36, Issues 10-12, p. 113-114 (2005), books.google.com/books?id=_xwTAQAAMAAJ:"Others arrived when the Sultanate of Oman, having captured Zanzibar in eastern... Rather than discouraging prejudice, the authorities have abetted it by remaining silent on the existence of black Pakistanis...positions which reflects an unabating fear of black people by mainstream society...Sheedi's oral history of black Pakistanis which relies for the most part on anecdotal accounts...I proudly say that I'm Baloch. Because when someone from my community calls me a sheedi, they're actually calling me a 'nigger'. Sheedi also knows that the term is derogatory. But unlike Danish, he is determined to disregard racism and build a community instead. Although religion and musical spirituality unite the black community, Sheedi does not think that it's enough. For that reason, he is on a quest to create a physic space for the sheedis to claim as their own."

India:

  • Alice Albinia, Empires of the Indus (2010), books.google.com/books?isbn=0393063224, p.50:"it is possible that one of the effects of a hundred years of British rule was the decline in status of black people in India. This deterioration is evident in the way the word 'Sheedi' – which has no plain etymology in Arabic or any Indian language -was interpreted over the centuries..."
  • Ababu Minda Yimene, An African Indian Community in Hyderabad:Siddi Identity, Its Maintenance (2004), p. 211, books.google.com/books?isbn=3865372066: 'Mr. Hussein paints his face black and wears Siddi clothes during his performance so that no one knows that he is an Indian. The Siddi found his statements ludricious because they consider him as black as any Siddi..."

p. 170:"Popularly known as Siddis, these one time warriors represent Black Power in Hyderabad."

p.200:"The Siddi of Hyderabad are comfortable calling themselves Negroes and are addressed as such both in private and public..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andajara120000 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Albinia could add even more. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Strong

[26]

My edit was reverted. Instead of reverting again, I am starting a talk page discussion. Please discuss, rather than reverting again. Benjamin (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum and Liz: I don't understand why you deleted Benjaminikuta's comment from the talk page. @Benjaminikuta: I think, if you rephrase your contribution and connect it to the context, it might improve the article. Your original phrasing is really confusing, at least I had to look at the LA article to understand what you wanted so say. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Because a claim like that is racist and not relevant to this article. Bacondrum (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The claim is based on an article from a mainstream newspaper. It says that many people in the US perceive black people as strong and threatening. While that perception is racist or caused by racism, the article is not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I had originally phrased it: "People tend to overestimate how big and strong black men are.", but I'm indifferent to the exact wording, as long as it clearly identifies the misconception. How would you phrase it? Benjamin (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps: "According to studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, US residents consistently overestimate the size, physical strength, and formidability of young Black men." Benjamin (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't check all details, but I can say that's neither racist nor irrelevant nor confusing. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to phrase it carefully, for example when I first saw the initial comment about this, the comment read like a racist jeer. The wording of your second suggestion is much clearer. And I'd suggest using stronger sourcing than a news report about a single study for a claim like that, perhaps the original study (if it has been subject to peer review), it may have been published in a journal. I know academics like Bell Hooks have written about this phenomenon at length. Bacondrum (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it looked like the racist chatter I see on other talk pages the way it was originally phrased. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: bell hooks deliberately keeps her pen name uncapitalized. Just a thing you might want to be aware of. :) IHateAccounts (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming bad faith... = / Benjamin (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization

The Associated Press has changed its writing style to capitalize the "b" in Black.

The change conveys “an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa,” John Daniszewski, AP’s vice president of standards, said in a blog post Friday. “The lowercase black is a color, not a person.”

The Los Angeles Times, USA Today and NBC News last week embraced capitalization, and the National Association of Black Journalists urged other news organizations to follow. (Source: https://apnews.com/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a).

This is reflective of a major shift which has been years in the making and should be reflected on this page. --Xicanx (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are all American sources. This is a global encyclopaedia. We need to note what sources outside the USA are doing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
See ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope. You are correct that this is a trend, but it is a counter grammatical one that we should not follow. The AP and the NYT made clear in their announcment that their decision was based on political considerations--considerations that don't apply here. The Oxford English Dictionary has nothing on capitalizing "black." [27]. Black is a color, but it used to be an offensive term to refer to people of African origins. It describes a physical trait, skin color. Yes, a trait that is shared by people of African ancestry. But that does not convert it into a proper noun. The same goes for "white," which is never capitalized. And it's also worth noting that the term "yellow" to describe people of Asian descent or ethnicity based on skin color is still regarded as a derisive slur. "Black" and "white" have mainstream acceptance as non-racially offensive in modern times, but that does not change the fundamentals of grammar. Ungrammatical capitalization has long been used to make political statements or draw focus to political trends. Certain authors were accused of anti-semitism for writing "Jewish" in lowercase as "jewish" consistently.In sum, the reasoning by these news outlets is ridiculous and historically/gramatically ignorant, and we are not required to adhere to their style guides. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that this article appears to be inconsistent in its capitalization of the world "black". The phrase "Black American", for example, appears capitalized several times and uncapitalized once, while "black Brazilian" is left uncapitalized. Overall, the uncapitalized "black" seems to be in favor, except in the sections on Canada and South Africa, where capitalized "Black" is used. Regardless of the decision made on whether "black" should be capitalized, its usage should be made consistent. Mysteryman blue 08:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_people/Archive_23&oldid=1091450993"