Talk:Black people

Size

Shouldn't something be mentioned about the debate on penis size in black males?

Use of the offensive term 'blacks' throughout the article

This is not going anywhere useful or constructive. seicer | talk | contribs 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy this, however there are editors who believe that refering to black people as 'blacks' is acceptable. It's not, and hasn't been for some time. WP's Manual of Style at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=17072530#Identity specifically states "Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks" - one would hope that we would be able to manage this in the very article 'black people'?! Little grape (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for starting this string rather than resorting to reverting endlessly like so many others have. In general, I have no quarrels with replacing the supposedly offensive term; however, I find it bad style to simply use "black people" over and over again. If there's a way to re-word it, using synonyms and other acceptable descriptions, that'd be much better, as it would make for better prose. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with that approach - the article needs all references to 'blacks' removed, but certainly doesn't need all of them replaced with 'black people'. Little grape (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) It's the politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon, a politics that tells us that we have to think, act and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us, the assumption that young people are apathetic, the assumption that Republicans won't cross over, the assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor and that the poor don't vote, the assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate, whites can't support the African-American candidate, blacks and Latinos cannot come together. - Barack Obama, (my emphasis) OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Barack Obama can use any words he likes, not least because he is a black man himself. But *this* is an encyclopaedia, and we should try and use the preferred terms, shouldn't we? Little grape (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I think the point was that the words of the president of the United States are more scrutinized than anyone else's. If Obama's word-choice (regarding anything) was offensive to anyone, he'd immediately be called out on it. That was not the case here, as far as I recall. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I understand and appreciate that point, but had he been a white president it would have been noted - certainly outside the US. And this is the English-speaking, not the US wikipedia! Can I use an example from elsewhere to illustrate the difference between the two terms? Let's say you as a white man were addressing a wholly black congregation as a guest pulpit speaker. You might start by marking the novelty of your presence by stating "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of blacks". Alternatively, you could say "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first time I have had the chance to give a sermon to a congregation of black people". To most ears, the first one grates (although it wouldn't necessarily if it were Obama speaking). Little grape (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC) In that case, you'd probably be criticized for bringing it up at all, regardless of your word-choice. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC) It only grates to YOUR ears. First - You should have notified me of this discussion when you came to my talk page, and especially once I'd responded at yours. That's deceptive, manipulative and rude. Second -As I stated at your talk page : [Regarding the MoS]: It recommends avoidance, it does not ban use. In locations in which the difference between 'black people' and the more specific 'blacks' matters, we should be specific, not 'polite'. We don't use obviously rude terms nor perjoratives, but neither should we wrap the Khoi, San or Pygmies into the same group as blacks, which injudicious use of 'Black peoples' does. Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel - he won a Pulitzer for it, it's not some fly-by-night feel good or racist-based nonsense. He's quite good at explaining the lingustic fallacy of 'black people', along with a few other words generally used for anyone from Africa who didn't arrive after about 1500. I'm not doing this out of ignorance, as you suggest, but because this particular article specifically takes on matters of differentiation, and to use the generic widest-cast nest in such a case is only appropriate in some cases in that article, not all. It does little good to call the Khoi and the West African Black by the same name when there exist clear differentiations in phenotype, language, culture, and more. All of those are in fact, covered in this article, or ought to be. Blanketing four or more 'races' into one generic label is far more racist than calling Blacks Black. ThuranX (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Putting aside the personal attacks might be useful here? And isn't the article's talk page a somewhat obvious place to start fixing it - you started the reverts, therefore should have opened the discussion here *first*? Diamond has no special ability to know what black people want to call themselves, and indeed has been criticised strongly for his odd claims that Europeans are responsible for all sorts of developments and inventions actually initiated by non-whites. But that's in any case a big, fat red herring - if you want to argue that 'blacks' is preferable to 'black people' then the place to do that is on the talk page of the Manual of Style for this encyclopaedia, which clearly states "Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks". Furthermore, this article is titled 'Black People', not 'Blacks', therefore it is reasonable to deduce that at some point there was concensus that 'black people' is the preferred term. I think you're getting a little confused when you try and expand the discussion to talk about 'black peoples'. This is not the same as 'black people', or 'blacks'. You overcomplicate the issue by not simply reviewing the edits and appreciating that in every case I can see on the page, 'black people' is the correct nomenclature. The exceptions I can see are where the South African regime uses the classification 'Coloured' (and 'black', not 'blacks'), and we should record this. I can't see any use of 'blacks' in the article that justifies the use of non-preferred terms. Looking for the chink of light indicating concensus, I note you agree that MoS recommends avoidance of the word 'blacks', so perhaps we could edit accordingly - only leaving in 'blacks' where it is *unavoidable*? This would appear to be a good resolution that reflects policy. Little grape (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Links to RELIABLE criticism of Diamond? With regard to the MoS, I said that while it RECOMMENDS avoidance, it's not an absolute rule. That means that in some cases, the consensus formed on any given page may overrule the recommendation. Acknowledging the wording is not the same as accepting it's application here, so why don't you not put words in my mouth? I'd point out that 'black' is an adjective in the phrase 'black people', but when used alone, it's a noun, which we are supposed to use; not my fault htat the person who wrote that line at MoS can't define the parts of speech. You can't refute Diamond's explanations of the differences between the various 'black peoples', but insist we ignore them and marginalized multiple other African peoples? Let's really keep racism out of the article, please? ThuranX (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Again, Diamond is irrelevant in this context - you are overcomplicating a simple matter of a preferred term. You have repeated your error in using the term 'black peoples', which would indicate a somewhat poor understanding of the terms being discussed (e.g. 'blacks' and 'black people'). (unindent) I see you managed to find consensus for your edits, in a discussion in which no one really agrees with you. I reverted again, and I suggest you continue this discussion which appears to be still unresolved.--Atlan (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) The Style Guide agrees with me; indeed I am simply following its guidance - as should we all. If you wish to make a case that 'blacks' is somehow preferred to 'black people' then make the case there; don't endlessly revert perfectly good edits here. Perhaps you could concentrate your response on why you think the MoS should be ignored in this particular article, and for each instance of the use of the word 'blacks' explain what prohibits the preferred term being used? Little grape (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC) You don't appear to understand that running to WP:AIV every time you don't get your way isn't the way things work around here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Your incivility is not needed here - this being the first time I have been in this situation you might, conversely, advise on how we might resolve this matter? Clearly we have reached impasse on this page - so what now? A positive, constructive response would be..... welcomed! Little grape (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) Well, you are doing the "endless reverting", I only did it once and have no intention of keeping that up. I don't think the MoS should be ignored at all. I frequently cite it in my edit summaries as well. But I'm well aware that at the top it reads: Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. You seem to take it as a rule set in stone, or as policy if you will, probably because that's most convenient for your argument. I also don't have any kind of particular preference (or dislike) for either blacks or black people, but I totally agree with Seb that the article reads better if "black people" isn't repeated over and over.