Talk:Black people: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:59, 16 September 2005

Latest revision as of 17:51, 5 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

==Early comments==

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

This article needs to clean up some of its language, and specifically define the terms of its discussion. For example, exactly what are "black" or "European" characterisrics that are found among these groups, but not found in others? Also, what is "black blood?" This term has no scientific merit; there is no inherent difference in the blood of those who have varying degrees of any ancestry. [[musicus, 24 July 2005]

{{censor}}

{{Old AfD multi|date= 2007-03-18 |result= '''Speedy keep''' |votepage= Black people }}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High }}

{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=High }}

{{WikiProject Africa|importance=High }}

{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid }}

{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}

}}

{{To do|2}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 24

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Black people/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}

{{Controversial-issues}}

== "Blacks" ==

Nothing article, not even a stub, one ill-chosen link and a naive question. [[User:Ortolan88|Ortolan88]]

Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The [https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/black-person US National Archives] defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." [[User:TheMiddleWest|TheMiddleWest]] ([[User talk:TheMiddleWest|talk]]) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

:Really? This older Australian (who doesn't want to offend anyone) truly finds it hard to keep up what's OK and what's not in America. When did "blacks" become offensive? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::I guess that calling black people "blacks" has the same kind of vibe as calling the Aboriginal people in Australia "Aborigines". While we might not see any real issue with it, the people it's used to refer to might have their own reservations about being called such. I will admit that America's increasingly common and almost impulsive "knight in shining armour" response to anything considered offensive nowadays is more than a bit excessive, but here, I see no real problem here with @[[User:TheMiddleWest|TheMiddleWest]]'s request from the perspective I just presented. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I understand and accpt hat language changes. MY real question was, when did this particular change in acceptability happen? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::I dunno, when was the last time you heard "blacks" used commonly in everyday life? To be honest, I can understand why a black person might not want to be just called a "black". I'd be more than a bit annoyed if someone called me a "white" instead of making even a half-hearted attempt to refer to me by any other defining characteristic. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 07:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{midsize|I've no real personal insight here, but these things aren't binary switches. What is observed as a sea-change is instead like reaching critical mass, maybe as the direct result of many people becoming aware or changing their mind in a short amount of time, but likely just as much if not more some mere signal of preexisting perspectives catching on in the media. A thinkpiece, a sitcom quip, whatever—unfortunately those are the events people notice as regards these things. What I'm saying is there's potentially no answer for you—different folks have different feelings and different explanations. From what I intuit from reading memoirs, it was always possible for this choice of language to confer this particular meaning. }} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for your thoughtful response! Very helpful and well stated!

::::::I found it offensive to be referred to as “black” in the medical record for the birth of my first child!

::::::Before the staff ever saw me they wrote in my baby’s chart that her “mother black and father white.” I have brown skin, and immigrated to the US from India as an infant. My child is as much American as anyone!

::::::I have put in a critique of the article on “miscegenation” because it is derogatory and doesn’t start with the statement that the article on race does(basically stating that race is a social construct and not a scientific term). That critique has not been accepted in over 6 months! And my comment in Talk is completely stalled and ignored by all but one person. “Miscegenation” is a bonkers unscientific term! We should not have a page in an encyclopedia about it without saying directly that Race is a social construct and not scientific.

::::::When I was 6, and first traveled to India I noticed that 1) I didn’t stand out and was extremely relieved about that. 2) But more importantly I saw that at Heathrow, the people cleaning the bathrooms and serving the food were all of Indian descent. I recall thinking “If we lived here in the UK, they would treat us like second class citizens, as they treat “black people” in the US.

::::::[My doctor even gave the wrong diagnosis as the cause of my C-section stating the wrong info and referring to me as an Indian woman of short stature and saying that the father, my husband was American and tall. This has nothing to do with why I had a C section and as a doctor myself, I was understandably disappointed back in 1994]

::::::sorry for rambling a bit, but I think it is helpful to know why people are offended by certain words! [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 18:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It doesn't seem particularly contingent or peculiar to me that a [[mass noun]]-as-demonym can become offensive. I really wouldn't read much more than that into it, it's not particularly complicated or particularly American. I'll steal these citations from [[wikt:black#Noun]]:

