Talk:Black people

Commons category: How come missing?

Please add the {{Commons category|People with black skin}}

to the article. 31.210.177.165 (talk)

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

• First of all, the section had an elaborate description about India's population count, which has no relevance here. Removed it. This page is about the black populations across the world.
• Mention on "Ancestral North Indian" & "Ancestral South Indian" had nothing to do with black populations, as the contribs/data and their corresponding sources(American society of human genetics and Nature international weekly journal of science) had no mention about any of the two classifications being BLACK(which happens to be the core subject of this page). Totally irrelevant to this page due to which i had to remove this too.
• Removed the line - "The genetic analysis affirms previous ethno-linguistic studies that identified two major populations and linguistic groups, known as "Indo-Aryan" and "Dravidian" - This line, and its corresponding citations haven't mentioned anything about the groups being black.
• Finally, I've removed the highly misquoted statement - "Some Dravidians and Tamils are referred to as black, implying their dark skin pigmentation" - Here a user had compiled "a set of disjoint sources" together as a single citation, to support his/her claim. Three sources - George Orwell's shooting an elephant; Guardian.UK; Nanyang university artcile, were compiled into one citation, which was used for the misquoted statement. First of all, as mentioned before, the 3 sources are disjoint without any link to one another. In the first source(Shooting an Elephant, by George Orwell, published by New Uk Writing), the writer(some author, but not an anthropoligist or genealogist) used the term "black dravidian" as a rhetoric/his own opinion/a relative term and not as an official classification of the dravidian people. The article has not mentioned anything about any present/former government or organization/rule/kingdom identifying the class of people as blacks. In the second source (Guardian.Uk) the article refers to an "LTTE rebel" as a black tiger- Here, it is about a tamil speaking Sri Lankan and not an Indian. Also, the term "black tiger" could mean anything(like a nickname, codename, their uniform, etc), and there is nothing to prove/conclude that it was used for her raciality. Also, as mentioned before, it is about a tamil speaking Sri Lankan and not an Indian, so what is the need to mention it under India?? Finally, in the third source(Nanyang University article), the author mentions about a town in Tamil Nadu as "black town" and that "kala means tamil", but it does not say anything about tamil people being called as blacks. I've explained the reason for the deletion, in detail.
  
• Now, it is just the part about the "Andamanese tribes" that is left in the section, which happens to be the only relevant data under the section. Henceforth I changed the section's title to "The Andaman & Nicobar Islands of India". According to both official & social systems of race classifications, except the andamanase tribals, no other "native community of India" is classified black. Except the images of andamanese tribes, nicobarese tribals & siddi immigrants, the addition of any other Indian caste's photo should be removed right away. I hereby request trusted senior editors(such as those listed under hugglewhitelist, etc) and admins to intervene & moderate, in cases of POV PUSHING & vandalism.
  
• A user(who is new to wikipedia) had previously mentioned the wiki' pages(tertiary sources) of "black july & tamil tigers" in his edit comments, to support his claims in one of his previous edits(made on August 1st). Although I don't have any knowledge on Sri Lanka, i went through the two wiki' articles, thoroughly. It isn't mentioned anywhere that tamils are blacks. The name "Black July" is something like "Black september"(Jordan-palestinian conflict), and has nothing to do with one's raciality. Also, it has nothing to do with India.
• Note: Every country in the world racially classifies the "the dravidian people of India(inc' telugu, tamil, malayali people)" as Asians or South Asians along with the rest of India, and they're not classified as blacks anywhere. Also, there are indo-aryans in southern India(South indian brahmins) who actually happen to be ancestral north indians.
  
• See here:Vasundhara Das, Meenakshi Seshadri - Although, they are tamil speaking people, they are brahmins(who actually happen to be ancestral north indians - brahmin is an exclusive indo-aryan/priestly caste originating from the vedic aryans). Do they even look like tamils? Defifinitely not, and the first one clearly looks like a european. As i said, these people are indo-aryans in southern India(South indian brahmins) who happen to be ancestral north indians. This is where you need subject knowledge, as most Non-Indians fail to understand this. Therefore using the term "dravidian/tamilian" to refer to the whole of "south india or tamil nadu" is not even remotely accurate.' Not even all tamils in India are dravidian.
  
• See here:Jim Ankan Deka - This person speaks assamese(an indo-aryan language), but seemingly looks mongoloid/sino-tibetan. Race in India has much to do with the caste system, and not the languages. There's no possiblity that non-indian guys would have any knowledge on this subject. I suppose i've sufficiently explained the reasons as to why i made the deletions. Hari7478 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job and Excellent explanation. I thought of doing this, but couldn't find time to analyse the sources. I will keep this page in my watchlist and monitor the content. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good breakdown guys. A consensus has just formed in this discussion that this article and its companion white people wikipage are to be devoted to the race-based social categories/constructs and not to "black skin" or "white skin", respectively. So the material is effectively offtopic, as is all discussion here of genetics, phenotype, etc. The latter is to be dealt with on the main human skin color article devoted to the topic. The color terminology for race wikipage handles the nomenclature. Soupforone (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As only an occasional visitor to this page, I don't think it's a good explanation at all. Absolute statements like "Every country in the world racially classifies the "the dravidian people of India(inc' telugu, tamil, malayali people)" as Asians or South Asians along with the rest of India" are simply not true. In much of the world (The US and Australia, to my knowledge) the term Asian is reserved for slanty eyed people such as Chinese and Vietnamese. It does NOT include Indian people. I see where people are going with the redefinition, but the article's lead needs to become an awful lot clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

See U.S. race classification of Indians:Asian American includes "Indians" in the U.S. Other countries like Australia who reserve the term(Asian) for other people(Chinese, Vietnamese), classify the Indians as "South Asian", as mentioned before. Indians are never classified as blacks anywhere. Regarding the reason for the deletion, I hope i've explained everything adequately. I hope all of you looked into every single point that i had mentioned above. Hari7478 (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As an Australian of over 60 years, I can assure you that it would be very rare to hear an Indian described as "South Asian". Most Australians simply use the inaccurate term "Indian" to describe anyone from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. And you've just made another absolute claim - "Indians are never classified as blacks anywhere." You cannot possibly know that for certain. And yes, I DID look at every single point you made. Your absolute certainty in some of them actually weakens your case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Indians are never classified as blacks anywhere." Little Black Sambo was an indian. It is far from uncommon for Indians to be described as black [1]. Paul B (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The American Census considers Indians as a part of Asians (see U.S Census Bereau page no.2). The explanation provided was for removing statements about dravidians which were synthesized using vague sources, not to include a statement saying that Indians are considered as asians in Australia. You are just bringing an unnecessary and irrelevant deviation to the discussion. --Anbu121 (talk me) 00:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And that post completely missed the point of my post. I'm NOT American!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That was meant to counter your earlier statement that Indians are not considered as Asians in USA. Had an edit conflict. --Anbu121 (talk me) 00:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Before your post about removal we have reached part-consensus on the white people article that this article was about "black race". All edits I made, I made believing the articles were about skin color, and how people describe themselves according to it. It also included a lot of superfluous material. Your removals therefore are justified.
But, every material I have added to the article are not justified to remain. Andamanese people are described as "Negritos" and Khoisan people as "Capoid race" by the sources. The inclusion of Oceanians isn't supported by sources as none of them describes Oceanians as "black race". The sources don't state the Andamanese, or Khoisans would be "black people" or even "black race". Partial removal of human groups who you don't think are "black" and leaving others who you think are "black" is POV. The race template should be restored (which was by the way removed by me), and edits by me removed. There is an ongoing discussion on the 'white people' article whether to change the title of this racial article to a title that indicates that it's topic is black as a racial term. FonsScientiae (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Page direction

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

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

Eastern Europe

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

The "Melanesia" Section

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

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

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

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

Oceania

Several of the links in this offtopic section say nothing about Australia. They are instead about South Africa [2] and Obama [3], respectively. In any case, the recent rfc discussion on the direction of this page and its companion white people article overwhelmingly concluded that each article is to be devoted to the mainstream "black people" and "white people" social constructs, not to idiosyncratic views or skin-color based arguments. The notion of Austrian Aborigines as "black people" is not a mainstream concept but a fringe one based entirely on skin color, so it falls outside the purview of this article. As was additionally conceded in the rfc, the page will also by consequence focus a lot on North America because that is where the social construct is most pronounced. Please respect the community's consensus. Thanks, Soupforone (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The notion of Australian (not Austrian BTW) Aborigines as "black people" is a very mainstream concept in Australia... there is the "Black Deaths in Custody" report, a TV show called "Living Black", the indigenous activist slogan "White Australia has a Black History" and on and on. Many indigenous Australians self-identify as "black" and everybody knows that "blackfella" (Aboriginal pidgin for "black fellow") refers to an indigenous person. As pointed out by the legal definition, being "black" in Australia isn't "based entirely on skin color" as you claim. Skin colour is not mentioned at all.. it's a social construct based on ancestry, self-identification and acceptance by the indigenous community. This was recently highlighted in the media when an Aboriginal boxer had a go at another Aboriginal boxer for not being "black" enough and was widely panned as a rascist: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-18/mundine-slammed-for-geale-slur/4321864 ... quite clearly "black" in Australia is a social construct referring to Aboriginal people and skin colour has nothing to do with it. So unless the article is "Black people as a North American social construct", I think it would be remiss not to include a small section of what the term means in Australia as it is different to what it means elsewhere.