--Atlan (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with much of what you say - my only issue is with the use of the plural noun 'blacks', which many see as offensive. It's that simple. The quick and dirty way to change it is to substitute all instances of 'blacks' with 'black people', but there are indeed a couple of places in the article where that is a clumsy solution, so (as I've said previously) I'm happy if those parts can be rewritten to avoid the word 'blacks'. Isn't this the correct way to get the article consistent and inoffensive? Little grape (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC) But no one else seems to agree that "blacks" is so offensive. Besides, we're not the PC police. This isn't politics, it's just an online encyclopedia.--Atlan (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Many people think it's offensive; why do you think MoS states "Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks" Little grape (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Little Grapes, you'd been advised many times to talk about this issue here. I don't know what else to tell you. Your last post to ANI seem to suggest that you are more interested in getting the answer you want than getting a consensus. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Hi there, noticed your disagreement on recent changes. If you find you're stuck and can't reach consensus, you could try Wikipedia:THIRD. Regards, --bodnotbod (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC) That's for 2 editors in dispute. The case here is 1 editor not getting his way. But there's still plenty of room for more discussion here.--Atlan (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I disagree - this is a case of a number of editors wishing to use a term some may find offensive in preference to the accepted term.Little grape (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Fine by me any way you put it, but it's still not really a case for a third opinion (we already have more than 3 opinions).--Atlan (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (and if we removed everything that "some may find offensive," we could all pack out bags 'n leave. If that's your main concern, go lobby at the talks of nigger and kike...) Seb az86556 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC) new ident. Again, perhaps you could confine your comments to the two terms being discussed here: 'blacks' and 'black people', and not throw in red herrings or widen the issue. I can only repeat what I've suggested above as a solution: my only issue is with the use of the plural noun 'blacks', which many see as offensive. It's that simple. The quick and dirty way to change it is to substitute all instances of 'blacks' with 'black people', but there are indeed a couple of places in the article where that is a clumsy solution, so (as I've said previously) I'm happy if those parts can be rewritten to avoid the word 'blacks'. Isn't this the correct way to get the article consistent and inoffensive? Little grape (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I saw you guys on recent changes again and this time I have read the arguments. I take a dispassionate view. For me the MoS has to be the arbiter here. It says, as you know, to avoid using the term "blacks". I suggest you follow that advice. Perhaps it will make for clunky reading but better that than to flout the guideline. Yes, the MoS isn't carved in stone and one could undoubtedly find exceptions. But I think that where there is disharmony you should look to that as your guide. I do not believe that "the article reads clunky" is a sufficient or compelling reason to disregard the guidance it gives. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure that there have been *any* reasoned arguments from those opposing following MoS, and I cannot understand why the pitchforks have been taken up against minor edits designed to bring an article into the 21st century. While I'd rather the article was clunky than offensive, I think any clunkiness can be edited out quite easily. Unless anyone has compelling reasons why MoS should *not* be followed, can we now just make these MINOR edits and get on with life? Little grape (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (EC)If you think there have not been "*any*" reasoned arguments, then you're ignoring all the editors speaking out against you. TO BodnotBod, I point to the fact that MoS never mandates a single term for the group in question be used, and specifically states exceptions exist. This is one, unless you'd prefer we just call all the non-Arabic, non-European peoples of Africa "Negroes", and ignore the clear differences between Khoi, San, Pygmies, Madasgascarans, and Bantu/Congo/non-Bantu blacks? cause I'm pretty sure that that would be as ignorantly indifferent to the realities as calling them all 'black people'. 'Black People' is a blanket term, and this article requires specificity, unless Little Grape's contention is that all dark skinned people are alike, in which case, we can ignore him as he has done to us. ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC) It is difficult to make sense of what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that all the ethnic groups you name are 'blacks' but not 'black people'? Please outline what you believe is the exact difference between the groups of people referred to that you call 'blacks', and the groups of people referred to that you call 'black people'. Little grape (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose and admonish Little Grape for continued abuse of process, and for edit warring. There is nothing in the MOS that states that the word "black" has been admonished in favor of African-Americans or any other term, and your statements of proof either do not exist or don't back up your statements. I also suggest to stop going to ANI to report every user who has opposed your comments, and to tone down the rhetoric. seicer | talk | contribs 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC) MoS states in part: "Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks"; this seems somewhat unambiguous. Please also confine your comments to the matter at hand - I have not mentioned the term 'African Americans'; why are you throwing in another red herring? The issue is simply that you and others appear to want to go against MoS in this article, for reasons you have failed to set out here. Perhaps you could address the issue and state why you prefer to keep 'blacks' over 'black people' in this article? Little grape (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Are you being deliberately obtuse? MoS is not written in stone and explicitly says exceptions may exist - multiple editors have called your attention to this point. People have given you specific reasons why this article is such an exception, but like any 'Polite POV Pusher', you maintain a facade of ignorance of those comments, rather than address them. ThuranX (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Again, I would appreciate it if you would not make personal comments and confine yourself to discussing the content *only*. MoS is clear on this issue, and unambiguous. Use 'black people' instead of 'blacks'. If you have a compelling reason to go against this, then I'd like to hear those reasons. Throwing in tribal and other ethnic divisions really has nothing to do with how one uses the two terms, and seems simply a red herring - which I will indeed ignore, as in my view it has no bearing on the issue at hand. Little grape (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC) The Manual of Style is unambiguous. Nobody has given a compelling reason why it should not be followed. However, since since I (and Grape) have already stated these things, I think edit warring perhaps cannot be avoided without taking this to a higher power. I'll do that tomorrow. My personal opinion? I think "black people" is a kinda strange article from the outset, fraught with difficulties and inevitably going to be a political minefield. However, I accept that it exists, so will work from there. --bodnotbod (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your efforts. I too agree it's an odd article. It has to be in the encyclopaedia, but most of it reads like a school essay, while the rest has odd and/or esoteric info dropped in willy-nilly. The first step must be to remove any offensive content, and then in due course to pull it into shape. The former's fairly easy as per MoS, the latter is a huge undertaking. Good luck to whoever takes it on! Little grape (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

