Talk:Black people

physical differences

The article should include a paragraph describing physical features other than just skin colour. There are also many interesting medical facts that could be mentoned like that black people statstically don't digest milk as well as white ppl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

lactose intolerance isn't a black trait. It's a trait of most people outside of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallery removal

I removed the gallery only after the gallery was removed from White people but my reason is that these are not representative of black people, and indeed we cannot and should not try to make such a list. We should instead add photos of people notable in the modern history of black people such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Marcus Garvey and William Wilberforce, and intersperse the photos in the text. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This page doesn't have good info

when i go to white people page it says cuacsion right?But when i got to the black page it doesn't say nothing!,Im mean im black what the hell am i suppose to say, I don't know?!While if white people are cuasion like europan, meditrrian whatever,howa about black/african/jamican etc.

It's just not fair.

Race in Brazil

The opening sentence of Race in Brazil is "Unlike in the United States, race in Brazil is based on skin color and physical appearance rather than ancestry." When did the United States adopt a singular definition of the word race? Isn't that a subject in constant dispute, even within the scientific community? Either find a citation for what "race" is in the United States (preferably 12 or 13 citations, since it's such a debated notion), or delete this God-awful sentence.Icetitan17 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Morrison & ref to Clinton as "first black President."

During the recent US presidential campaign, Tony Morrison clarified her statement, saying she meant that Clinton was being attacked mercilessly on very weak logical bases, as a Black person would be, if various personages wanted to take said person down. I'm sorry not to have a reference, but I think NPR archives might have the interview in which she made the clarification. To me at least, her explanation makes more sense than the explanations given in this article.

I think Ms. Morrison would agree, that it is not only women who must be twice as good as a (white) man in order to make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.229.123 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

need a IW link

[[wuu:黑人]]

Done. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

150 million African-Americans

I don't think so. Not even if you include all of the Americas. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the Demographics of the United States gives 40.9 million as of 2006 as the number. Can someone find a ref?--Woland (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not African Americans, descendants of Africans in the Americas. It's sourced to this summary of a United Nations conference: "[I]t was estimated that at least 150 Million persons within the Western Hemisphere could be considered African Descendants." — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel worded and apparently a "drop" formulation. No point contending the issue though, the article has more severe problems than that (e.g. the description of how human species developed dark skin in Africa). The "actual" best "number" would probably be a linguistic value such as "approximately 100 million". The major populations are in the US, Brazil, Haiti, and various other Caribbean Islands and the total who self identify as black is certainly not much if any more than 100 million. All humans can be considered African Descendants BTW. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Russians call Tatars black -- has to be removed

"A cultural classification of people as "black" exists in Russia... Certain groups of people who are ethnically different, and generally darker, than ethnic Russians are pejoratively referred to as "blacks" (chernye), and face specific sorts of social exclusion (see Racism in Russia). Roma, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category.[84]"

-- The last sentence in part concerning Tatars is simply not true, and it is a shame such false information can be found in Wikipedia. Russians call "black" only people with darker skin (the second sentence is absolutely right in this). People from non-Russian, Asian, etc. decent with white skin will not be called black by Russians. This is important, because Tatars who are second largest ethnic group in Russia (over 5 million) are generally whiter than some ethnic Germans or French. I grew up in the capital of Tatarstan republic and lived among Tatars from 6 to 30 years of age. I have a pure-blood Tatar friend who has blond hair and blue eyes. For a Russian to call a Tatar black is the same as for an American to call black, say, a Spanish man. Please edit out this stupid assertion about calling Tatars black (I know, it quotes some research, made by some Western "scientist" who had no idea what he was talking about). At present, two ethnic Tatars are Ministers of Russia: Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliyev [1] and Minister of Economic Development Elvira Nabiullina [2] Check out their photos on their pages in (Russian) Wikipedia: do they look "dark" to anyone? Elvira is actually what a very typical ethnic Tatar woman looks like (note her blue eyes as well). 99.243.13.191 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Rozmysl