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

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

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

a) WP:WEIGHT states that articles should cite views in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. The idea that Australian Aborigines or Dravidians, among others, are "black people" is - though certainly in circulation as a meme in some quarters - definitely not prominent. This was made clear on the fringe noticeboard discussion.

b) While in some circles the term "black people" may include far-flung groups like Dravidians or Australian Aborigines, this is not the term's predominant usage

c) You quoting Paul B: (even though everyonme is part of an Afican diaspora; if you are going to argue that people who happen to be dark skinned in Australia or India are part of it, you may as well argue that Norwegians are part of it)

My thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

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

Intro

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

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

Those are BBC and AFP syndicated articles. They are just hosted/re-published on Australian websites, among others. Anyway, the notion of Australians, Dravidians, etc. as "black people" was one of the very reasons for the recent rfc. The conclusion of that extensive, community-wide discussion was that 1) that notion is not mainstream; 2) this page is to focus on the mainstream black people concept, which by default is largely characteristic of North American societies; 3) skin color is to be dealt with on the relevant human skin color page. In short, this means that "black people" is primarily synonymous with peoples who are believed to have so-called "Black African" ancestry, regardless of their actual skin color. This would not include Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, and many other dark-skinned peoples around the world. That was the community's consensus, so there's no point in rehashing the discussion. Editors had ample opportunity to participate in that discussion. It was linked to on this talk page, among several others, and they were urged to take part in it. Please also have a look at the WP:GOI guide on post-consensus etiquette. Soupforone (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for you comments, but you don't seem to have read anything I said. You've just come back with the same arguments that you did before even though I have provided independently verifiable evidence that they are wrong. Can you please take the time to read what I am saying and either agree with it or provide evidence that refutes it. If you just keep stating your opinion over and over again with nothing to back it up we'll just keep going round in circles.

To recap:

a) You keep saying that the consensus is that the article can only discuss the "mainstream" social constructs, but the consensus does not say that. What it says is that this article is for social constructs, and there is another one for skin colour. The pre-consensus discussion points out that there is a single predominate "black people" construct that will dominate the article, but there is nothing about other genuine constructs being excluded. If you can show me where the consensus excludes non-mainstream constructs please do, otherwise, please stop saying that it does.

b) You keep grouping Aboriginals and Dravidians together but they come from completely separate societies and have been genetically separate for some 50,000 years - longer than White Americans and Dravidians have been separate. Grouping them to advance your argument just because they both have dark skin is exremely disrespectful and, well, ultimately rascist. Please stop doing this.

Tobus2 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, the consensus of the discussion was exactly what's written above. I issued the rfc so I ought to know. The entire discussion was prompted by an account making similar arguments as your own. From the complaints that the lede is North America-centric, to the insistence that so-called Black Africans have a wide range of physical features, to the notion that Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, etc. are "black people" like many Africans, it's all been seen, discussed and resolved. Not only in the rfc, but in the protracted discussion above that led to it and an earlier fringe noticeboard discussion i.e. through various channels/processes. Multiple editors weighed in all of these conversations. Taken together, the community consensus went overwhelmingly against that user's arguments, a fact which he himself conceded in the rfc. He consequently personally removed from this page the offtopic Australian Aborigine/Dradividan, etc. material that he had added [4]. Like WP:GOI states, "after it has been determined, often through multiple processes, that a certain result will stand, it makes no sense to continue fighting." Regards -- Soupforone (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, I'd like to get this resolved and we're getting nowhwere, can you please provide evidence to support what you are saying, in particular:

a) Can you please quote the part of the consensus that is "exactly what's written above"

b) Can you please quote where I've posited "that Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, etc. are 'black people' like many Africans"

c) Can you please give examples of where FonsScientiae was making "similar arguments as [my] own?"

Tobus2 (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Aboriginal Australian material you added that begins "the term "black people" is commonly used in Australia to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" [5] is quite similar to the Aboriginal Australian material that the Fons username added that begins "the term "blacks" has often been applied to Indigenous Australians" [6]. In any event, consensus has been reached that that material is offtopic. The user himself conceded as much when he personally removed it at the conclusion of the rfc [7]. Please respect the community's decision. Thanks - Soupforone (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You neglected to give quotes for the other two issues (rephrased here to reflect your latest words on the subject):

a) Can you please quote the part of the consensus that says the material I've provided is offtopic (and/or the part that I'm not respecting)

b) Can you please quote the part of my section that implies Aboriginal Australians are like Africans?

c) Thank you very much for your reply. I can see why, based on these 2 short sentences, you might believe that I am repeating what the previous editor(*) was saying - you managed to find a sentence that was nearly identical to mine! There are three differences I will point out though, in the hope that you will understand that I'm saying something different to FonsScientae and reassess its conformity with the consensus on it's own merits:

1) Sources. The sentence you quoted doesn't supply any sources so it's impossible to tell whether it refers to a social construct or to skin colour. In constrast, my text has 3 references which I think show it clearly shows "black" being used to refer to Indigenous Australians as a social construct, not as a reference to skin colour.

2) Validity. The very next sentence after the one you quote says that the term "owes more to skin colour than ethnology, as it categorises Indigenous Australians among other black people in Asia and Africa". This is a completely false statement. My article says no such thing.

3) Relevence. The sentence you quote is part of 450+ word subsection describing Indigenous Australians and their history. It is within a much larger "Geographic Distribution" section that describes a range of other dark-skinned populations in the same way - physical, historical and geographic descriptions with no reference or relevance to social constructs. When removing this section, FonsScientae said "All edits I made, I made believing the articles were about skin color, and how people describe themselves according to it.". This is completely different to my article, which solely focuses on "black people" as a social construct in Australia, providing references and a legal definition that shows that skin colour is not a factor.

As you can see, I consider my contribution to be of a completely different order to what FonsScientae was doing. He thought the article was about skin colour and added large descriptions of various dark-skinned communites. I know the article is about social constructs and added a short description of the construct as used in Australia. He falsely assumed that "black" in Australia was a skin colour reference. I know that it's not and provide references and a definition to show it. While there may be a surface similarity in that we both state that "black people" refers to Indigenous Australians, that is where the similarity ends. The content, validity and relevance to the article are completely different. I would appreciate it if you would consider my article on its own merits, without any reference to previous sections/editors that you (rightly) had issues with. I am of course open to edits/suggestions if you feel my original text is unclear and would lead people to make the same mistake you did regarding its meaning.

(*) I should note that it's probably not actually FonsScientae's words - it looks like he's lifted the paragraph wholesale from the Indigenous Australians page ([8] is the version before my recent edit).

Tobus2 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Some quotes explaining the consensus, from the rfc:

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

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

You'd better rewrite the lead then. As I read it, the first paragraph can easily include the usage of the word "black" to label Aboriginal people in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@SoupForOne: Thank you for providing quotes to support your viewpoint, these quotes clearly show the consensus that this page is about social constructs of "black people" and not about skin colour, with which I respect completely and am 100% happy to comply with. After reading your quotes however, I still cannot see how any of them say this article is only for the discussion of a single social construct ("devoted to that very construct" as you word it this time). The first quote actually undermines this assertion by saying the article will necessarily become biased towards US definitions and views., clearly implying that there are non-US definitions and views that will be less represented in the article. If you can find a quote in consensus that actually states that only the US construct can be discussed then please post it. Otherwise, please stop saying that it does.

Also, I note that you are now saying "racial group" which makes me wonder if this is the root of the problem. Perhaps you believe that there exists a single "black" race and that this page is about it? If this is your reasoning behind the statements that the consensus excludes other definitions of "black people", can you please provide quotes from the consensus that show that all other editors who took part in the consensus were agreeing to this. It seems very far from the idea of "black" as a society-defined construct that I understand from my reading of the consensus discussion.

@HiLo48: The lede as I read it is in accordance with the consensus. Rather than change the lede to reflect one man's interpretation of the consensus, I suggest we change one man's interpretation of the consensus to reflect the lead.