:::* ''Merriam-Webster Online'': {{xt|Use of the noun Black in the singular to refer to a person is considered offensive. The plural form Blacks is still commonly used by Black people and others to refer to Black people as a group or community, but the plural form too is increasingly considered offensive, and most style guides advise writers to use Black people rather than Blacks when practical.}}

:::* ''Oxford Learner's Dictionaries'': {{xt|Using the noun black to refer to people with dark skin can be offensive, so it is better to use the adjective: ''black people • a black man/woman''. It is especially offensive to use the noun with the definite article ('the blacks')}}

:::* ''Dictionary.com'': {{xt|As a noun, however, it does often offend. The use of the plural noun without an article is somewhat more accepted (home ownership among ''Blacks''); however, the plural noun with an article is more likely to offend (political issues affecting ''the Blacks''), and the singular noun is especially likely to offend (The small business proprietor is ''a Black''). Use the adjective instead: ''Black homeowners, Black voters, a Black business proprietor''.}}

:::* ''AP Stylebook'': {{xt|Do not use [black] as a singular noun.}}

:::<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::::[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Capitalization]] <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 15:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks again for the excellent clarification!

:::: I won’t ramble here further, but please help me get through to the people who are discussing the article on “miscegenation.” It’s completely stalled and you are concise as well as well informed! Thank you again! [[User:Kanchan M Mahon|Kanchan M Mahon]] ([[User talk:Kanchan M Mahon|talk]]) 18:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is better to avoid using black/Black as a noun. When using lowercase in the sense of African-American, it is ''not'' inappropriate. Use black/Black person/people.

:::::Many dictionaries/Webs in the UK use lowercase form, including Oxford, Longman, BBC etc. [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:?? Should be always capitalized? It should not. Both of them can be used.

:For example, the expression 'A black' is generally considered to be ''equally'' offensive whether when used as a capital form or not. [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 07:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::No. [[User:Kaltenbrunner10|Kaltenbrunner10]] ([[User talk:Kaltenbrunner10|talk]]) 06:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Capitalization is very regional. See usage notes at Wiktionary and commonness between [black people] and [Black people] (case sensitive) in Google Ngrams between British and American English. [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 23:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

::::According to Oxford dictionary (not learner’s) stated that the capitalized form can have connotations of either respect or disrespect, depend on the context and writer.

::::My preference is: lowercase [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 23:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::*[https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/announcements/the-decision-to-capitalize-black/ Free knowledge]

:::::<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 00:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

:::I use capitalized black in contexts using U.S. or Canadian English. Otherwise in British English, Indian English, Australian English, I use black (not capitalized).

:::You can do a comparison with using Google Ngrams, like

:::Black people & black people (case sensitive) in UK and US [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 02:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Many British dictionaries write

::::black

::::...

::::2. (also '''Black''') [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 03:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::black is quite an acceptable term. Capitalized Black is more respectful than the usual black especially in US and Canada.

:::::see wikt:negro#Adjective [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 03:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::Blacks. Countable noun. [[User:Kaltenbrunner10|Kaltenbrunner10]] ([[User talk:Kaltenbrunner10|talk]]) 08:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ignoring people is rude. [[User:Kaltenbrunner10|Kaltenbrunner10]] ([[User talk:Kaltenbrunner10|talk]]) 08:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No. Everyone has our own thoughts and word preferences. [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 08:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::'Blacks' is a countable noun. Example: "The blacks are on the street.". And yes, quit arguing with me. [[User:Kaltenbrunner10|Kaltenbrunner10]] ([[User talk:Kaltenbrunner10|talk]]) 09:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You are acting like a troll. [[User:Kaltenbrunner10|Kaltenbrunner10]] ([[User talk:Kaltenbrunner10|talk]]) 12:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Damn, you didn't even replied to me! Stop acting like this! [[User:Kaltenbrunner10|Kaltenbrunner10]] ([[User talk:Kaltenbrunner10|talk]]) 09:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

== Capitalized or not ==

----

Not any more, moved ill-placed section from [[black]]. Previous redirect was to [[African American]], also not quite as accurate.