cleanup

quoth Little grape (talk · contribs), most of it reads like a school essay, while the rest has odd and/or esoteric info dropped in willy-nilly. The "blacks" red herring discussed above mostly just distracted from this. The article is in very poor shape. The huge section structured by country isn't helpful. I mean, what is the point of a huge content {{duplication}} from country-specific articles like African American or Race in Brazil? If this article is to serve any use it needs to attempt a well-written synthesis of these topics. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: "Blacks" v "Black people"

This is a request for comment on whether the article should use the term "blacks" to help the article read more fluently, or whether the term should be completely excised from the article. Two editors have expressed the view that this term is "offensive". Other editors do not find it offensive. Please acquaint yourself with the previous discussion here (click 'show') before posting, as there are important points to be taken into consideration. The RFC has been created to generate more input so that consensus may be reached. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In re-reading the section above, I count five editors opposing the change, and one who wouldn't let it go. Who is the second objecting, and on what grounds? ThuranX (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused. I think you're saying that the the five people opposing a change are the ones who are OK with the term "blacks" being used. That's my understanding. The user that you describe as "not letting it go" I'm sure is User:Little grape. However, I found this argument on recent changes and I find myself siding with Grape. So, taking your figure in good faith, that's two opposed to the term "blacks" and five that have no problem.

As for the grounds of the argument, I hoped that I wouldn't have to repeat the above discussion. The Wikipeida Manual of Style explicitly states that we should "Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks, gay people rather than gays, disabled people rather than the disabled, et cetera." Source: Wikipedia:MoS#Identity.

I wished to avoid repeating the arguments from the discussion linked to at the beginning of this Request for comment. It's hard to stand back when the guidelines seem so clear, though. --bodnotbod (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Thuranx! You were a participant in the discussion earlier on. I didn't realise that. My aim here is to bring in new people and get a consensus that doesn't involve any of us. If you're willing I will delete mine and your discussion points that sit below the RFC banner. Seriously: although you may assume differently, I don't have a massive vested interest in the outcome of this argument. I'd actually be interested, in a stand-offish way to see how this pans out. But, that said... there's the god-damn manual of style! --bodnotbod (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'D'oh get out' to you too. You're rehashing exactly the same argument as before, which multiple people argued against, agreed with each other about and built a consensus on, but now you're banning those previously involved from providing counterarguments??? What a farce. As before, you pick the 'part' of the language of the MoS that serves you, ignore the full caveat at MoS which others agree supports our position, then prevent me from pointing that out? Nice censorship. ThuranX (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am rehashing the same argument as before. Which is why I suggest a roll-back to just keeping the text directly beneath the RFC banner. Do you agree with that? That we should delete everything we've said below the banner? --bodnotbod (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that you're caught, you want to hide it and get a do-over? No. We HAVE consensus here, it just goes against you, so you're end running around established page consensus with the RfC. ThuranX (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My votes for "Black people", the MOS s pretty clear."Blacks" Just seems less encyclopedic to me. --Woland (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the above argument against such widespread generalizations which are racist and discriminatory? ThuranX (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I disagree. "Black people" is no more or less a generalization than "blacks". At the very least, "blacks" is anachronistic. I really don't see what the big deal is here. I just try to follow the MOS as best as I can. Just because it doesn't outright forbid something it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and follow it.--Woland (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So we should not respect the cultural and historic differences between these difference cultures and peoples? And that's somehow better? Stop seeing this with an American apologetic perspective. Just because blacks in America got treated shitty doesn't mean we further subjugate them to respect them. We acknowledge them to respect them. There are significant differences between different groups of Africans, and they aren't all the same. Khoi, Madagascar, San, Bantu, non-Bantu, Congo region... all of these are different, and yet you insist they all look the same to you. ThuranX (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You actually have no idea what my view on anything is. I'm pretty sure its not what you think it is, as a student of anthropology I am more than aware of all of these things. Please don't ascribe beliefs to me that I do not hold. Why are you so hostile? There really is no need for it.I still fail to see how "blacks" somehow recognizes cultural distinctions while "black people" does not. In my reading they both do the same thing, i.e. group a bunch of (sometimes) disparate groups together. I am more concerned with writing style than anything else.--Woland (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a student of anthropology? so you're 18, 19? and you think you know, and understand the differences between cultures to be so minor as to lump em all together? Interesting anthropological view you've got there. Sort of invalidates the degree though, if all you learn is that they are all the same to you. ThuranX (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