Tobus2 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopaedia. The article must clearly state the narrow perspective it is taking right from the start. That some don't realise it's narrow probably reflects their own perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was confusing HiLo, I hope you realise that you're not the "one man" I'm talking about. From my point of view the article shouldn't take a narrow perspective and so the lede is accurate in that respect - it includes multiple definitions of "black people" and so should the article. I was referring to Soupforone's insistence that only the US definition is allowed to be discussed... are you saying that you agree and that the only concept of "black people" that should be discussed in the article is the US one? Tobus2 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it's obvious that the term "black people" is used with similar intent in many places. With the title we have, that's what the article should reflect. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article should reflect the phrase as generally understood by most people. All I'm talking about is adding a sentence or two down under an "Australia" section with a link to the main [Indigenous Australia] page. Tobus2 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not require that all participants share the same view. It just requires that most are in agreement i.e. a rough consensus. This is overwhelmingly what happened in the rfc discussion. My opening remarks there sought to determine whether the "white people" and "black people" sister pages are "intended for the discussion of the race-based "white" and "black" social categories/constructs, respectively, or whether they are soley meant to discuss skin color". The comments by other editors that followed agreed with the former. None of the participants subscribed to the Fons username's de facto skin color-based arguments. Maunus stated plainly that the subject is race, not skin color. Carwill responded that "I wholly agree with Maunus", to which I also agreed. Anbu121's comment there in support is self-explanatory, as is Shrikanthv's assertion that "it makes no sence to have blackness scale for skin tone to term a ethnicity as "Black people"". In short, the "black people" racial category in question is itself a social construct, and Australian Aborigines, like Dravidians, are not traditionally regarded as part of it. The other party himself admitted as much: "I strongly doubt that black Australians, Oceanians, or African blacks could be considered the same race in a racial classification". Hence, why, due to "consensus on White people:talk", he personally removed the text and images of Aboriginal Australians, Dravidians, etc. from this Category:Race (human classification) article at the conclusion of the rfc [9]. Soupforone (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Soupforone, and I agree with everything you have said here: the article is about social constructs, not skin colour and "Black Australians" are not part of the "traditional" US/European construct of "black people". I hope you can see that neither this nor the consensus means that the article is solely devoted to a single construct or that the mention of non-traditional social constructs of "black people" is prohibited. It may be something you personally believe, but it does not reflect the community decision. In the Australian social context, Indigenous Australians (unlike Dravidians) are routinely referred to as "black people", a term indicating race/ancestry with no dependence on the actual skin colour of the individual(s) being referred to. In accordance with WP:WEIGHT, a small section on this Australian-specific usage is warranted in the article. Tobus2 (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing this page with the Color terminology for race page. The classification of Australian Aborigines and Dravidians as "black people" was understood by the posters in the rfc and the processes leading up to it as being non-mainstream and primarily based on the dark skin color of folks in Australia and India. Paul B thus wrote on the fringe noticeboard that "More recently some African-American writers have tried to construct a model of an "African diaspora", which includes any people deemed "black", in their view: which fact somehow makes them part of an African diaspora (even though everyonme is part of an Afican diaspora; if you are going to argue that people who happen to be dark skinned in Australia or India are part of it, you may as well argue that Norwegians are part of it)". In the end, the consensus was that this material is offtopic, so the other party personally removed it. Soupforone (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles again. I've already shown, conclusively, with references, that the social context referring Indigenous Australians as "black people" in Australia is neither a reference to skin colour, nor has anything to do with India or Africa and as such should be proportionally represented in the article. You are supposed to be showing me where in the consensus it says that only the US social construct for "black people" can be discussed... does your silence on this front indicate that you accept that it does not say that? Tobus2 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The other party already argued unsuccessfully that the concept of Australian Aborigines as "black people" falls within the scope of this article. He cited both dark skin color and self-identification as determining factors (as does, incidentally, the nathanielturner.com webpage you cited [10]). He quoted dictionary definitions along the way to support his position, only to be told that "dictionaries are not suitable for defining complex topics like this". He was also explained that the topic was "not about skincolor, but about race", and that "this kind of racial thinking is particularly common in the US, which is why the article will necessarily become biased towards US definitions and views". These are comments one user made to which other posters were in agreement. That's the consensus and why the Australian Aborigine material is not any more on-topic here than is the Dravidian material. Anyway, I've contacted one of the posters that participated in both the rfc and some of the processes leading up to it, so he can clarify the matter. Soupforone (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I note you are moving your argument away from "the consensus says we can only discuss the mainstream social construct of 'black people'" and are now claiming that "Indigenous Australians as 'black people' is about skin colour and not a social construct". Before I respond to that, can you please confirm your agreement that the consensus allows for the discussion of more than one social construct. There's not much point discussing the validity of particular social construct if you're just going to revert to your "mainstream" argument if proven wrong. Tobus2 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I wrote in the OP that "the notion of Austrian Aborigines as "black people" is not a mainstream concept but a fringe one based entirely on skin color, so it falls outside the purview of this article". This was echoed by other editors in the rfc and the processes leading up to it, such as Paul B (quoted earlier). Bottom line, all categorizations based primarily on skin color are off-topic. This includes material on Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, etc. i.e. peoples of non-"Black African" ancestry who are in some instances labeled "black" because of their typically dark skin color. Anyway, the user seems to be away for the moment. So in the meantime I've contacted another one of the posters that participated in the rfc; he can also provide clarification on the matter. Soupforone (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I know you think "the notion of Austrian Aborigines as "black people" is not a mainstream concept but a fringe one based entirely on skin color", but you are wrong - it's a mainstream concept in Australia and it's not "entirely about skin colour". I'm happy to show you this if you're happy to accept that once I show you, you will allow a section on Ingidenous Australians in this article. Agreed? Tobus2 (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Some inputs and outcomes of previous discussions.

• 1) we tried to acertain upto what color tone can a human be termed as "black" and there was no official answer for that and dropped down to moving this discussion to biological topic of human skin colour .
• 2) we also found that the whole concept of black people is more popular in Americas than any other parts of the world. so it was decided not to put or name anymore indigineous people or humans from other parts of the world black as this would leed to misleading notion of terming all human beings with some melanin pigmentation as black (without any official or scientific definition).

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

I will show your thoughts to some of the Australian Aboriginal teenagers at my high school tomorrow. I'll see what they think of your declaration that their self identification as black people is rudely diluting the far more important American view. You simply can't dismiss a group of people like that, even if they're not American. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: That's why it should go in it's own section labeled "Australia", to make it clear that it's talking about a different construct to the US one. I agree with HiLo, the "fringe theory" argument is quite an insulting attitude and completely at odds with WP:Weight. We're talking about a concept held by an entire nation here, not just a few crackpots from Woolloomooloo. Tobus2 (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What Shrikanthv has just described is the consensus. One doesn't have to like the outcome, but that is nonetheless the community's decision. Soupforone (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What community? The one I wasn't part of until after that "consensus" was reached? Can you imagine how much I respect a wrong, US-centric decision from such a community? Consensus can change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

An rfc outcome represents the community's consensus on a given issue. Shrikanthv, who took part in that discussion, has just described what the community's decision was. Editors here had ample opportunity to participate in that consensus discussion. It was linked to prominently on this very page, among others. In fact, they were urged to take part in it. Consensus can indeed change, but it doesn't have to. It is also typically only years later that a given issue is revisited, not mere weeks. Soupforone (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@HiLo:I share your indignation at the "US-centric" line that Soupforone is taking, and I don't think it's got much community supprt. I've read the "consensus" and can't see any community decision about banning non-US/mainstream interpretations of "black people" in general, nor any decision that "black people" as it is used in Australia is banned specifically.

If you want to read it for yourself, the consensus Soupforone is referring to is this discussion in August on the White People talk page on whether that page an this one are "intended for the discussion of the race-based 'white' and 'black' social categories/constructs" or "soley meant to discuss skin color.". Most of it is an argument between FonsScientae, who had added a lot of content on populations who have dark skin, and Soupforone, who felt the content wasn't suitable for the page. The result of the discussion was summed up by Soupforone himself as follows:

The consensus is: 1) the white people and black people articles are set aside for discussion of the "white" and "black" social constructs, and 2) the human skin color article is set aside for discussion of the biology and range of human skin coloration. (Soupforone (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

and agreed to by the other major party FonsScientae, who removed all the content he had added (which included some on Indigenous Australians):

Agreed, and emphasizing that white people and black people are for discussion for 'black' and 'white' as social concepts of race. (FonsScientiae (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

@Soupforone: I've asked you twice to show evidence that the consensus restricts discussion to a single mainstream social construct and you have failed to provide it. In order to reach a resolution on this issue you either have to stop saying it, or backup your claims with evidence. I'll be happy to discuss the relevance of Australian content in particular once we have agreement on what the consensus means. Alternatively we could refer the matter to dispute resolution. Tobus2 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect, that is a strawman argument. The rfc was never between one or more social constructs. All editors that took part in that consensus discussion, including the Fons username, understood the issue of Australian Aborigines as "black people" to be primarily based on their dark skin color. Fons even quoted a dictionary definition asserting as much. And as Shrikanthv just explained, "it was decided not to put or name anymore indigineous people or humans from other parts of the world black as this would leed to misleading notion of terming all human beings with some melanin pigmentation as black (without any official or scientific definition)." That is why Fons himself personally removed the material on Australian Aborigines as "black people", which he had added in the first place. You can say that you disagree with the verdict, but you can't very well deny its existence. Anyway, I'm not going to bother again arguing the obvious. I've started another rfc below for the broader community to decide on. Soupforone (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Strawman? So you didn't say:

• Per the rfc consensus, this article is reserved for discussion of the mainstream "black people" social construct discussed at length in there. (Soupforone (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC))
• The conclusion of that extensive, community-wide discussion was that 1) that notion is not mainstream; 2) this page is to focus on the mainstream black people concept, which by default is largely characteristic of North American societies (Soupforone (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
• The point is, Australian Aborigines as "black people" is not the same racial construct as the one discussed on this page. It is not a mainstream concept that Aboriginal Australians are part of the same "black people" racial group as are many Africans. This article is devoted to that very racial construct (Soupforone (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC))

?