[[User:Quill|Quill]] 22:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to many dictionaries, terms like '''''black, white, indigenous, aboriginal''''' etc. are not '''''always''''' capitalized. Many dictionaries have their own idea:

---

Wiktionary said that:

This paragraph moved here from the article:

:Blacks of Sub-saharan African ancestry thrive best relative to other races in [[tropical]] climates. In the tropical lowland parts of the Americas, most notably the [[Caribbean]], which were colonized originally by Europeans, Africans have displaced the Europeans in those regions where they were introduced due to their much greater tolerance to humid tropical conditions. This phenomenon is also observed to a lesser extent in the southern United States, where blacks dominate inland lowland areas and whites the mountains of [[Appalachia]].

Some style guides recommend capitalizing '''Black''' in reference to the racial group, while others advise using lowercase ('''black'''); lowercase is more common.

A claim that different "races" of people are better suited to different locales is pretty controversial, and might well deserve its own article. A few things are well accepted, such as having darker skin making one less susceptible to sunburn, but whether skin color correlates well with "thriving" in particular climates in general is another matter entirely. In these examples, many would argue that the demographics are due more to accidents of history than to people with more melatonin being partiuclarly well-suited to the Carribean. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 08:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

However APA Style said that:

:I haven't read this article in a while, but I'm glad you moved the above passage. It's absolutely ridiculous/backward. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 12:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. Therefore, use “Black” and “White” instead of “black” and “white” (do not use colors to refer to other human groups; doing so is considered pejorative)'''''?'''''. I have put a question mark because the description is too problematic.

== Proposal to move and merge article ==

Like Chinese, the translation of '''black person''' in Chinese is 黑人. Literally is is not pejorative. I generally like using the lowercase one or '''black/Black''', '''indigenous/Indigenous'''.

Would anyone oppose moving this article to [[Race in society]] or a similarly named article, where [[Whites]] could also be discussed? As it stands, this article is dangerously close to unencyclopedic by mere virtue of its name alone. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font size=-1 color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 05:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I usually say that

:I don't see anything "dangerously unencyclopedic" about the nature of this piece. However, I'm not opposed outright to your suggestion. Perhaps it would be helpful to see the beginnings of such an article (on "race in society") first. My first reaction to your idea, however, is that your suggested piece seems a bit overly broad and potentially ridiculously unmanageable/sprawling. Perhaps the solution, since you seem concerned about "whites" as a subject, would be a separate article in which changing definitions of whiteness could be explored. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 14:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"a '''black/Black''' person"

== Non-African dark-skinned peoples ==

This description will be much appropriate because some people thinks the uppercase better but some thinks the lowercase better.

Deeceevoice, of course all humanity originated in Africa. This is exactly why I don't think the article should imply that, say, Tamils are particularly more African than, say, Han Chinese.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The use of indigenous in proper nouns such as 'Indigenous American' is always capitalized. However when not used as proper nouns, it can be capitalized or not capitalized (but you need to follow the general capitalization rules in English.

:Note that the article says "can" apply. Actually, more properly/grammatically, it should say "may"; it doesn't say it definitively does, or that it applies to all -- say, Han Chinese. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the phrase 'Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics' the use of the word aboriginal must be capitalized because is a proper noun. [[User:MarcoToa1|MarcoToa1]] ([[User talk:MarcoToa1|talk]]) 07:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the use of the term "Blacks", I'm saying the quote "more broadly to persons whose ancestors formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times to members of other dark-skinned groups" implies that dark-skinned peoples outside of Africa have a closer genealogical/genetic relationship to Africans than lighter-skinned peoples do, which I don't think is demonstrated.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 21:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:If this is a proposal, it would better be made on a Wikipedia-wide basis than here. The relevant guidance is at [[MOS:RACECAPS]]. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 07:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, that was an incomplete revert/edit. I've corrected it. You likely still will have problems with it, but the text now is accurate. It implies no such thing. It doesn't even ''mention'' gentics. The definition is purely about the use of a word, "blacks." Members of the groups mentioned (and likely others) historically/colloquially have been referred to as "blacks." I can't help what someone incorrectly may infer. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 21:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I wouldn't support the slash version, but I would support a move to consistent capitalization or lowercase. I prefer capitalization, and more style guides have been heading in that direction. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