You're misreading what the article says. Its speaking of a cultural classification, not a physical description. Its in the same vein as treating the Irish and Italians as non-white, prior to the 20th century. Its obvious that both can be as white (as a physical description of lighter skin tone)as someone of English heritage but the cultural classification system excludes them from the white category.--Woland (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Woland is right thats compareable to germans, italians, greeks and irish not being considered white in the U.S not because they phenotypcaly were not white but because other reasons in the U.S case reasons such as resticting land ownership and such.--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you guys have a very strange logic. I am trying to convey two simple facts: Russians call black only people with a physically dark skin. Russians do not call Tatars black because Tatars have very white skin. The article claims Tatars are called black by Russian. This is pure lie. Way to go, folks. That is why I tell my children, never trust Wikipedia.--99.243.13.191 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well excuse us for not believing a random person on the internet. If you'll notice the statement has a source that it comes from. If you really feel that strongly you should check the reference provided (as I am in the process of doing). You may want to consider that you are simply unfamiliar with this usage. And yes, you should never take anything written down as fact; this is why we provide references that can be studied for confirmation.--Woland (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<undent> I just got the reference through interlibrary loan and it indeed supports the statements in the article though it was specifically speaking of Ivanovo Oblast. I'm not sure if there is any reason to believe that this is a localised phenomenon but it can be edited to reflect this.--Woland (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article

The tone of the article is somewhat disturbing. The article needs some fact based reporting and less stories of individual history. It needs to be focussed on skin color and social constructions, rather than an arbitrary selection of Africans in history. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We have African peoples, African Americans and Stereotypes of African Americans, all of which can get WP:SS summary treatment here at best. This article should focus on the racial classification. It should mirror the White people and Asian people articles in structure wherever possible. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

About Tatars (again)

Tatars are not classified as black. Yes, I know that Caroline Humphrey wrote that they are, but people make mistakes. Lets look at this Russian source.[3]

Общие стереотипы дополняются вторичной политической, религиозной и культурной мотивацией фактического применения приемов геноцида. Грубые прозвища, употребляемые в отношении жителей Кавказа - "черножопые" или "черные", переделаны в официальный русский эвфемизм "лицо кавказской национальности".

It clearly says that only people from Caucasus are classified as black. Of course there was historically a group called Black Tatars (Kerait), but you won't find a single Russian source where Volga Tatars are classified as black. DVoit 00:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to reply (as I was the one who reverted your edit). I've been at a conference with only my laptop and for some reason my "i" key isn't working....Thanks for pointing this out. I am not sure what to do when sources conflict though. Is Humphrey actually mistaken or is she documenting something specific to that region? Even if we believe that she is mistaken, I think it might be orginal research if we simply decide this. I may be reading it wrong (its been a good six years since I've read Russian on a daily basis), but that source doesn't seem to say anything about the use being specific to the Caucasus. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed but I don't think that simply removing the sourced material should be the first step.--Woland (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But still phrases like "Roma, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category" sound very strange. Why only Tatars, but not Bashkirs and Yakuts. Why only Georgians, but not Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Maybe she meant Caucasian Tatars (old name for Azerbaijanis) or Mountain Tatars (old name for Karachays), but I doubt it has anyhing to do with Ivanovo Oblast, since it has less than 2% of non-slavic population (which means black = non-slavic). May be we should change this prase to something like:

According to Caroline Humphrey - Roma, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category.

or

Caroline Humphrey claims that...

or

Usually only non-slavic population falls into this category

DVoit 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Humphrey doesn't go into detail about it at all in the passage, as far as I can tell she was just relaying cultural information that she had discovered. Anyway, the first option looks like the best one for our purposes. The second borders on weasel words while the third is really just an assertion I suppose.--Woland (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence

Perhaps something should be said about statistically-backed low intelligence found in blacks? Also, they exhibit much higher rates of crime and anti-social behavior in every country they inhabit, be it Haiti, Jamaica, South Africa, the USA, Britain, etc. Although race and crime has recently been deleted by the liberal fascists that edit on wikipedia, race and intelligence still explores the correlation. As well, it should be noted how sub-Saharan Africans never independently developed or utilized the wheel, archery or any art or craft that's seen as ancient innovation by most other countries and races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.44.88 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a constructive suggestion, or a piece of race-baiting? If you want to improve the article, why not suggest specific, constructive, sourced edits? That would be helpful; what you've posted above is not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bell Curve by Herrnstein is a well-known, peer-reviewed book that explores the differences between the races. Also, numerous adoption studies like the Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study disprove that intelligence is a direct result of nurture. Black people might not be intrinsically stupid/criminal as a race (i.e. monkey compared to human), but given the scientifically-supported inheritability of intelligence, antisocial disorders and criminal impulses it wouldn't be offensive to simply highlight the debate around the issue. 98.110.44.88 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got an article on The Bell Curve. I wouldn't characterize it as "statistically backed low intelligence for blacks", because psychometrics are about a zillion times more complicated than that, and attempting to order intelligence along a single one-dimensional scale is a gross, gross oversimplification, and of sharply limited usefulness. (This is coming from someone who knows how to knock the roof off an IQ test, and who knows that he is nevertheless quite stupid sometimes.)

Nevertheless, it's true that there has been significant controversy about various attempts to link race to various qualities and behaviors. How much of that belongs in this article, and how much should be treated at other articles to which this one links is a fair question. You might find that a lot of the information you're looking for is already in Wikipedia, but perhaps not linked from here. It might be that the best place for the information you're talking about is not in this article, but in Race (classification of human beings) or Race and genetics. Have you looked at those? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because some scientific methods are imperfect, doesn't mean we should totally dismiss and ignore the findings. IQ tests are exceedingly good indicators of intelligence in nearly all cases. Blacks are at the bottom end for most studies in intelligence and criminality. This fact has caused significant social problems in the countries they inhabit, problems that continue even with socialist policies like Affirmative Action and anti-Discrimination laws. The scientific consensus before World War II had blacks at or near the bottom tier of the racial hierarchy, and after WWII we adopted equality laws for purely social reasons. As far as I know, there were no significant advances made in explaining race and intelligence during WWII. The only explanation for this turnaround in consensus is political correctness, something that WP doesn't abide by. I think that someone should create a little subsection under the Debates on Race section that highlights the issue and then links to Race and Intelligence and related articles, similar to how Afrocentrism is discussed. 98.110.44.88 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should link to race and intelligence from this article, and in particular from the section Black people#Debates on race? There's already a link in the infobox at the top of the page, but it sounds as if you're suggesting a new subsection within that section, to address the debate on intelligence? Is that right? Would you also add such a subsection to pages on other races that are compared at race and intelligence? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Wow! This worked so well, GT! He really did learn and not come back to troll more! So AWESOME is your method! WOW! ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep watching, Thuran. I know you will. Sit back, and let me fail, because I'm so wrong. Enjoy the show. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You will fail. He's a racist. You wont' change his mind. ThuranX (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What a mysterious comment this is! Who ever said anything about changing anyone's mind? I'm just hoping to provide a clear answer to his suggestion. That is, we either incorporate it, or we state the good reason for not incorporating it. Either way, our reasoning here serves as a document for future readers that this question has been asked and answered, and just what the reasoning looked like.

An enumeration of good reasons for why this article contains or does not contain seemingly relevant information is not a bad thing to have around. It will help people in the future. It's certainly better than trying to sweep the question under the rug, and say "No, there's no such thing as people who genuinely believe that blacks are stupid. If there are such people, they'll never change, and there's no point telling them anything except 'piss off'. There has never been a case of a person wondering about their preconceptions, seeking information, and then developing new ideas based on that information. That never happens and never will happen, so don't let's dare post the information that might help someone like that. If they don't already know, then we don't want 'em."

That's what I'm hearing from ThuranX here, and I think it's sad. If this encyclopedia isn't here to inform people — even people whom we might not already agree — then what the hell is it for? Apparently, this attitude makes me "naive" and "clueless". If that's so, then I'm proud to be those things. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous disclaimers at the top of this page that warn of potentially offensive discussions. If this particular topic offends you so much that you find yourself unable to civilly discuss it, then maybe you should look at other discussions. 98.110.44.88 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ThuranX, we have to be able to talk about things. If you think that simply raising the question of a link to race and intelligence is unacceptable, then you truly are too biased to work on this article. What really worries me is that you don't trust a consensus of editors to decide on the correct action, but insist on quashing the any mention of it. Aren't you confident that the community will make the correct choice, or do we have to protect ourselves from this conversation?