That's at least 3 times you have repeated that the consensus limits the article to a single "mainstream" social construct. I've read the consensus discussion and I came to the opposite conclusion. If you can show me where it says it I'll change my mind (for as John Maynard Keynes allegedly said, "When I'm wrong I change my mind... what do you do?").

I'm not trying to be combatative here, I'm just trying to resolve the issue in a logical manner. I have identified the two main arguments you seem to be repeating ("article is devoted to a single construct" and "Australian version of 'black people' is invalid/insignificant"), either of which, if correct, would justify your revert. I am trying to come to a verifiable agreement with you on the first one. After a few exchanges on it, your last few posts have stopped saying it and I'm trying to see if you have abandoned it because you accept it's not true, or if the matter is still unresolved and will surface at a later point. Once we have agreement on that issue, we can move on to assess the specific context in regards to Indigenous Australians and come to agreement on its inclusion/exclusion in the page. So before we discuss the assumption (and its ramifications) that other editors "understood the issue of Australian Aborigines as 'black people' to be primarily based on their dark skin color" (which clearly falls under the "invalid/insignificant" argument), can you please either accept that multiple social constructs for "black people" are allowed on the page, or show me where the consensus says only the "mainstream" one can be discussed. Accepting that you were wrong on this point would not mean, in and of itself, that you accept a section on Indigenous Australians. It would mean that, in principal, if there were other valid social constructs beside the "mainstream" one they would be allowed. Tobus2 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion again, Please refrain yourself from attaching to things you have written (in wiki) or things you know it to be true (as both leads to misjudgment ) .

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

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

Edit request on 18 November 2012

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

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

Suggest relocation of some material from the lead

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

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

I agree, I made a similar change [11] which was later reverted. You will find that nearly all the content of that 2nd paragraph is a duplication of the intro to the North American section anyway. Tobus2 (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead policy iterates that intros ought to briefly summarize the page's key aspects. That's why there's some repetition there. Soupforone (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a good introduction and contains just about all the points that the seconds paragraph does. Can you highlight any particular points in the second paragraph that you feel aren't represented in the first? Perhaps we can merge them to create a single paragraph without the unnecessary repetition. Tobus2 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph plus the last sentence of the second paragraph should cover it. Soupforone (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this and have gone ahead an done it. Note that I also changed it to "not necessarily" instead of just "not" which I think is a bit more accurate - my reasoning being that if I said "this morning some black people helped me start my car", I think most people would assume this indicated some degree of dark skin pigmentation (without it necessarily being the sole or decisive factor in me using the term), so it can refer to skin colour, but "not necessarily". I also added an "a" which I thought was missing. Feel free to remove "necessarily" if you think it changes the meaning too much. Tobus2 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: Page direction

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

---

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

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

Logically it MUST include ALL peoples who self identify as black and who are known as black by others in their community, such as Australian Aboriginal people. I cannot comprehend any other rational approach. (I don't know enough about the other groups to comment on them.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginal people do not all identify as "black" as you suggest. Even if they did, this article is not merely about self-identification, but instead about racial classification. In any event, we already know your opinion. Please allow other editors the opportunity to weigh in as per the process. Thanks, Soupforone (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure we all know your opinion too, and we don't seem to be able to silence you. (Nor would I want to.) Oh, and I didn't say that they ALL identify as black. Misrepresentation is never helpful. Your arrogance and faulty discussion style do not help your case. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you clearly did refer to Australian Aboriginal people. You didn't say some Australian Aboriginal people. Anyway, there's nothing offensive about the request to please allow other editors the opportunity to respond. This was the point of the rfc; to break the stalemate above by inviting other editors to voice their opinion. Soupforone (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not all African-Americans identify as "black" either. In any case, this is hardly a valid criterion for judging whether a particular term is a social construct for race or a descriptive skin colour reference. If you spent a few minutes researching the subject for yourself you would see that in Australia "black people" is a social construct very commonly used to refer to people who identify as Indigenous Australians with no direct relationship to their skin colour. It is used across the entrie spectrum of the population and occurs often in public and government sponsored media. If you think there's a better way to determine whether something is a "social construct" or not, feel free to let me know. Tobus2 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In your first post you indicated that being "black" in Australia is "a social construct based on ancestry, self-identification and acceptance by the indigenous community." Now you appear to be stating the opposite, that self-identification doesn't matter. In any event, African Americans are mainly of so-called "Black African" descent. Australian Aborigines, on the other hand, are not. The latter are sometimes labeled "black" because of their typically dark skin color. Lighter-skinned Australians with some Aboriginal ancestry are for this reason at times contrasted as White Aborigines [12]. Soupforone (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-identification does matter (it's enshrined in the law), it's the tiny fraction of non-self-identification that you mentioned that is irrelevent. Indigenous Australians, like Africans may have been originally labeled "black" as a description of their dark skin colour, but in both cases the present use of the term applies to a race-based social construct, not to skin colour. The only times that light-skinned Aboriginals are called "White Aboriginals" is when a racist fringe theorist is trying to stir up trouble. Andrew Bolt, the author of the article you are using as a reference is an extremely controversial figure and was actually sued over the article you reference - an article that was widely criticised as "a nasty, personal rant against fair-skinned part-Aboriginal people who identify as indigenous Australians"[13]. Your use of his "White Aboriginal" theory to prove your point is akin to me saying that African-Americans aren't "black people" because someone once called one of them an "Oreo". It's racist, it's fringe and it's got no place in an intelligent discussion. Tobus2 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfitting analogy. African Americans are of so-called "Black African" descent, whereas Australian Aborigines are not. The term "White Aborigines" also refers to lighter-skinned Australians with some Aboriginal ancestry. By contrast, an oreo is simply a person of "Black African" descent who identifies as "white" or with "white people", with no mixture required. I only brought up the "White Aborigines" vs. "Black Aborigines" dichotomy to highlight the fact that Australian Aborigines are sometimes designated as "black people" specifically because of their typically dark skin color. The summary of the Eatock v. Bolt case thus uses the neutral expression "fair-skinned Aboriginal", but the pigmentation dichotomy remains the same. That case also highlights an exhibition by one such "fair-skinned Aboriginal" woman, artist Bindi Cole (whose father is Aboriginal and late mother was English and Jewish), that was "intended to challenge stereotypical assumptions about race and identity and the stereotype that a person who is not dark-skinned and not from a remote community is not really Aboriginal." Cole also complains in the case that "she perceived the Articles as reinforcing the stereotype of the "black" Aboriginal" and that "she perceived Mr Bolt as saying that she was not legitimately Aboriginal because she was not dark-skinned enough". So the association in Australia between Aboriginal people and dark skin is clearly widespread, and is encapsulated in the term "black" [14]. This is evidenced by the noun "stereotype", which implies a widely held, fixed and oversimplified belief [15]. Soupforone (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As usual, you've totally missed the point Soupforone. The point is that the existence of a racial epithet doesn't disprove a social construct, whether "White Aboriginal" and "Oreo" mean the same thing is irrelevent. As Bindi Cole points out, the idea that "fair-skinned Aboriginals" living in the city aren't really Aboriginal is not valid - being a "black Australian" doesn't mean you have to have dark skin. Tobus2 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not what Bindi Cole asserts. What she states is that the notion of a "Black Aboriginal" is itself a stereotype, and that she rejects that stereotype because it puts into question her "Aboriginality" since she is fair-skinned. This is why she is so offended by Bolt's material, as she "perceived the Articles as reinforcing the stereotype of the “black Aboriginal"". In fact, per the court, her whole art exhibition showing photographs of "people who have pale skin colour, but whose faces have been painted black" was "intended to challenge stereotypical assumptions about race and identity and the stereotype that a person who is not dark-skinned and not from a remote community is not really Aboriginal." In short, "Black Aboriginal"="Dark-skinned Aboriginal"="True Aboriginal". That's the skin-color based stereotype. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? She's saying that skin colour has nothing to do with being Aboriginal - all her uses of the word "black" are about skin colour, not about race. She's clearly saying that she's an Aborigine and she's not dark-skinned so the idea that all Aborigines have dark skin is wrong. I can't see how you can arrive at that 2nd last sentence ("Dark-skinned Aboriginal"="True Aboriginal") from the preceding ones - she's clearly saying the exact opposite. Can you point out which bit makes you think she's saying that she's not a 'true' Aboriginal?