== sub-Saharan African ancestry ==

I still think the text, though literally true, is somewhat misleading and reinforces a common but false idea. Why is it particularly relevant that dark-skinned groups had "ancestors [who] formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times"? As you say, this is true of all humanity.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 21:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "sub-Saharan African ancestry" should be replaced with "predominant African Ancestry" or "predominant indigenous African Ancestry" in the same manner that White is for those of "predominant European ancestry". Ancient artifacts as well as Black Sudanese still in North Africa tell us that indigenous Black Africans have inhabited the entire African continent. Here is a great article based on the work of Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy as to why Sub-Saharan as it relates to people and ancestry is inherently racist, and should not be used in that manner. [[User:Seecknowledge|Seecknowledge]] ([[User talk:Seecknowledge|talk]]) 17:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:I edited it -- again. I thought your version far too simplistic/sparse. Now I suppose people will complain about my use of "Negroid." (shrug) [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Where is 'here'? You appear to have intended to post a link, but have failed to do so. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Though the idea of "Negroid" has of course been incredibly abused, I think the link is relevant. Like many things on Wikipedia, this article puts a bit too much emphasis on language. There could be far more, for example on racism and the social meaning of "blackness".--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==

Particuarly w.r.t. use in the U.S.A., should 'black' be capitalized? I've seen it both ways in WP, and I'm curious if there's a good reason to pick one over the other. (I also suspect that there are subtle political issues involved in the use of capital letters in white/White and black/Black...) [[User:JosephBarillari|jdb &#x274b;]] ([[User_talk:JosephBarillari|talk]]) 10:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the most common usage is as it has always been -- "black/s" and "white/s" are lower-cased. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 15:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I have NEVER seen black capitalized when referring to dark skinned Africans. Also, if you look at the Wiki article on [[whites]], white is not capitalized. I will be going through this article when I have some spare time and decapitalizing black. [[User:Gold Stur|Gold Stur]] 05:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::I was about to ask whether there was a Transatlantic divide on this: here in the UK, "Black" is ''much'' less common than "black", whatever the race of the writer. In any case, there's plenty of inconsistency in this article as it stands now (eg the sentence "non-black political entities define the person as Black"), and that just looks indecisive. [[User:Loganberry|Loganberry]] ([[User talk:Loganberry|Talk]]) 12:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Lowercase "black" is by far the most common usage in the US, but capitalized B "Black" is not uncommon in ultra-politically correct writing and in Afrocentrist literature. Capital W "White", by contrast, is used almost exclusively in white supremacist literature. [[User:Kwertii|Kwertii]] 00:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

==african ethnic groups==

it must be kept in mind that in africa, there are thousands of ethnic groups. it seems logical to me that members of those african ethnic groups would have, in the past or present, interbred with members of other african ethnic groups. thus, logically, there would be black africans, who are, say for example, part swahili and part xhosa.

of course, many blacks in america don't consider themselves as members of the african ethnic groups, and simply think of themselves as "black". however, i know for fact that there are some blacks in america who still adhere to an ethnic group, and it's language, culture, religion, foods, architecture, clothing styles, etc. [[User:Gringo300|Gringo300]] 30 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)

==Fed up. The "pretty table" should be history -- certainly, at least, here.==

I'm fed up with going through this with every single article treating black people on Wikipedia: the perverse need to insert an endless list of pejorative, insulting racial slurs associated with the group. No other ethnic or racial group on Wikipedia receives similar treatment in articles dealing with them. There may be a legitimate need to present such information on Wikipedia -- but it should be done in a separate article. The time for automatically associating backward, ignorant, disgusting terminology with a group -- as though it defines who and what its members are -- is long past. Time for this to end. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

:Most wikipedians are German, which explains racism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANeo-Nazism&diff=12103693&oldid=12101254 Here's proven racism from an admin]. That same admin has many sock puppet accounts and stalks people out of racist motives, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thodin&oldid=18825279 shown here]. [[User:66.252.129.190|66.252.129.190]] 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

First, deleting the entire table goes a bit far. But I suppose that was meant to evoke a response. The problem is that people have always used derogatory names for other groups. It's just that blacks have suffered most from this. I'm afraid your suggestion that this is a thing of the past will never be true. Condescending attitudes towards other groups, and the namecalling that goes with it will always be a part of mankind (well, maybe in some distant future....). Now, I can understand it's irritating to be confronted with that all the time, but 1) it's a fact so it can't be ignored in an encyclopedia and 2) ignoring it would almost be something like saying the holocaust never happened. And we can't have that either. By the way, what's 'pretty' about the table? It's just an ordinary table. I suppose that's meant as an ironic derogatory term :) .