Why not just answer the post by explaining precisely why the suggestion is inappropriate, and then save that in a FAQ somewhere that you can point people to? They did something like that at Evolution, and I'm told it's somewhat useful. Do you really think a correct answer to the anon's question would be a bad thing to have around? How does that work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already said black people are genetically stupid. There's nothing to discuss, it's flat out racism. You're taking his bait, the rest of us simply discard the nonsense and continue. ThuranX (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but there is no question to which the correct answer is "shut up and go away." Your failure to know the correct answer is no excuse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The fatuous question. The baiting question. The question for which you don't care about the answer, only the reaction. Read WP:TROLL. "DENY RECOGNITION." That means you delete the troll's comments over and over until they learn that no one will play with them. You have fed this troll, and made him fat and happy. He will be hungry again soon. ThuranX (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know your opinion. There's no need to repeat it further. Thank you! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP's comment was removed by multiple editors for multipel days as race-baiting trolling. There's no reason to bother addressing it. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's anything wrong with my answer. It beats edit-warring with him over it. Fighting over edits and labeling them "trolling" feeds trolls a lot more than just giving boring, sober answers. It turns out his question has a boring answer, and the next person who comes along will see that there's no point trolling, because Wikipedians are professional, and we rise above it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. 'we're professional'? you're getting paid for this? you get health insurance and a 401K? no? we're volunteers. And if we don't want to put up with racists coming through here weekly with their 'black peopel are XYZ' crap, we can remove it per WP:VANDAL and WP:TROLL. You want to fight it this time in this high minded style, then you will wind up fighting it again and again. Better to show trolls that they will not get a response here by removing it, over and over. VANDALISM is outside of 'edit warring' standards anyway. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... multiple editors over the course of multiple days weren't able to make him go away by deleting the comment, but I made him go away in an hour by just answering his question. Think about that.

When I say "we're professional," (no 's') I don't mean we get paid. I mean we're smart enough to deal with disruption professionally, instead of allowing people to get a rise out of you. Your method fights fire with gasoline, and that's foolish. You're not foolish, so you should change your method. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, we're no longer talking about how to improve this article, so if you wish to criticize me further, I invite you to my talk page, or else to just start an RfC on me. Thank you for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. We have very, very detailed coverage of the race and intelligence issue. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, it's controversial. That's not a problem for Wikipedia, since we just report controversies without taking any position. If there are anonymous editors bringing this up, for whatever motivation, just point them to the existing articles. --dab (𒁳) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Protection and Supervision of this Article

I am shocked to see the subject matter that is being considered for inclusion in this article. This is nothing more than the typical racial hatred that has plagued Black skinned people of African origins since their earliest encounters with whites. I wonder if anyone has suggested that the article on whites should include a discussion of their tendencies toward violence? White people are often associated with hideous crimes against humanity. Aren't they associated with the extermination of so many people from the face of out earth. Yet no one considers this to be an inherent biological factor. It is truly reprehensible that this sort of racism is tolerated in our day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, what's being considered for inclusion in the article? If someone makes a suggestion as in the section above, then we direct them to articles such as race and intelligence, where the claims are dealt with neutrally. As far as I can tell, nobody is seriously considering adding anything about "tendencies" of black people to this article. If they do, we'll just do whatever is necessary to bring the article back into accordance with NPOV.

Have you got a suggestion for improving the article, or what exactly are you suggesting here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

There are already some established guidelines on dealing with Trolls

• Wikipedia:Deny recognition
• Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore
• What is a troll

Wapondaponda (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only people who have been feeding trolls here are those who responded with repeated removals of the post, thus clearly provoking more, identical posts. Trolls love nothing more than provoking people into defensive reactions, and several editors seem to be arguing to give trolls precisely what they love. I'm against that. This is an encyclopedia, not a game of cops and robbers. Playing cops and robbers is precisely what they want you to do. Don't do it.