Unless you think the "skin-color based stereotype" is what I'm talking about when I say that Indigenous Australians are "black people"? I've already explained that Bolt's skin-colour-based point of view is a very small racist fringe theory in Australia. The general consensus is with Bindi - being Aboriginal (aka "black" in Australia) has nothing to do with your actual skin colour. Tobus2 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I never stated that Bindi Cole is not a true aboriginal. I said that she basically indicates that the stereotype in Australia is that Black Aboriginal=Dark-Skinned Aboriginal=True Aboriginal. The fact of the matter is, the "fair-skinned Aboriginal" artist Cole already put together her photographic exhibition protesting that "Black Aboriginal" stereotype. And she did this well before Bolt ever wrote his review mocking that same photographic exhibition in which black powder is said to cover "her distressingly white face". This is why she "perceived the Articles as reinforcing the stereotype of the "black" Aboriginal" and "perceived Mr Bolt as saying that she was not legitimately Aboriginal because she was not dark-skinned enough". The inherently skin color-based notion that Black Aboriginal=Dark-skinned Aboriginal=True Aboriginal thus already existed in Australia as a widely held, fixed and oversimplified belief (a stereotype). Bolt's articles just reinforced what was already there and what Cole, as a "fair-skinned Aboriginal", was already fighting against. Soupforone (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I see now what you are getting at. By that logic though, "black people" when referring to African Americans would also have to be about skin colour because there are people who say Obama isn't "black", that Halley Berry isn't "black" or that Tiger Woods isn't "black" based on their skin colour. In my opinion, a minority view that disagrees with the norm doesn't change the norm. Tobus2 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

People say Obama, Halle Berry and Tiger Woods are not strictly "black" because of their respective non-Black parent and ancestry, not because of their lighter skin color. Such individuals are technically referred to as multi-racial (unless one part of their ancestry tends to predominate). The minority view in the present situation is the skin color-based (not ancestry-based) idea that Australian Aborigines are "black people". This notion is mainly restricted to Australia. It's also rejected by some peoples with Aboriginal ancestry, as the Eatock v Bolt lawsuit shows. Soupforone (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. You don't understand the Australian situation at all. My thoughts are in the post below from 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC). How about you try to believe someone who lives and works with Australian Aboriginal people, rather than stories associated with a professional bigot? HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with HiLo, you clearly have little experience of the Australian culture. There is a wealth of information out there about "black people" in Australia, did you try googling "Black Australia" as well as "White Aboriginal"? I suggest you spend some time researching the whole situation before deciding your viewpoint - you wouldn't want your sole informant to be a rascist nutjob who was successfully sued and nearly lost his job because of his very unpopular views. Tobus2 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Eatock v Bolt is not a story by Bolt. It's a lawsuit that you brought up. It's also an Australian court and a witness with Aboriginal ancestry that made those assertions. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It was Bolt who made the assertion that you have to have black skin to be an Aborigine. Eatock, the court and the artist all made the opposite assertion - that skin colour is irrelevant. I can see how someone with no exposure to Australian culture might assume from this single example that Bolt's "stereotype" is the one that all Australians use when they call Indigenous Australians "black people", but it isn't. A quick read of other material on "Black Australia" would have shown you this:

• The National Library of Australia's "White Australia has a Black History" page[16] is not talking about the history of dark-skinned people, it's talking about the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
• The National Film and Sound Archives "BlackScreen" initiative[17] is not showing films by people with dark skin, it's showing films by people with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry
• The Special Broadcasting Service's "Living Black" television progam[18] is not about 'people-with-dark-skin' issues, it's about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues
• The Australian Literary Resources "BlackWords" section[19] doesn't showcase works by dark-skinned writers and storytellers, it showcases works by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander writers and storytellers
• The "Black On Track" initiative [20] doesn't provide services to dark-skinned people, it provides services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

These are just 5 examples I found in 2 minutes of searching, I could list a hundred more if I had all day. They clearly show the "black person" stereotype in Australia includes all people of Aboriginal ancestry regardless of their skin colour. Yes there might be individual examples of people like Bolt who hold a different view, but these are the minority not the norm. Before making sweeping statements about stereotypes within a culture you have no first-hand experience of, you might want to take some time to get your facts straight first. Tobus2 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did say that it's Bindi Cole who asserts that in Australia there's a stereotype that a Black Aboriginal is a dark-skinned Aboriginal, and that a dark-skinned Aboriginal is a true Aboriginal. I'm just passing on what she said. The links above also don't address whether or not this stereotype is widespread there. Anyway, please see my comment below on option #3. Soupforone (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And Soupforone, for as long as you seek out material connected with Andrew Bolt for information regarding Aboriginal Australians, you're getting a very distorted view. There is masses of material on the subject. Use Bolt if you must, but look wider too. Find some material that has nothing to do with Bolt. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "seek out" material by Bolt, actually. Those quotes and assertions above are also not from him. They are the words of an Australian court and a "fair-skinned Aboriginal" woman, taken from the same high profile lawsuit that Tobus2 brought up. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not all dravidians are dark-skinned and there exists absolutely no sources that call dravidians as black people. I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment about the other communities. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No sources? None?

• J. W. Bond; Arnold Wright (1914). Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources. Asian Educational Services. p. 62. ISBN 978-81-206-1344-7.
• André van Lysebeth (2002). Tantra: The Cult of Feminine. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 229. ISBN 978-81-208-1759-3.
• Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (2003). The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-521-77111-5.
• Runoko Rashidi; Ivan Van Sertima, Runoko Rashidi (1988). African Presence in Early Asia. Transaction Publishers. pp. 87. ISBN 978-0-88738-717-3. ("dravidian negroes")
• T.R. Sesha Iyengar (1989). Dravidian India. Asian Educational Services. pp. 23. ISBN 978-81-206-0135-2.

possibly others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Still No. None of the sources explicitly calls dravidians as "Black people". I again repeat "Not all dravidians are dark-skinned" and 'dark-skinned' doesn't mean 'Black'. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not asserting that all dravidians are either dark-skinned or black. I am asserting that sources exist which, to use your words, "call dravidians as black people." I make no assertion regarding the correctness of so doing. Anthony G. Reddie (2010). Black Theology, Slavery and Contemporary Christianity: 200 Years and No Apology. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-7546-6727-8., for example, explicitly defines Dravidian as "Black Indian". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through those references and the instances of "black people" seem to be being used mainly as one-off groupings by skin colour rather than indicating a wide-spread or consistent social construct of Dravidians as a "black people". I can't see anything that would support the inclusion of Dravidians in the agreed scope of this article, but feel free to point out specific ones if you disagree. Due to the controversy on this issue I'm starting to think perhaps a "negative" section on Dravidians might be useful, explicitly stating that whlie some Dravidians may have dark skin, they are not considered a "black people" in any society... just an idea, but might stop future edits by people who think they are "missing" from the article? Tobus2 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I've disruptively intruded on the discussion here; I tend to go into free-association mode after a too-long session with articles seen on my watchlist or in WP:huggle. Rather than belabor this tiny side issue, I'll let you folks get on with the larger discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The RFC is very poorly worded and needs to be rephrased so it doesn't refer to specific groups - each of the groups you mention exists in a different society and are subject to different social constructs/racial classifications, so it's possible that some groups should be included in the article while others shouldn't. For example, the way it's worded now you can't have Australians without also having Dravidians, but "black people" when used to refer to Australians has much more in common with the way it's used to refer to African-Amercians than it does when used (if it ever is) to refer to Dravidians. I want to say that Australians should be in and Dravidians out but the wording of the RFC doesn't allow for that. An apt analogy might be that you are trying to get agreement on 'apples' or 'oranges' by asking people to choose between red things or non-red things and providing no option that accounts for green apples. The way you've framed the RFC means we either have to say that Dravidians are "black people" (oranges are apples) or that Indigenous Australians aren't "black people" (green apples aren't apples) neither of which I agree with. Tobus2 (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The rfc is intended to ascertain the inclusion criteria for all populations. Dravidians and other typically dark-skinned, non-"Black African" peoples are mentioned in the opening question because in the recent past one editor argued that they too are "black people", due to their oftentimes dark skin color. Australian Aborigines are mentioned there for the same reason [21]. Soupforone (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. If Andrew Bolt is your source of information on Aboriginal Australians, it's no wonder you're talking nonsense. He is a right wing commentator paid by the Murdoch media to write and talk provocative garbage. A print and television version of a shock jock. The rednecks and bigots love him. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I clicked on that wikipage and did not see any of those labels you've attached to the fellow. And by Murdock I'll presume you mean Rupert Murdoch (whose parent company owns The Wall Street Journal, among other mainstream media outlets). In any event, most of what the writer references is drawn from an actual Australian law, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Soupforone (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you paid attention to the media scandals in the UK recently? Murdoch is hardly an innocent, impartial observer. Nor is Bolt. You seem to be in the habit of selectively finding material to support a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "selectively find" anything, actually. I just Googled "White Aborigines", and that was one of the first links that appeared [22]. Soupforone (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's no surprise, because it's a very rare term in Australia. Only bigots, and journalists pandering to that demographic tend to use it. By Googling it, you were being selective. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what term is selected (I could have highlighted the Australian court's term "fair-skinned Aboriginal" too, you know), the stereotype of the "black" Aboriginal itself originates from the typically dark skin color of Australian Aborigines. Soupforone (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The stereotype of "black" African also originates from the typically dark skin colour of Niger-Congo speaking Africans. The stereotype of "black" American also originates from the typically dark skin colour of African slaves brough to America. You'd be hard-pressed to find any reference to "black people" that didn't reflect phenotype to some degree. In terms of this article though, the origin of the "black" reference is irrelevent. If the term is used a social construct to refer to a group of people then it should be included in the page. If the term is used to describe skin colour then it should not be included. In cases where it does both (say the "black" designation under Apartheid) then I'd say it should be included if the social aspect is significant. In respect to Indigenous Australians, you'll find even "fair-skinned Aboriginals" are still considered to be "black people" in the general sense so the skin colour issue is a red herring. Tobus2 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If the average African American and Togolese travel to a foreign country, they will both be regarded as part of the same "Black African" community. This will not be the situation for the average Australian Aborigine. This is because the very classification of Aboriginals as "black people" is mainly restricted to Australia and is inherently based on their typically dark skin color. It is not predicated on the fact that Australian Aborigines are primarily of "Black African" ancestry (which they aren't). The Eatock v Bolt case thus decries the "Black Aboriginal"="Dark-Skinned Aboriginal"="True Aboriginal" stereotype in Australia. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