30 actually, but please do go telling me about myself. I find it so intriguing! Did you notice how I said "they both do the same thing, i.e. group a bunch of (sometimes) disparate groups together." --Woland (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems more than a little uncivil, particularly as it was you that originally mixed up the terms 'black people' and 'black peoples' and seem muddled on the issues. Your repeated claim that there is consensus against altering 'blacks' to 'black people' is false, as the consensus you refer to is at MoS which explicitly states that the term 'blacks' should be *avoided* in favour of 'black people'. If you wish to build a consensus against this view then the place to do that is Mos/talk, not here - this article should be brought into line with the consistent standard aplied elsewhere, which is for 'black people'. The article 'Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' has just been renamed to 'Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' for this very reason. While I can appreciate that you personally do not find the term 'blacks' offensive, you might consider the fact that many people do. 'Black' is not a noun, as in 'the blacks' or 'a black' or 'blacks', it is an adjective. Presumably you would understand that 'the gays', 'a gay' or 'gays' might be offensive to many, so why is the same concept so difficult to understand when it comes to black people? Little grape (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The MoS that you're so fond of selectively quoting from specifically states that exceptions may exist, and thus defers to page consensus, established above. YOu don't like this, so you're whining, and now , with this RfC, gaming the system. A consensus was formed, you don't like it, you run and play games. I find this entire RfC to be invalid Wikilawyering intended to circumvent a thoroughly discussed consensus by bringing in outside editors to appeal to their racial sensitivities over good writing on this page, and to the detriment of the identities of the numerous cultures discussed herein. ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been requested several times to justify any such exception on each instance of the use of the word 'blacks' in the article, but you have failed to provide any valid reason why we should all of a sudden go against MoS and consistency. The idea that 'blacks' should be used over 'black people' because using 'blacks' is 'good writing' is risible. As for 'whining', it's not *me* bleating about gaming the system, wikilawyering, invalid RfC's, appeals to racial sensitivities (whatever that is), the crushing of numerous cultures - now *that's* whining. Little grape (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to justify it use-by-use, first. second, because you didn't object use-by-use, but in general, i can respond in kind. Third, I made the general argument against the change before - that lumping all those different peoples into a single group which ignores their different histories is ignorant and deleterious to the page, given that, for one example, the 'coloureds' of South Africa are widely descended from the south African Khoi peoples ,not the Blacks of the Niger/Congo Bantu areas. ThuranX (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(Coloureds is a different article) Seb az86556 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Commment I still agree with the consensus in the previous discussion; we have citations from a number of notable, mainstream media publications (and a speech from the president) where the term is used. As also mentioned in the discussion, the MoS does not explicitly forbid usage of the term. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, consensus *has* been reached at MoS. As I suspect you know, your odd claim that 'MoS does not explicitly forbid usage of the term' is a straw man - it's like saying that MoS 'doesn't explicitly forbid the use of the n-word' either, but that doesn't mean you should use it to describe people. MoS specifically states that the term 'blacks' should be avoided and the term 'black people' should be used instead. Weasel words won't get around that, and it is misleading for you to suggest that the words 'avoid' mean anything other than 'do not use'. MoS, again, states the following: 'Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks, gay people rather than gays, disabled people rather than the disabled'. Just how much clearer does this need to be? Little grape (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Little grape, once you're done here, you should take your case to the page White people. It uses the terms "whites" and telling from the recent archives, no-one's brought it up there yet. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list of gnomic tasks over the next few months. Obviously. Little grape (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I went and fixed it anyway - interestingly, there was only one 'whites' that needed to be changed (apart from a typo and instances of the old South African 'whites' classification in that section), and plenty of correct references to 'white people' and 'black people', so I think we can be somewhat reassured that the 'White People' article is much more in line with MoS than this article. Why would this be, do you think? Little grape (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea. Could be a number of reasons. Let's not speculate. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh; I had assumed you had referenced that article for a particular reason. Clearly not. Little grape (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Offensive In the UK published media the term "black people" is consistently used and where the term "blacks" is used, this is invariably an offensive quote rather than editorial. You will note that the American concept of White, Black and Asian as definitions of "race" is not used in the same way in other countries and may be considered highly offensive depending on context, particularly with regard to biographies. The following example is used in Encyclopaedia Britannica: "... a person of Pakistani origin is considered “black” or “coloured” in the United Kingdom but would probably be classified as “white” or “Asian” in the United States". Consequently I find the term "Blacks" offensive in the UK and an argument that it may be in common usage in the USA, even by the President of that country, does not make it otherwise.—Ash (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn as the guidance of RFC is not being followed here. See later comments.—Ash (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It really says Pakistanis are considered "white" in America? What a joke!--Львівське (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's all good It depends on the context and wording of the sentences. If you use "black people" in one sentence and in the next abbreviate by using "blacks" then there should be no issue.--Львівське (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I do not like banning words and do not think we should do so here, but the term 'blacks' must be used with care. For example in the construction, 'Black people have darker skins than white people and blacks usually have darker hair than whites', I think it is fine. The start of the sentence sets the tone for the rest. On the other hand. I do not think it would be acceptable to write, 'Blacks first came to Europe in ...', for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: if I count correctly I think that now means there are 6 editors voting "not offensive" and 3 "offensive". As such I request nobody edit the article to remove "blacks". If more editors join the discussion and those numbers change significantly then we can review that. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFC, the beginning states RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes. I contributed with a statement that I found the usage offensive with supporting explanation; it was not a vote. As it happens, I disagree with your count, you may be counting clarifications and discussion as new comments.—Ash (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, this farcical second shot has gone on for 7 days. In the first, 5 people commented in support of leaving as is, two objected, and here, from the above count, 6 support leaving as is, and 3 objected. Seems to me that's two demonstrations of consensus to leave as is. I see no reason to pursue this further. ThuranX (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As the guidance of RFC is not being followed, I have struck out my contribution as this is not a process for consensus as I understood it. I no longer consider this a valid RFC. Hopefully that makes things simpler for you.—Ash (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ash. No need to strike out your comments unless you no longer agree with what you said (and that doesn't appear to be the case). I'm on your side of the argument, stating quite clearly that I personallly would like to see "blacks" removed. However, I think we do need to try and abide by consensus. I also did a little research of my own and across the British media it is certainly not unheard of for those media to use the term "blacks" and not in quotes or in a stylised or derogatory context. Here's the search results I looked at. It has occurred to me to try and get direct input from African American wikipedians for their perspective. I may still do that at some point. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to act like that, Ash. Agree with them or not, your comments are legitimate and valid, however, an RfC often results in a consensus. If this was going in your favor ,you wouldn't be objecting to a finding of a consensus, would you? No. Don't tantrum when you fail to change consensus, without attempts, consensus woudl be stale and weak. you make it better. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of throwing tantrums or presume that I can only withdraw my comment if I no long agree with it. I contributed to a RFC in good faith and later the terms of reference of the RFC have been changed by not following the standard RFC guidance. I have withdrawn my contribution for that reason alone. If you wish to reach meaningful consensus here I suggest a process of summarizing the common ground or different viewpoints presented on both sides would be in compliance with RFC and CONSENSUS.

