Talk:Black people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Black people:

  • Find and add citations to reliable sources.
  • Remove unverifiable material and original research.
  • Show a multi dimensional view of Black people across the world, not merely an American perspective.
  • Remove "undue weight" per WP:CSB and WP:NPOV.
  • Give more information on the diversity of peoples within African, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc.
Priority 2

India and Pakistan[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Article clean up[edit]

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

a) Information about sub-Saharan Africa is missing.

b) The article is entirely focused on the "slavery" narrative. See [[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, that phrase on "Khoisan..." dates from 2007 and there was no consensus for it [2]. It has no bearing on the current page. Soupforone (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As Jamie Tubers explained above, there is no consensus for that stuff. I've restored the Sahara region social construct and corrected the meaning of shanqella as per the url. I also removed the file of the Prince Bandar, who is considered Arab in his native land rather than "black". Likewise, Beta Israel are officially recognized as Jews in Israel and allowed to become Israeli citizens under the 1973 Law of Return2 rather than as a "black" sect like the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. Please respect this or I will ask CambridgeBayWeather to protect the page again. Soupforone (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Soupforone...You may have noticed that Beta Israel are in the same article, so why is a picture of their Spiritual leader controversial? If the article is on social constructs, then Beta Israel are considered black in Israel. Here's a source: [3] Where are your sources that say Bander is considered "Arab"? His mother is an African. Lastly, why didn't you mention that you also removed the picture of Ivan Gannibal? Are you disputing whether he was black or not? You also removed a picture of the Brazilian martial art Capoiera and gave no explanation for it. PS Just for the record, I'm the one who requested for page protection. DanJazzy (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You did request page protection yet CambridgeBayWeather protected it in the status quo version since there was no consensus for those edits. Anyway, I didn't remove the capoeira file, though I easily could have, as there was no consensus for replacing the jongo file with it to begin with. As per the 1973 Law of Return, Beta Israel are officially recognized as Jews in Israel and allowed to become Israeli citizens. An author claiming them otherwise has no bearing on that official classification. It is members of the Black Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem whom are officially not recognized as Jews [4]. Prince Bandar's mother was apparently a native commoner [5]. Even if she had instead been an immigrant, he would still be recognized as Arab because of his royal status and patrilineal descent. Also, the consensus is that Russian nobleman of African origin is the most appropriate descriptor for Ivan Gannibal's father, Abram Gannibal, and not Afro-Russian [6]. This is cause Abram's birthplace and ethnic affiliation are unknown - there isn't even an existing authentic portrait of the man. He has alternately been claimed as being of negro and non-negro origin [7]. Soupforone (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

  • DanJazzy you claim this article is not about a social construct, but people; yet, you keep using the word "construct" in your arguments. Like I said before, if you want to add information about African people, you can do that in the appropriate article. This article is about the construct, which isn't a global one. For every addition made, you need to provide a clear source which proves that such construct indeed exists for the country or region or society you're adding. Anything asides that, you'd need to get a proper consensus to change the direction of the article. It's funny how the template on your userpage claims you belong to "WikiProject Countering Systemic bias" yet, you are actually trying to reinstate a popular bias.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jamie Tubers, the consensus is that the article needs to include more information on the diversity of African peoples. See infobox here on this talk page. This is the same practice that has been adopted for Asian people and White people so I don't understand why it does not apply here. Further, it has been noted before that this article is not balanced [[8] . It it 100% focused on the narrative that black people are slaves. I'm sure you do not think that this is the only social construct that black people can be identified with. Lastly, if you look at the edit history, addition of images for Bandar bin Sultan, Ivan Gannibal and Raphael Hadane in the appropriate sections of the article are being opposed by an editor, even with proper citations. If that is not WP:BIAS then I don't know what is.--DanJazzy (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • DanJazzy "Asia" is a name of a continent. It's only natural that an article called "Asian people" should talk about people in that continent. "Black" is not a continent. If you want to talk about Africans, you take to an article about African people. The "White people" article clearly only talks about countries where the construct is valid, no extra. This article doesn't talk so much about African countries, simply because the construct is not valid or recognized in most African countries. Simple! This has been repeated to you several times. Really, it's not rocket science. The tag was created by non-Africans and still being propagated mostly by non-Africans. Don't try to create a generalized narrative that doesn't exist. If you want to add a specific African country that hasn't been added already, provide a local source that validates the use of "black" in that country. This shouldn't be difficult for you. If you can't do this, then you're only trying to vandalize the page.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Jamie Tubers . Please read this article [9] and then try and see an alternative argument on the subject. In any case, my main point is that the article is extremely biased. Black people's social construct and identity is not all about slavery. This is the narrative that this article is weaving and it is a classic case of WP:BIAS--DanJazzy (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As explained, Beta Israel are legally recognized in Israel as ethnic Jews as per the 1973 Law of Return. Part of the reason for their repatriation to Israel was actually to save them from assimilation by Gentiles (p.73 [10]). Besides the fact that Bandar's mother was a commoner (apparently not an immigrant), he is a blood member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [11]. I mentioned Afro-Russian because it was linked to right above the Gannibal file. However, Abram Gannibal's birthplace and ethnic origin are unknown, and there is no existing authentic portrait of him either. The ethnic affinities of his descendants are therefore also uncertain ("There exists no authentic portrait of Abram Gannibal[...] Nor can one draw any conclusion from the portraits of his progeny as to what blood predominated in Abram, Negro or Caucasian." [12]). Soupforone (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I've already posted a link from the University of Alabama [13] that clearly shows Beta Israel have a "black" social construct in Israel. You have posted a copy of the Israeli law of return which does not prove your assertion. Again, you have not provided any evidence to prove that Bandar bin Sultan is considered an "Arab" despite his African mother. I have already debunked your irrelevant Guardian link. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Ivan Gannibal is the son of Abram Gannibal a black Russian of African origin. Please see consensus at Afro-Russians in which Soupforone participated in an RfC.DanJazzy (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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