Demanding first that some kind of constructive comment be made, and then responding to that comment professional and thoroughly is the best way to not feed a troll. If the person isn't a troll, and just a very ill-informed person, then they learn something. If it is a troll, then they learn that they can't get a rise out of you, and they go away. The "revert" policy kept him coming back, again and again. That is failure.

Just respond boringly and professionally, and they'll go away much more quickly. I speak from experience, and if you disagree, then cite specific experiences. I'm ready with evidence. The proof is in the pudding. My pudding is that the above reply worked. Where's your pudding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links

Thank you, Wapondaponda, for those links, which support precisely what I'm saying. From the meta: page on trolls:

“ Pestering
Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. Of course, sometimes what is obvious to one person is obscure to another. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. You can also send them to the help desk. If they persist, politely explain that you would love to help but you are rather busy. If they continue asking the question even after you have clearly answered it, or begin complaining that you will not help them, there is a chance of them being trolls. Or they could just be lazy or confused. Of all the kinds of trolling, this is the most important kind not to get bent out of shape about. Remember: Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. Be friendly about providing knowledge to people. That said, in extreme cases, this can be a method of trolling, and it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions. ”

I added the emphasis in there.

The deny recognition page supports the idea of not giving them special treatment, such as by calling them names, or showing that you're mad at them. Dig it:

“ Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. ”

Exceptional notice: like jumping to revert whenever they post, or calling them a "troll". Don't do it. Be more boring. (Really, WP:DENY was created to get rid of pages we used to have documenting particularly prolific vandals. It's applicability in this case is far from obvious.)

The Revert, block, ignore page is for dealing with vandalism, and applying it to this situation is pretty much inappropriate, but we can still find a gem in there:

“ The best way to dissuade them from vandalising is to convince them that vandalising is boring and has no impact on the community or the encyclopedia. Boredom is Wikipedia's secret weapon. ”

Emphasis added, again. Simply answering the stupid, boring question with a boring answer and moving on is the boring approach, and it's the one that works best. Thanks again for the links. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The point

The most important lesson in here is this: There are people who sincerely believe, in their heart of hearts, that black people are stupider than others, that science supports this, and that the liberal media is in denial about it. Now, I consider that view philistine, blinkered, stupid, etc. However there are people who hold it in good faith. There people are ignorant, and they are precisely our target audience. If an honest racist posts here asking why we don't mention about blacks being stupid in the black people article, then the correct answer is this

"The issue of race and intelligence is a complex and controversial one, which we deal with in an article of its own: race and intelligence. If there is a specific edit you're suggesting to this page, then please say what it is, otherwise, you might get your question answered at the other article."

That reply is boring, emotionless, and informative. We have sent an ignorant person to a page where they might learn something to make them less ignorant.

Suppose, on the other hand, we've got an honest racist asking why we don't talk about the stupidity of black people, and we delete his posts, call him a troll, and get him blocked. Then we have failed in our mission to inform. Also, we have convinced the racist that he was right, and that people really are trying to cover something up. After all, why chase him off unless we have something to hide? The "call him a troll and block him" strategy makes the racist a little more racist, and it makes the world a little bit worse.

Please don't use Wikipedia to make the world worse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Looking at the table of contents, there's something missing, it seems. The sections, "In sub-Saharan Africa", "In the Arab World", "In the Ottoman Empire", "In the Americas", "In Asia and Australasia", and "In Europe" should all be grouped under one general heading, it seems.

First of all, does that seem right, that those should fall under a more general heading, and what should it be called?

If that's done, then there are three main sections: Physiology, Historical/Geographical/whatever this is called, and Debates. Does this seem to be a good suggestion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a section under "Debates"

So, the article organization makes more sense now, I think. It's divided into three major sections: "Physiological traits", "Cultural ideas of a black race", and "Debates on race".

Now, it seems that an anonymous editor was suggesting above that the article address scientific findings regarding the intelligence of black people.

I think he's right. I think that the claims made about intelligence of blacks fit into a larger context of so-called scientific racism. It would seem very appropriate in this article to note that, dark-skinned people having been enslaved and subjugated by lighter-skinned people for much of history, there have evolved a number of arguments to justify this oppression on scientific, or scientific-looking grounds. I'm thinking this would be in a proper context in the "Debates on race" section, after the two subsections that are already there.