As a point of clarification, you will note that the search included above by Bodnotbod shows articles that happen to include "blacks" and "black people" at the same time (therefore excluding articles without the term "blacks") and examining the first three examples of this search shows "blacks" used in the headline but not the editorial, "blacks" used as a South African term rather than a British term and not in the editorial, "blacks" used in the headline but not the editorial. If you accept that sensationalist terms may be used in newspaper headlines that would not be normal practice for editorial content, then this sample appears to back my original point rather than detract from it.—Ash (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

can we please use some common sense here? It is reasonable to use "black people" instead of "blacks" when the mention is in passing, in some unrelated article that doesn't dwell on details of racial concepts. But this is Wikipedia's article on black people. It is the article subject. The concept and its nuances are introduced and examined in detail, center stage. If the term "blacks" is "considered offensive" in some contexts, present references to the effect and introduce a paragraph on this point, but I cannot see how after careful introduction of the term, the article needs to awkwardly go on saying "black people this, black people that". Its a point of stylistics and readability. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Applying common sense, if it were only an issue about style and readability, then Black people should be moved to Blacks (people) as the most common term should be used for the article title. The fact that the article stays as "Black people" is surely a good indicator that there is a valid issue here, the same issue this RFC was raised for.—Ash (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

you either have not understood my point, or else you have a rather peculiar notion of "common sense". I am saying that yes, certainly, "black people" should be used as the title, and the first time that "black people" are mentioned in any article. But this article doesn't mention "black people" once, it mentions them over and over again, dozens of times, what with them being the article subject. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statement appears to be that "Blacks" is interchangeable with "Black people" and for style reasons it is reasonable to use it this way. The point of this RFC is that some people think that the words are not interchangeable. My point of view is that the words are not interchangeable when considering the meaning of these words in Wikipedia's international English readership context.—Ash (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ash. I don't think the inclusion of "blacks" can be boiled down to that "common sense" position. Either the term is offensive or it is not. That is what we must focus on. For example, we have the article 'Vagina' but nobody would argue "the word vagina is used too much in the article so we ought to mix it up by using 'the C word', 'twat', 'pussy' and so on." I apologise to Ash for only reading the headlines of the articles that came up in my search, I guess that was pretty weak of me. Although I would contend that if the BBC can get away with using it in its headline as they do here they must have taken the position that it would not be offensive to their readers. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be cautious about interpreting the position of the BBC on use of racial terms without referring to their current published policies rather than an example news article published in 1999.—Ash (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that referring to black people as "blacks" represents an improvement in style and readability. The historical baggage surrounding that particular usage in many areas of the world would be a detriment to readability, in my opinion. The phrase "black people" is not particularly awkward, and "readability" has a more complex meaning than "reducing the number of syllables." IceCreamEmpress (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IceCreamEmpress , I cannot see what is wrong with 'black people' so why go against the MoS? 'Blacks' is sometimes used offensively and should only be used in direct quotes within this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If using the term "blacks" in the article offends a significant proportion of editors (even if it's not the majority) , when that is scaled up to all those who read the article we have quite a lot of slightly offended people. You guys are never ever going to agree on whether "blacks" is objectively offensive or objectively reasonable. Surely it's better to accept that it is offensive to some people (not all) and so use "black people", which means exactly the same thing but offends no-one. Charlie A. (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the nub of the matter - clearly the part of the world where several editors commenting above reside use that word and don't believe it to be offensive in their community. What I and several other editors are asking those editors to recognise, is that in other parts of the world the term is offensive. While this is not a vote, we can all see from the comments above that around half the contributors state that it may be offensive where they live - so why alienate and annoy half the world when it can be fixed in a few seconds without in any way affecting the meaning in the text?

I therefore believe consensus can be reached if those editors accept that it *is* an offensive term to many people. Are there now any editors who *don't* believe it's offensive to many people? Little grape (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am a neutral (as it were) reader and I came here from the RfC. I think it is a perilous path for we, as wikipedia editors, to say things like "so you agree that many people find this word offensive!" and so on. I could ask 10 black people today if they find the word "blacks" offensive and if all 10 of them say no, that doesn't diminish Little grape's opinion. Similarly, I could probably track down 10 gay people who hate the word "gay" but just deal with it anyway. Meanwhile, Jewish people often delightfully refer to themselves as "Jews" and have really embraced that term. And so on and so forth.