I'd say there isn't too much use of derogatory terms in the table. There is however some explanation of how the same term can sound differently in other languages, and that's useful. Though it is confusing that the article is about Blacks in the sense of 'sub-Saharan Africans' but that the table is partly about them, but also partly about the use of the term 'Black' for other groups. In that sense the table is out of place here, but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Oh, and I notice that under the US there is a mention of 'the N-word'. Now that's useful! This is something I really dislike about US lingo. Say it or don't, but don't be halfhearted about it. If you want to say 'nigger', then say it. If you don't, then don't.

As for a solution. You suggest a separate article. If you mean splitting this one up, I'd say that doesn't solve it and the two resulting articles would be rather short. Or do you mean putting derogatory terms for ''all'' 'races' in one place? That does make sense. How about the [[racism]] article? (By the way, how do you feel about the fact that two of the three illustrations are about blacks? Just another example, but justifiable by my previous reasoning.) Let's give it a go. Let's make a list of derogatory terms for different human 'races' (which don't taxonomically exist, but that's a different issue). I can't think of too many off the top of my head (and I'm just about ready for bed :) ). One problem is that there's namecalling for other groups like nationalities. Not sure if that should go in the same table. And then there are misnomers like ''Indian'' for Native Americans. And different languages, like in the table you removed. And certain names are used for different groups too (like 'darkie' can refer to any person with a dark skin). And the same word can be good or bad in different setiings, times or countries. Much work to do :) .

White: camarron (though really for tourists in Mexico only I believe), bleekscheet

Black: nigger, darkie, chombo, nikker, roetmop, kaffer

Asian: chink (though that's for Chinese I believe)

Native American: redskin

[[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 20:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

: The term "pretty table" (or something like it) was used by someone in an edit note -- hence the quotation marks. And there already ''is'' an article devoted to slurs: [[List of ethnic slurs]]. And, no. I did not suggest that such ugliness is a thing of the past -- quite the contrary, especially on Wikipedia, which is frequently a venue for racist interjections in articles, racist vandalism and the like. What I meant was that automatic inclusion of racist slurs in an article on any ethnic group should be a thing of the past. As I said in the discussion regarding someone's interjection of a racist photo in an article on [[Watermelon]], it's time for Wikipedia to be an intelligent, enlightened arbiter of information (no, not a censor) and stop reducing segments of articles to racist word association games. Enough already. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 23:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, some list! If only people would use their creativity in a more constructive way. Strange, though, that the racism article doesn't link to it. But about the 'pretty table', what do you have in mind then? Remove the derogatory terms (which, like I said, aren't all that many) and put it back? But then there's the 2 problems I mentioned. You suggested a separate article, but I don't see how that solves it. Another idea would be to make a list like the one I started, with just the most common terms in various languages, and put that in the racism article, with a link to the List of Ethnic Slurs, because that is rather extremely long. And the slimmed down 'pretty table' couild go back then, with a link to the racism table, so people don't get just the 'black slurs'. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:No. I didn't suggest a separate article. I stated that an article already exists where such information would be appropriate. Frankly, I don't see the need for the table at all. This is an English-language site. There are absolutely ''no parallel such tables in other articles on so-called "races" or other ethnicities anywhere else on Wikipedia.'' It's simply unnecessary. And it's a safe bet that there is no, for example, listing of terms like "dago," "guinea," "greaseball," etc., in the article on Italians, or of "Christ killer," "kike," etc., in the article on Jews. Leave it be! [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 11:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, at first you suggested a separate article, but never mind that. Now you come with a different reason, namely that this is the English language Wikipedia, which seems to be the definitive word on this (wish you would have come up with that in the first place; would have saved me some work :) ). There's still some information in the table that makes sense in the article, though. I'll give it a go. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 20:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

== Portuguese language ==

Just a bit of trivia here: in Brazil, the term "negro" is the politically correct, whereas "black" is deemed pejorative. I cannot vouch for other portuguese speaking countries, but this is how these words are viewed in brazilian portuguese.