... and the fact that Bolt lost that case would mean that he was wrong. Being Aboriginal has nothing to do with skin colour. Tobus2 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Bolt lost the case means that he was found guilty of writing articles that "conveyed offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people, by saying that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending to be Aboriginal so they could access benefits that are available to Aboriginal people". That's what Eatock actually charged him with. Soupforone (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel the inclusion criteria have already been decided by the previous consensus - "social constructs" are in, "skin colour" descriptions are out. All that needs to be done is for each different use of "black people" to be assessed as either a social construct or a skin colour based on the available evidence. Making the page limited to specific populations would be unnecessary and could prevent potential improvements to the page if the evidence is debunked/improved in the future (y'all thought "black people" in Australia was a reference to skin colour 3 months ago!). More importantly, and as I already explained, the RFC's wording doesn't allow for all possible outcomes so as it stands it's going to be impossible to get a consensus. Tobus2 (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The designation of Australian Aborigines as "black people" is itself inherently skin color-based. In any event, the page necessarily must be limited to certain populations since not all populations around the world are racially so-called "black people". An inclusion criteria is therefore required to guide and refer future editors to. WP:SCOPE indicates that "article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus[...] scope should have little to do with NPOV[...] NPOV is to do with how much of the article is given over to any given thing, scope is to do with whether it even can be mentioned or summarised or not." We disagreed with what the previous rfc's consensus was on that inclusion criteria. After much fruitless argumentation, you suggested dispute resolution. I thought that was a good idea, so here we are in a new rfc to finalize the page's scope. Soupforone (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but you could have at least framed the RFC is a way that I could agree with one of the two options provided. Tobus2 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I dont think there would be many editors here who would comment on all Australian Aborigines, Dravidians, Gypsies, etc. Someone please break the discussion in different groups for ease of understanding. I, for example, have no say on Australians and Gypsies. Please facilitate editors like me in understanding the right flow. Mixed discussions would lead to no conclusions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The rfc is a choice between a broad inclusion criteria based on skin color that includes all relatively dark-skinned world populations (option #1), or a more narrow but mainstream inclusion criteria that is limited to individuals with predominant Black African ancestry (option #2). Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, "black people" is not a designation of skin colour. In the United States, where most of the people who are daily using of being subjected to this English phrase live, most people do not possess a literally 'black' skin colour, but a wide range of skin tones and hues. Rather, "black people" is a social categorisation that takes place in many societies, across history, in different ways. Therefore, even if current Australians are not all, or even mostly, comfortable with the designation, we would still have to cite the historical circumstances in which this phrase came into, and then perhaps fell out of use in Australia. The point in this article is not to create some kind of racial phenotype chart, blathering on about head shapes and the like, but to sensibly discuss the social category, its formal and informal uses in a wide variety of societies. For example, in most of West, Central, Southern or East Africa, the phrase 'black people' is barely used at all in everyday parlance or even in the media - because in most of those societies, 'race' in the US sense is not a primary social issue. Yet, when people from those countries travel to places such as the UK, Canada, US or Brazil - where race remains a key question, they become subject to racialization processes which have already been established. They may or may not accept that, but it happens - in part because of a perceived physical commonality with West African descendants in the Americas who have already been categorized as black. So, the answer is not either broad or narrow, marginal or mainstream - but a rational and, if possible, non-racist summary of the various social constructs of blackness and race.Ackees (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Black people is indeed not a designation of skin color but of racial ancestry when its most common usage, as a reference to Black Africans, is taken into consideration. Thus, Jamaicans, Nigerians, Namibians and Ugandans are all "Black Africans" pretty much universally. This, however, is not the case with Australian Aborigines since they are not predominantly of Black African ancestry. The only place where Australian Aborigines are sometimes referred to as "black" with any consistency is in Australia. And this stereotype stems from their typically dark skin color, not from them actually being mainly of Black African descent. The same applies to Tamils, Gypsies, etc. Soupforone (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong! But I have hope. There's an old saying - "Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is permanent." I shall keep trying to point you in the direction of real knowledge. (You won't get it from Bolt.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha is right. I count at least 3 people supporting the inclusion of Indigenous Australians, at least 4 people supporting the exclusion of Dravidians. According the the words of the RFC this looks like a 4:3 split, but consider that only 1 person is supporting the exclusion of both and no one supports the inclusion of both. If the RFC were worded to better reflect the views of the community it could be a 6:1 near-consensus. The RFC should be changed if we honestly intend to reach a consensus based on it. Tobus2 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who the one person for the inclusion of Dravidians is there. But I, for one, am for the standard understanding of "black people", which is basically restricted to peoples of predominant Black African ancestry i.e., option #2 in the opening question. This would exclude both Dravidians and Australian Aborigines. Based on their remarks, Shrikanthv and Anbu21 seem to be for this option as well. I've contacted Dharmadhyaksha for clarification on his position. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than "the standard understanding", that's obviously the US centric view. Not a great look for a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

One person for inclusion of Dravidians? You've misunderstood what I said, it's 0 people want to include Dravidians, and one person (guess who?) wants to exlude both. I've added to the original RFC to include a #3 option that I can agree with, I trust you will point this option out to people who you are trying to get a firm position from, as it wasn't there when they made their original comments.