My naive suggestion would be that we assume good faith with words and not "reify" them into concrete things without reference to the intent behind them. In this case, "blacks" is used because, frankly, it still in very common parlance, and (no offense to Little grape and the other editors here) just because 3-4 people on wikipedia vociferously object, I really don't think we need to cater to them at the expense of a readable article. As was said already, "black people" is the very substance and topic of this article. Very few people will come here and say "gasp, what disrespect these writers have for black people by blatantly using this offensive term!" So, that's my opinion. Now: can't we, in our brilliance as English speakers, come up with any constructive solutions to avoid the term without repeating "black people" over and over? It may be time consuming but I'll bet it's possible. I know "African American" is too specific, but I constantly hear people refer, without giving it any actual thought, to a black Australian actor as "african american" because they are so internally discombobulated over the term "black." Some people would be shocked that we still use the term "black people" at all! Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This editorial guideline from the Jersey Government puts it nicely: "The words Portuguese, black and Asian should not be used as nouns, but adjectives. For example, Portuguese and Madeiran people, rather than the Portuguese, the Madeirans, black people rather than blacks, an Asian woman rather than an Asian." To belittle the views expressed in an open RFC as "vociferous objections" is to overlook real issues with using English internationally. A similar policy to Jersey's would not seem excessive.—Ash (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how the phrase "vociferous objections" is belittling.... Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion on a way forwards It is accepted that the term 'blacks' is not necessarily offensive when used appropriately, however it is accepted that it must be used with caution. Although the term will not be banned on this page, editors should feel free to change the wording of sections where the term is used inappropriately. To quote from what I have said above 'Black people have darker skins than white people and blacks usually have darker hair than whites', is OK but, 'Blacks first came to Europe in ...', especially at the start of a paragraph, is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this ignores the well-sourced and now generally accepted convention (albeit outside the USA) that the word 'blacks' should not be used as a noun. Thus your proviso re 'inappropriateness' doesn't really apply, as any use as a noun may cause offence and is easily avoided. I certainly agree that continual use of the phrase 'black people' two or three times in a sentence is clumsy, but this can be rewritten without having to resort to a word many find offensive. For example, your own sentence can be rewritten very easily to avoid the word (and make better sense - 'Black people have darker skin and hair than white people'). It's simply a matter of better writing.Little grape (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I fully support Martin's proposal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Little grape, I hate two things in about equal measure, political correctness and unfairness. Banning a word as inherently offensive, without regard to its context or usage is political correctness, fair play for dummies. The use of the word 'blacks' in my first example is perfectly natural English that could equally well apply in different circumstances. For example, in describing a hypothetical ball game, I might say, 'There are ten black balls and three white balls, blacks are worth three points each and whites five.' Here, 'blacks' is used with a meaning that is clearly a short form of the previously used longer term, 'black balls', just as 'blacks' and 'whites' are used as shortened forms of the previously used 'black people' and 'white people' in my example. This is natural English, not intended to be offensive in any way, and people have no right to be offended by it.

The problem with trying to rewrite the sentence to avoid using a particular phrase is that meaning can easily be lost, as is shown by your example. My original statement said that 'blacks usually have darker hair than whites'. That nuance has been lost in your rewriting. That is the problem with political correctness, it attempts to deal with problems in a heavy-handed way, which in itself can be offensive to people, who may suddenly be told that their natural language in unacceptable.

We need to educate people as to why others might reasonably take offense at my second construction rather than banning words completely. To use 'blacks' as a standard alternative to 'black people' is not acceptable because it may be taken to indicate that blacks are not quite people. Historically the term has been used in this obviously offensive way, this is why we must take such care here. I do agree that anyone who does not see or understand the distinction between the usage in my two examples would indeed be well advised not to use the term 'blacks' at all. This is probably why the term is banned in many style guides. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin I apologise - I misread your sentence and didn't notice your 'usually'! However, you may or may not agree that 'Black people have darker skins than white people and blacks usually have darker hair than whites' is somewhat clumsy; a more efficient way of saying the same thing might be 'Black people have darker skins and generally darker hair than white people'. See how we can write better English *and* avoiding offending anyone?

Do you think your stated hatred for 'political correctness' is clouding your judgement a little? I don't think this is anything to do with PC; it's simply that much of the world outside the USA regards the word 'blacks' as offensive. It's really just that simple.

Perhaps a solution might be for you to edit the article to reflect your (quite correct) view that some of the uses may be 'inappropriate'. Then someone else can review the instances of your use of the word that you feel must stay in because those sentences can't be written any other way, and suggest alternatives. Then everyone's happy, aren't they?Little grape (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise, the fact that you overlooked 'usually' helped me make my general point that heavy handed and formulaic editing can easily lose meaning that was present in the original text.

I am from the UK and I do not think that 'black' is regarded as offensive here, unless it is used in an offensive way.

I will try your idea and see how it goes. It might resolve this dispute. On the other hand it might make things worse. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about formulaic editing. I also agree 100% that 'black' is not offensive in the UK, as in "he is black, they are black" etc. But certainly "he is a black, and they are blacks" *is* offensive. The rule of thumb appears to be very simple: the adjective is fine, the noun offensive. Little grape (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say 'blacks'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody, please, grow up, and stick to being a professional which includes not involving your personal views and opinions about political beliefs. If I was a racist, then I still wouldn't be right for involving my beliefs in how a business or what a business should call or label individuals of certain features, skin colors, or origins. The use of the term "blacks" is offensive in this modern 21st century era and the only reason that this word isn't offensive to some is that they continue to use the same terminology that they have been using without updating their usage of phrases and words. The world is constantly changing and so are how people are termed, so as far as any professionals, in any business,are concerned, we all need to learn new ways of communicating for the better of our world around us. I agree, as a writer, that you don't have to keep using the same word or phrase several times with good rules of grammar, word usage, and editing. Trust me! I write a lot and have the same problem, and many other writers do, too. Don't use this as an excuse to support poor and incorrect use of terms.Just1one (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Just1one (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Black People are Actually Brown

The term black people usually refers to a racial group of humans with a light brown to a black skin color and born with Afro textured hair, Blacks are not light brown.the light brown skin color is from race mixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.127.74 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Black africans aren`t the only ones with black skin color

White people are actually pink - but you don't see that being raise as an issue -Truthseeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.13.35 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing 'blacks' to 'black people' as discussed

As discussed above, I started looking that the usages of 'blacks' and changing those that I considered inappropriate to 'black people'. I stopped because it started to look as if it was going to be nearly all of them, and as a new editor here I did not want to appear to be imposing my own views on the page whilst there was an RfC in progress.