If there's no good reason offered not to do this, I think it will be my project in a few hours, when I've got more time free. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptians had a very symbiotic relationship with blacks, yet after the Egyptians faded, so did any sort significance or progress for blacks in that area. Historians and archaeologists have a hard time trying to find any record of progress in written language, archery, metal working in Subsaharan Africa. It's safe to say that blacks would not be living nearly as well as they are now without the outside influence of whites. 100% black countries and even towns in America speak for themselves. Blaming black problems on whites and Arabs would greatly compromise the integrity of the article while only satisfying the whims of Egalitarians. 129.25.20.82 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions regarding the article? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but the OP does and I'm advising against it. At best, he'll write a slanted paragraph that tries to direct blame towards non-blacks for black problems. Leave the debates on black problems to the scientific articles that Black People links to. It's inappropriate to sling mud in article of this nature. 129.25.20.82 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see what he writes, and how slanted it is. How about that? It's not like anything I write can't be removed if it's no good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

let's not. It's bad enough you've fed the troll; giving him a real stake in the article is going to lead to trouble. You seem intent on romancing this IP troll, and I really wish you'd stop. He's a bigot. Scientific racism's already covered in it's own article, and in others on stereotypes and histories of race relations. ThuranX (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got no idea what you're talking about, and you said you were going to leave. The fact that some person is or is not a bigot is utterly irrelevant to the question of what this article should look like.

Are you claiming that the "Debates of race" section is better without expansion, and that this article shouldn't say anything about the causes of Afrocentrism before diving into a discussion that doesn't even define the term? Is that what you're arguing, ThuranX? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible outline

What I've been thinking about is structuring the "Debates" section into four subsections:

1. The Hamitic Race
2. Scientific racism
3. Afrocentrism
4. Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Sections 1 and 4 are already written, with section 4 labeled "In Afrocentrism". It seems that section 3 is necessary to say something about what Afrocentrism is, and since Afrocentrism rose up in the context of, and as we read in the article, as a reaction against scientific racism, then it makes sense to include section 2. It also segues nicely from section 1, because they represent parallel justifications of social conditions, the earlier in terms of scripture and the later in terms of science.

I'm open to suggestions on how to keep it neutral. However, if the only suggestion is "give up", I think it's fair to give me a chance first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would like some clarity on this. How can Snowden's conclusion be true? Modern-day terminology to describe black people today is as varied as Herodotus. Black people, black families have variations consistent with ancient Egyptians in regards to phenotype, skin color, and hair texture. It is the Caucasian whites that have the least phenotype variation, despite the most recent academic attempts to change that. Even if there is a distinction between Egyptians and Ethiopians, that merely reflects observable variations, not a distinct cut off from one group to another. What's the difference between a darker skinned Ancient Egyptian and a lighter skinned Nubian? But show me the darkest Caucasian and there will be a strong attempt to distinguish the subtleties from that of the lightest skinned black person. The methods are not the same because one group is inclusive, the other is exclusive. The Egyptians were, like modern black people, inclusive. --Panehesy (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Least phenotype variation by what objective standard pray tell? The comment is incoherent as it already assumes that ancient Egyptians are "black people" as such, based on merely American race obsessions. (collounsbury (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Black people vs African diaspora

The topics Black people and African diaspora are very similar and there is considerable overlap in content. It would probably be best if we could minimize the amount of duplicated information that is present in the two articles. Preferably this article should focus on the black identity, what makes people identify as black in the different social contexts. The African Diaspora article can detail which specific countries and regions of the world, have descendants from Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the current contents of the "Debates of race" section? Is it appropriate here? Should it be expanded? Should it be cut down? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Footnote number 1

There is no indication where this note comes from. Is it original? And in any case it is incorrect. Austronesians are speakers of an Austronesian language they are not an ethnic or racial group and should not be included in the list of "black" Asian peoples. Nitpyck (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Arab view

"In general, Arabs had a more positive view of black women than black men, even if the women were of slave origin." I'd say this line very much needs a citation, except I really doubt it would be possible to find a reliable one. Probably it's best to strike this for being unsourceable and unencyclopaedic?