For the record, I've counted Anbu, Dharmadhyaksha and Shrikanthv as "no-Dravidian" supporters: Anbu and Dharmadhyaksha state they can't comment on non-Dravidian societies, Shrikanthv's comments could be taken multiple ways and he doesn't mention Australia so I can't count him as "no-both" at this stage. I'm hoping that option #3 will clear things up. Tobus2 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate are those tabulations. The first part of option #3 does, on the other hand, have potential: "discuss cases where "black people" is used by a society to refer to a group of people of related ancestry, but not discuss cases where is it used purely a description of skin colour." However, I think the phrase "purely a description of skin color" should be changed to "mainly a description of skin colour". It would also be preferable if "related ancestry" were changed to "closely related ancestry" - this way we at least have some idea of the required degree of relatedness. Soupforone (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well? Soupforone (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. Tobus2 (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording requires greater precision. It's too open-ended and ambiguous in its present format. In specific terms, "purely a description of skin colour" should be changed to "mainly a description of skin colour". While relatively dark skin color is the main impetus in the non-mainstream labeling of some populations as "black", other factors may in some instances also be at play (as with peoples from the Caucasus in Russia). Additionally, "related ancestry" should be changed to "closely related ancestry", so that there's at least some concrete guiding principle as to the requisite degree of intra-group relatedness. Soupforone (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I had you pegged as supporting #1... does your insistence on changing the wording of #3 mean that you support #3 now? Tobus2 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It has potential. However, the wording needs tightening as it's somewhat ambiguous in its current format. Soupforone (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you support the inclusion of Indigenous Australians if the wording was changed? Tobus2 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That largely depends on the wording. Soupforone (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If the wording were changed to "mainly a description of skin colour" and "closely related ancestry" as you suggested. Tobus2 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That wording, and perhaps also a phrase specifying that the matter pertains to populations with predominant "black" ancestry. This seems necessary because it has been shown that many modern populations around the world, including groups in Europe and more so in the Middle East, have at least some degree of Black African ancestry. Many "black" populations in the Americas in turn have a degree of European ancestry. It would nonetheless be inappropriate to discuss the latter as "white people" on the white people page since that mixture in most instances does not constitute the majority of their ancestry. Soupforone (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So is that a "yes" or a "no" to supporting a section on Indigenous Australians if the wording is changed as per your suggestions? Tobus2 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please present a preview of the wording below, then I can answer your question. Soupforone (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You're the one who suggested the changes! From what you've said above it'd be: "This 'black people' page should discuss cases where "black people" is used by a society to refer to a group of people of closely related ancestry, but not discuss cases where is it used mainly as a description of skin colour. Specifically, in relation to recent discussions on this page, this would allow for a section on how Australians use the term in relation in Aboriginal people, but not allow for discussion of Dravidians." Tobus2 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording is missing the phrase just discussed; the phrase specifying that the scope pertains to populations with predominant "black" ancestry. Soupforone (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So that's a "no" then? Tobus2 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be quicker if you finished the following sentence: "I would accept the inclusion of a section on Indigenous Australians in the the "Black People" wikipage if the wording of option #3 was changed to ...." Tobus2 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I've been very patient but have been unable to get a straight answer out of you for over a week now. If you are serious about supporting the inclusion of Indigenous Australians if the wording of option #3 is changed then please provide your suggested wording, in full, preceded by a phrase like "I would accept the inclusion of a section on Indigenous Australians in the the "Black People" wikipage if the wording of option #3 was changed to:". Tobus2 (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the phrase amendment was to improve option #3's precision and to remove the evident ambiguity within it. You asked if I was prepared to sign on to that option if the wording were changed, but I of course couldn't do that without first actually seeing the exact wording you had in mind. When you did preview that wording, it didn't include some of the suggestions I had made. This is why the discussion has dragged on. Anyway, I've just italicized the proposed wording amendment for option #3. If that part of option #3 is adjusted accordingly, then it would seem a viable alternative to option #2. Soupforone (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Still no straight answer, and your italics don't even mention your "mainly" suggestion! No matter, I've considered your proposed fragments and have decided not to implement them. This is partly because they are your own personal opinions and aren't representative of the views given by other editors in the RFC discussion - nobody else has mentioned a requirement about degree of skin colour correlation or degree of related ancestry. On top of this there are a number of problems with your suggestions which I think would introduce more problems than they solve. For the record, and by that I mean I don't intend to enter any further discussion on the matter, the problems I see are as follows:

• "mainly" instead of "purely": In Apartheid-era South African assignment to the "white/coloured/black" constructs was almost totally skin-colour based. The "black" designation in that social contruct could be considered "mainly a description of skin colour" but it is still considered valid content for this page. "Purely" is the better choice as it allows for social contructs that happen to be aligned with skin colour, but rejects descriptions of skin colour that have no social context.
• "closely related": The main subject of the page, Africans, are not "closely related". African mtDNA lineages are vey old and some (eg L0/L1) even diverged prior to the Out Of Africa event and most diverged before the European/Asian split. This means that if you take a random Mende from Sierra Leone and a random Zulu from South Africa, it's possible that they are actually less related than any two non-Africans - George Washington, Chairman Mao and Mahatma Ghandi could be more closely related than any two "black Africans". The same applies to African-Americans, who are descended from a wide range of African populations, and when you add European admixture into the picture it's possible that such "black people" as Halle Berry, Tiger Woods and Barack Obama are all more related to George Washington (and hence Mao and Ghandi) than they are to Samuel L. Jackson even though the social construct groups them the other way. "Related" is better than "closely related" because it allows the relationship between the group members to be socially defined rather than requiring a degree of physically-verifiable affinity that isn't consistent with the construct.
• "predominant Sub-Saharan African [or Indigenous Australian] ancestry": This has the same problem as "closely related" - the social constructs we are talking about are about perceived, not actual ancestry, so a requirement for "predominant ... ancestry" isn't going to work. Also, since the discussion has only been about Aboriginal or Dravidian people, it's not appropriate to limit the page to only 2 specific populations. Instead of prejudging other societies/people who haven't been discussed it would be better to only refer to those populations which have been discussed.

As I said above I don't think discussing the wording of option #3 will be productive - so thank you for your suggestions but the wording will stay as it is. I suggest we work towards summarising the community's views on the matter of including a section on Indigenous Australians on the page and I will propose such a summary at the bottom of the section. Tobus2 (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did give a straight answer: If that part of option #3 is adjusted accordingly, then it would seem a viable alternative to option #2. This means that options #3 and #2 are both viable options to me if the proposed wording amendments to option #3 are made. You have now rejected those proposed phrasing changes, which you are entitled to do. However, that does nothing to resolve the inherent ambiguity in that option. Australian Aborigines and many South Asians, for one thing, are not exactly unrelated peoples. They "share many cultural, linguistic, physical and genetic features" [23]. Yet option #3 in its present, open-ended form would include one while excluding the other. Also, you have proposed what is in effect an entirely new option below, citing the previous rfc. That is not how the process works, though. Per WP:RFC, an rfc statement is placed by the originator at the top of the rfc (that would be me). "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." I have not closed the RfC, as no decision has been reached yet on the three available options. Whichever of those three options is selected is what shall be observed. Soupforone (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the issue here - you think that Dravidians and Australians are more related than Dravidians and other Eurasians. I can see how the title of the article ("Direct Genetic Link between Australia and India...") could lead the uninformed reader to jump to that conclusion, but if you read and understand the text it's saying the exact opposite of that. The 'genetic link' it's talking about are two mtDNA haplogroups found in a individuals from a "few isolated tribes in India" (not "many South Asians" like you put it) and Aboriginal Australians. I'm not sure how much you know about genetics, but mtDNA is a small fragment of the genome only passed from the mother. A shared mtDNA haplogroup between two individuals means that at some point in their ancestry they shared the same great-great-great-etc. grandmother. In the study they calculate time of the last common ancestor to be 55 thousand years ago. I'm not sure if you know your history of the human race, but 55,000 years ago was long before the European and Asian lineages split... all Eurasians are descendants of the "non-Aboriginal" people who remained in southern Asia after the Australians went south. This means that present-day Dravidians, Europeans and Asians all share a more recent common ancestor (and hence are more "closely related") than Australians and Dravidians do. The results of the study prove that people came to Australia via the coastal Indian route, not that Australians and Dravidians are close to each other genetically. So you don't need to worry, Australians and Dravidians aren't related and there's no ambiguity in that regard. In any case, the page discusses socials contexts not biology, it'd be perfectly acceptable to include one group and exclude another if one is subject to a social context and one isn't.

I should also point out that the quote you took from the article to back up your point was taken out of context - the authors were actually comparing modern Indians with ancient Indians, not Australians ("These groups (vis. 'such as the Baiga of central India and the Birhor of eastern India') are often called “relic populations” because they are believed to share many cultural, linguistic, physical and genetic features with the region’s ancient inhabitants.").

Tobus2 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My final suggestion would be to stick to wiki guidlines and put only races if you can prove that the natives are being termed "black" by the local people through guidlines of WIKI pedia notablity and references guildines.