I do still think, however, that many of the occurrences of 'blacks' in this article are potentially offensive and not required to write in good English and should be therefore changed to 'black people'. This is not the same as banning the term completely but it is in accordance with the MoS and other guides. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As no one has commented I have completed changing 'blacks' to 'black people' as discussed. There are still uses of 'blacks' which, in my opinion are OK. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job; there's one early on I'll change (not least because it wrongly compares black and white, rather than black and other races). Any thoughts on rewriting the others to preserve the meaning? Little grape (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave the others. The use seems acceptable to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Offensive Title

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

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

One issue with changing the title to reflect African origin is that not all groups labeled "black" are connected to Africa. The last sentence of the intro reads: Other definitions of the term Black extend to any of the populations characterized by dark skin, a definition that also includes certain populations in Oceania, Southeast Asia.^[1][2].

And yes, there are articles on white people and asian people. I'm not a big fan of this naming convention either (mostly for stylistic reasons). However, a solution is not immediately apparent to me. Personally I'd like it to be something like Black (somewordhere).Woland (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the the existence of this page is only justified as a linguistics article. It should show how the term 'black people' has been used historically and in different parts of the world for different purposes. It cannot and should not, in my opinion, try to show what the term 'really' means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. This article currently attempts to be an ethnological article while using a title that is supremely unsuitable. The asian people article actually covers all the ethnic groups in the continent, rather than just a "colour" group. I think the White people article too should be moved to "Caucasian", since the current terminology is unscientific and originates more in pseudo-scientific racist circles than anywhere else. The linking of Africans and melanesians might be acceptable in an article describing English language usage, but not in an article describing the ethnic groups originating in sub-saharan Africa. Xandar 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both comments for the most part. The only small issue I see is that "black" isn't just an English usage thing. Other cultures/language groups also label various peoples as "black." But I may just be reading the above comment wrong. I guess someone should do a RFC. Woland (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• For any given word for this subject, there is somebody who considers it offensive; for most of them, there is someone else who considers it the proper, inoffensive, and neutral word, the lasting solution to the problem. (The six-letter Southern coarseness probably does not have much of a fan club; but that's not what we're considering; and some members of the group have attempted to reclaim even that as self-identification.) If we move this, it will only have to be moved again, when the person shows up who objects to whatever we choose next. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring

I'm partially reverting the lede because User:AnwarSadatFan's version was repetitive, and it was wrong insofar as afro hair is not a defining characteristic of "black"-ness. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Second revert: "The people of Europe" include people of all races with different levels of melanin. "White people" of Europe have low levels of melanin, as the article says. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are two changes I was also wanting to get through. Thank you. Tailan All (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The image of the Pacific Islander boy has been there since June 22 2007; almost 2 years without any problems from anyone, until June 2 2009 when User:AnwarSadatFan removed it, and for no given reason at that. There is no problem with the image being in the article. There was no reason that it should be removed. The rarity of blonde blacks is more reason to show it, not to try to hide it as if it doesn't exist.Tailan All (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. The most latest consensus version of the article did not include this image that you are insisting on. We will keep the article to the version prior to your edit warring for now. If you have a really good argument for this image then you can discuss it on my talk page. AnwarSadatFan (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop putting so much emphasis on consensus when there is none. A consensus is not taken after every edit, and your personal approval is not a consensus. Now, you removed the image of the Pacific Islander boy just because you did not want it there, and that's not a legitimate reason. The image is useful because of the fact that blonde blacks are a gem; a rarity. That image is much more notable than either of the two current image that can stand to be replaced in the Asia and Australia section. There is no reason that the image shouldn't be there, so I am returning it. Tailan All (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, (even though your insisting that we include a picture of a blond black person is ridiculous) there already is an image of a Sub-Saharan African boy with an albinism mutation with blond hair (which is very rare). It is in the beginning of the article. AnwarSadatFan (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this explains why you removed the image. You think including an image of a blonde black person is ridiculous, but it isn't. It's real life. Blonde blacks do exist. But in the picture you're referring to here, the boy's blond-ish colored hair is due to his albino condition. That isn't quite a genuine representation of a black person with naturally blonde hair. Tailan All (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Some of the statements in the section "Sub-Saharan Africa" appear to be poorly thought out and gratuitous. The first statement, "Sub-Saharan Africa is a common if imprecise term that encompasses African countries located south of the Saharan Desert" is inaccurate. The term Sub-Saharan Africa refers to a geographical region - that part of the continent that is south of the Sahara - not to a group of countries. Compare with "Pacific Rim" or "Western Europe" or "Antipodes".

The final sentence in the first paragraph, "Furthermore, the Sahara cuts across countries such as Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan, leaving some parts of them in North Africa and some in sub-Saharan Africa", is also incongruent. The Rocky Mountains cut across many states in America, and the Great Steppe cuts across many countries in Europe and Asia, but neither of these geographic features are considered problematic or questionable in the same manner as the previously cited sentence suggests.

I don't know how to go about fixing this, but I would be grateful if some scholar out there could have a look at it and perhaps clean it up. PanEuropean (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Refine your definition of "Black"

In your definition of "Black" people, you defined them as ranging in color from light brown to varying degrees of dark skin. You need to refine your or someone's error or ignorant definition of "Black" people as their colors range from so-called "white" complexions to varying degrees of dark skin. You, or to whomever wrote this definition on "Black" people need to understand that the term "Black" came from a racist era and one in which the term "Black" people was a stereotype and limited one which only supported data that supported stereotypes of "Black" people. The history of "Black" people could be a more diverse history with "Black" people deriving from not only dark pigmentation and curly hair, but, also, deriving from light pigmentations, light eye colors, light hair colors, and varying hair lengths and textures. You should know that it is a well-known fact that dark-skin parents can father a child that is born with lighter skin, and, therefore, you should know that, scientifically, light-skin parents can father a child that is born with dark skin. So the characterizations of so-called "Black" people is solely a racist term which aims to define, divide, and categorize people according to skin color or pigmentation and not by nationality and origin. Please add this fact to your definition: "Black" people are not a race of people, rather,the term "Black" people came out of a way to give a positive face or identity of individuals called and named racist and derogatory labels; yet, "Black" people is still derogatory in that the term is used to divide a group of people within their nation from other groups of people based solely on colors and certain features.Just1one (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I, also, want to further add and correct whoever stated that light skin comes from racial mixing. You need to study and learn your facts about skin pigmentation, especially, from someone, (i.e., me), that has studied, plus, researched genetics, and DNA. I am passing this fact on to you that color of skin does not only derive from racial mixing, but, also, can come about through the combination of certain cells. This is a well-known scientific and proven fact, so, Africans or "Black" people with light skin does not only derive from racial mixing. In fact, that error only comes out of stereotyping, and racist profiling. Changes in pigmentation and color can happen for many diverse reasons beside albinism, and racial mixing. Again, the term "Black" people comes from a racial terminology that solely limits and groups certain individuals by color of skin or pigmentation - not factual or actual data.Just1one (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Demographics?

I looked up this article, because I wanted to find out what percentage of the world population is classified as black people? It seems a relevant piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.79.116 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You will find that there is no one global use/classification with regards to this term; thus, no such information can be included. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Cyprus Section that was Inaccurate and Without Credible Sourcing

Without writing a long explanation of why the section was flawed I'll just cite the most thorough and credible Y-DNA study of Cypriots, Capelli et al 2005, that indicates Haplogroup A appeared at a 3.1% frequency in the Cypriot sample. Haplogroup A is associated with sub-saharan African ancestry and likely arrived in Cyprus through the servants of rulers (Ptolomaic, Venetian, other) or through the Ottoman slave trade. To define a people as part 'black people' due to a 3.1% occurance of a Y-DNA haplogroup just doesn't make sense. The other Cypriot haplogroups trace to the Mediterranean/North Africa/Middle East and Western Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterby (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Job

I wanted to thank some of the contributors here for their work in the page over the past 2 to 3 years. Since the craziness of accusing everyone of being a sockpuppet everytime we held our own against biased attacks which seek to do nothing but to maintain a prejudiced view and silence credible and verifiable opposition. A few of us found those e-saults to be frustrating and we had to develop methods that get around sockpuppet and bans. That being the case, how we contribute, by sending our data to a wide variety of others who look it over and contribute. Since then the spread of information to new users all over has made it possible to have articles relating to black people to be well devleoped BY black people. Before that, it seemed that non-blacks had a controlling impact on this article and others. Now it's more developed more fair. Great job and keep up the good work. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Race, Ethnicity, etc

More work should be done to clarify black (race), black (ethnicity), black (social group), black (skin color). I notice how points are made that confuse black skin color with the black racial group and that with black ethnicity. It will help to clarify that. Black people as an Ethnic group probably have the largest numbers, followed by black "race". --68.41.101.63 (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous mix

Mixing Veddas and Melanesyans with black Africans is ridiculous. In fact, a great part of black people in India is Caucasian: yes, black but caucasian.--88.18.148.166 (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Black caucasians?" Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the groups have no negroid/bantu/capoid/etc ancestry; however they are black by phenotype, and sometimes by social disposition. For example, aborigines of Australia are not negroid, but they do tend to identify as Black due to their social disposition in their native land; and their features are seen as Black features. Groups such as Afro-Arab people are Black Caucasian, they have genetic traits of both Caucasians and sub-Saharan Africans. Bab-a-lot (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Physiological traits -- Dark skin

The claim "the loss of melanin in white people is now thought to have been caused by a mutation in just one letter out of 3.1 billion letters of DNA" is not supported by the reference. The referenced newspaper article reports the discovery of a one letter change in DNA that is responsible for a loss of melanin in white people. This cannot be the only genetic change responsible for the difference in skin pigmentation between white and black people because black-white hybrids show a fine gradation in skin tones. Indeed, the article also states "...the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest". I'm somewhat troubled by the focus on what distinguishes whites, when the wikipedia page is about black people. The portion of the newspaper article that discussed the genetic differences that account for the difference in skin color between black Africans and (east) Asians was ignored. Qemist (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (editsemiprotected)

Change "By that time, the majority of black people people were U.S.-born" to "By that time, the majority of black people were U.S.-born" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.airola (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested correction to dates of slave trade

Regarding the line, "Approximately 12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas during the Atlantic slave trade from 1492 to 1888."

Africans were not shipped to the Americas in 1492. The first African slaves were shipped to Spanish Florida in 1560's. (Source: David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World. Oxford University Press. 2006. p. 124.)

The last recorded slave ship to land on American soil was the Clotilde, which in 1859 illegally smuggled a number of Africans into the town of Mobile, Alabama. (http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/july05/)

I am wondering if it is more correct to say: "Approximately 12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas during the Atlantic slave trade from the 1560's to 1859."

Also, I believe 12 million refers to the number of people who were held in slavery in the United States, not the number of Africans shipped to the Americas. Africans in slavery had families and children, and as such, the number of Africans who were transported was lower. I cannot find numbers on this point however.

66.49.248.98 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)zackbear26@yahoo.com

A much needed edit to the sentence "In general, Arabs had a more positive view of black women than black men"

I would like to request that the sentence (quote)"In general, Arabs had a more positive view of black women than black men, even if the women were of slave origin." in the Arab world part of this article to be changed or deleted as it can be read to say that Arabs view (African) black women more positively then how (African) black men view there own women which would be untrue, subjective and offensive to the intelligence and love (African)black men have for their women. I am not saying the person who wrote this was putting this forward but the way it was written implies this. No race views the race of a female people group more positively then their own men since they are there mothers, sisters, partners and wives. This obviously goes for any people group (or race) not just African black people. I would also like to request the word African to be added before every “black” in the same article (African is added before black in some parts but not others) since it was specifically black Africans that were taken into slavery in the Arab slave trade. Not every people group (or race) referred to as black around the world comes from Africa which is what people often forget. A more clear and better statement would be “In general, Arabs had a more positive view of African black women compared to how they viewed and treated African black men, even if the women were of slave origin” This or a similar edit would help avoid confusion and/or any offence.