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

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

Here's a few:

• Can the media call indigenous Australians ‘blacks’, crikey.com.au
• Indigenous, Aboriginal or Aborigine? It’s not black and white, crikey.com.au
• Moving Blackwards: Black Power and the Aboriginal Embassy, epress.anu.edu.au
• First Contact: Black and White Relations, cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au
• NEW PUBLICATION!! BRISBANE BLACKS MONTHLY!, slq.qld.gov.au/
• White fellas in the black, heraldsun.com.au
• ABORIGINAL INK: What’s wrong with red, black and yellow?, tracker.org.au
• White Writing Black: Issues of Authorship and Authenticity in Non-Indigenous representations of Australian Aboriginal, qut.edu.au
• 1972 Black Moratorium: How unions walked out for Aboriginal rights, solidarity.net.au
• “What do these blacks want? An education? Send them back to the bush where they belong.”, indymedia.org.au
• Aboriginality and Black Australian Drama, anu.edu.au
• Between black and white, theage.com.au
• BLACKS FOR AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENCE, reasoninrevolt.net.au
• We jail black men five times more than apartheid South Africa, crikey.com.au
• CORANDERRK ABORIGINAL STATION. COMPLAINTS BY BLACKS., trove.nla.gov.au, from The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1956)
• SENTENCE ON BLACKS : Aboriginal Group's Protest, trove.nla.gov.au, from The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1956)
• Homes for blacks : aboriginal community and adoption, trove.nla.gov.au, from Canberra : Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University, 1976.
• Bungaree, chief of the Sydney Blacks : Leadership: the quandary of Aboriginal societies in crises, 1788 – 1830, and 1966, anu.edu.au
• Why didn’t you listen: white noise and black history, anu.edu.au
• Black Magic? White muddle more like it, theconversation.edu.au
• Aboriginal identity: ‘I never had a choice’, crikey.com.au (interestingly, it mentions Andrew Bolt. It's about "the Andrew Bolt racial discrimination case", and about self- and societal- identity of light skinned Australian aboriginals)
• Locked up and killed for being black: Racism, deaths in custody and the NT Intervention, solidarity.net.au
• Blacks and Whites: Aboriginal Colonised History, murdoch.edu.au

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The wording for option #3 is still unsettled. I don't believe Shrinkanthv and Anbu21 are even aware of its existence. Soupforone (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording for option #3 is now settled - it will remain the way it is. Both Shrikanthv and Anbu21 have already made their opinions clear. The intent of the community is obvious - everybody but the original poster has expressed a view that is consistent with the inclusion of Indigenous Australians and the exclusion of Dravidians. I suggest we resolve to support the previous consenus and add a clarification in regards to the Australians and Dravidians. Something like:

This RFC confirms the previous consensus that this "black people" article is set aside for discussion of "black" social constructs and not for discussion of the biology and range of human skin coloration. Accordingly, the article includes discussion of Indigenous Australians but does not include discussion of Dravidians

Tobus2 (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Both Shrinkanthv and Anbu21 have shared their opinions. However, neither has commented on your option #3, which was presented after they each last weighed in. It's safe to assume that they would be okay with the part of option #3 that rules out Dravidians, but not necessarily the open-ended first part. The choice is also between the options at the top of the rfc, not this new italicized phrase. See my comment above on appropriate protocol. Soupforone (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The original motivation behind this RFC was for the broader community to clarify whether a section on Australia is allowed in the article and the broad community view is clearly that it is allowed. Everybody either explicitly supports an Australian section (eg Shrikhanthv: "As for Australians .... I guess it would be right to put this in black people list") or implicitly supports one by refusing to rule it out (eg Anbu121: "I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment about the other communities"). I can understand if you want to wait for further confirmation before resolving the RFC, but even you would have to agree that regardless of the wording, any resolution is going to be along "Australians in, Dravidians out" lines. Tobus2 (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If we assume based on his responses that Shrikanthv would be okay with all of option #3, the most we can say for Anbu121 is that he opposes any option that would include Dravidians. This last point seems to be unanimous. However, neither editor appears to be aware of the multi-layered connections between Australian Aborigines and many South Asians. Had they, perhaps they would feel differently about excluding one and not the other. I've therefore contacted them for clarification on this final matter. If they nonetheless come out in favor of option #3, then that's the option that shall be observed, and I will remove the rfc tag accordingly. Soupforone (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I'd say they're not aware of any "multi-layered connections" because there aren't any. South Asians are much more like other Eurasians genetically than they are to Australians, and they aren't subject to the same social constructs as Australians are. We are talking about two completely separate populations in two completely separate societies and I don't know why they were ever grouped together for this RFC in the first place. Tobus2 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey

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

I take it, then, that you're for option #2 in the opening question (i.e. what most people think of when they contemplate "black people")? Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As i have informed above the simple answer would be to stick to WIKI guidlines, and making sure it is not surpassing some ideas like WP:SYNTH , so if they want to add australians in Black its better the go through the criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Silly questionSurely the article is about this very subject, who is considered a black person, by whom, and why. There is no universally accepted definition of a black person, which is essentially why we have this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support #3: race is a social construct, so the only meaningful discussion can be of those groups historically or current referred to or perceived as black by reliable sources. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 11:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support

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

Great. Option #3 it is, then, per the above. This rfc is now officially closed. Soupforone (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Article title

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

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

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

Also, hundreds of other articles wikilink to this article and lots of other articles (Black race, Black (racial term), Black as a skin color identity, and Black (race) among them) redirect here -- I haven't surveyed the lot, but I did examine a small number of them. None of those which I examined were placing the wikilink in a context which suggested that they were referencing an article about what the lead paragraph of this article describes. That is certainly true of links from the Brown people and White people articles. The Barbados article uses it in a piped wikilink as |ethnic_groups=[[Black people|Afro-Bajan]] in the {{infobox country}}. The Leukemia article uses it in a sentence which reads, "Race is known to play a role, with some racial groups being more at risk than others. Hispanics, especially those under the age of 20, are at the highest risk for leukemia, while whites, Native Americans, Asians, and Alaska Natives are at higher risk than blacks." (citing [24], which uses black to refer to a grouping by genetics or by skin color, but certainly not to a grouping by a social group).

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

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

I think you may be right Wt.. with such a broad scope used as the title it may not be wise to limit the article to a single concept. Many people with many different interests are going to come across the page and it makes sense to provide them with the information they want rather than force a particular viewpoint on them. This page is supposed to be a pair with "White People" but I'm starting to think that that's not really feasible. "White" skin has only existed for 10-20ky and there's effectively only one "white" race. "Black" skin has existed since modern humans began over 200kya and (depending on how you want to split them up) there are at least 6 "races" that could fit the "black" category based on skin colour, plus a host of society-specific meanings. That the issue is massively confused is shown by quotes like the Leukemia one identifying Native Americans, Asians and Alaskans(!) as separate races, but then grouping some 90% of modern human diversity under a single "blacks" label. Perhaps the content of this current page can be retitled to something US-specific ("Black People in American Society"?) and a new "Black People" page be created which briefly outlines the various meanings of the term and provides See Also links to the respective pages - a bit like a "portal" if you will. I feel that would improve Wikipedia by better catering for all the possible interests people have when searching for "black people". The other alternative would be to find all the links/references/redirects and change them go to a more relevant page than this one (Human Skin Colour, Negroid, African Americans etc. etc.). Having said that, the idea expressed in the lead that "black people" is not a concrete term and can refer to people of any skin colour if they satisfy other social criteria is an important one I think, so I'd prefer not to see "Black People" devolve into just a disambiguation page - I think a short overview of each different usage of the term is warranted and would be an informative and interesting article in itself. Tobus2 (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The current article content includes quite of a bit of material which fits an article direction of "Black as a metaphor for race." It looks to me as if a split of the current content is called for rather than a simple change of title. The split would be Black people (1) as a metaphor for race and (2) as a societal group. (1) and (2) might be presented as separate sections in a single article or, if that gets too long, as separate articles. If this article is split into two articles, the article ending up titled Black people ought to be compatible with the many wikilinks out there in a context suggesting a racial metaphor. Also, the WP:LEAD section of the Black people article ought to briefly describe both usages. Consensus here would be needed before starting work on that reorganization. I'm currently too busy with other things to get very involved in this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Color terminology for race article is already set aside for the first usage. This article is reserved for the "Black people" racial group. The wikipage's title thus reflects this WP:COMMONNAME. Soupforone (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There's also already pages set aside for "black race" (although that term redirects here) and also for "black Americans".

The problem is that "black people" is used in many different contexts than just the one you are referring to, as Wtmitchell pointed out rather conclusively. Given that many people are redirecting, linking and arriving at this page on the assumption it contains different content to what it does, I think it would be "better for Wikipedia" to either rename this current page to better reflect it's specific content, or to add the other possible meanings to this page... or to do both. Tobus2 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is reserved for the "black people" racial category specifically (which, generally speaking, considerably overlaps with the Negroid concept [25]). It is not set aside for other random contexts. Wtmitchell asserts that consensus is first required for any reorganization of the lede; a sensible remark since this is what policy indicates as well. The ongoing rfc above is intended to finalize that consensus. That's what ultimately will determine the page's scope/inclusion criteria. Soupforone (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

An important, but problematic article!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm wondering if a section on "Race" would be warranted, with a brief discussion on the original assumption that "black" people were a single race and the gradual dispelling of this idea as science discovered more about genetics and anthropology? Tobus2 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As it is, the article is race related. The genetics of skin coloration are dealt with on the human skin color article, and the anthropological aspects are handled on the Negroid page. The population scope of this article is to be decided in the rfc above. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

So, while keeping a reference to 'race', I created a new template specific to 'black people'.Ackees (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So, who are the "people who have historically been known as 'black'." ? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How many blacks are alive on Earth?

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

There are figures for world population by race in a blog posting at http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/9181-World-population-by-race. That is not a reliable source, of course. The figures there are asserted to have been sourced (or compiled?) from the The CIA World Factbook. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, using the term 'blacks' to refer to black people in the way that you have is considered offensive by some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Martin, who gives a sh*t?