^^^ someone wrote above (not me) and didn't sign their name [[User:DyslexicEditor|DyslexicEditor]] 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:I made an edit like this saying when negro was the thing black was bad to say but I heard it off a stephen king novel (said so in my edit summary). Well, [[Stephen King]] was right it seems and I also guess so as nobody reverted me. Oh and the n-word used to be a friendly term that should go there--I want some others to do it because I don't want to write it and have what I wrote erased via reversion (instead of altered) if I do it wrong. [[User:DyslexicEditor|DyslexicEditor]] 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Racial slurs do not belong in this article. I'm sick of readig "nigger" every time I come to an article on Wikipedia about black people. Enough! [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

== Lowest Common Denominator in Wiki? ==

Is Wikipedia sinking to the lowest common denominator, as detractors feared when it first emerged? Unless one is an EXTREME populist, after all, one acknowledges that the majority of any population is ignorant about most things. (Specialists, by definition, specialize.) Yet if all voices are treated equally, and if increasingly they dominate postings on Wikipedia due to their sheer numbers, then the result will be an ignorant Wiki. There must be many discussions about this elsewhere, but this page (and the non-mirror image page at [[whites]] illustrates the problem as well as any other.

The intent of the Wiki founders and directors is good and clear. E.g., the Wiki guidelines state: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." Yet this page here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks] is named [[blacks]], and that usage is prevalent throughout.

#Then let us just change it to "Black" and link it within the Black page. I agree with you, i just don't know how to change it. I'm not experienced enough yet

::Before doing any of these changes, there needs to be consensus on this talk page to do so. I disagree with the above comments because the Wiki guidelines quoted are about how to refer to groups of people within an article, not about the name and cultural connotations that arise from what a group of people call themselves. The title of this article, for what it is about, is correct.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 00:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

== To the Moderators: I stand corrected ==

I, through my inexperience, could not isolate a particular edit, so i figured that the moderators were unilaterally editing the article.

Apologies to the wiki-moderators.

== The Hip-Hop paragraph issue. ==

Well, the first sentence of the paragraph is false. Who would the author credit for creating the "hip-hop" style, the Italians? The article is about Black People, not when the hip-hop style of rap music began, or where. It is most certainly not a podium for extremist propaganda.

The comments surrounding this paragraph are just as bad. It equates Black culture with "the ghetto", assumes that all Blacks inherit this "ghetto life", and presumes to make the spread of this musical style as important an event in the education of anyone about Black People as the inventions we have created, our philosophical positions and the lives of Blacks who have never been touched by slavery. Music is a distracting asset in the discussion of a culture, and there are many other, more important aspects of Black Society that would edify a Wiki reader more thoroughly.

If we're taking a vote on it's inclusion, I vote no.

[[User:Juan Noyles|Juan]] 11:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

----

I pulled this from the article and put it here, someone wanted the matter to be resolved, but didn't want to discuss it first.

:(This statement/paragraph is not true, hip-hop was started by Blacks and Puerto Ricans in New York, and began as a medium to re-express the hardship of blackness, specifically Black ghetto life, and as a unique musical expression to distance itself from disco which was also a black music genre that was usurped by the homosexual/glam community. Hip-hop wasn't adopted by anyone until the Italian sons and daughters of italian record executives put pressure to promote this music, and from the rich lavish lifestyle promoted it's been adopted by everyone that wants to be everything Black but Black, this the last paragraph is not true based on fact, PLEASE EDIT TO REFLECT THE REAL, NOT THE WHITE SUPREMIST COMPANY LINE SOLD BY WHITES, AND THE WHITEMANS HOUSE NEGRO.

What is the difference between this position, and the position you say is not true? A medium to re-express the hardship of blackness, especially Black ghetto life is the same thing as to express their heritage openly and their social concerns.

If I recall, in Jamaica, and parts of France and West Africa they were into rap in the late 80s and early 90s. Especially in West Africa, Hip Hop remained a social expression against oppression. For example Nas gives clues all over his music, the Pharaonic cover of one of his Albums "I AM" seems to relate to the French group "I AM" who also use the motif of Egyptian Pharaohs for their names. In his music, "One Mic", he references to "one God" in French. There is a deeper social and moral aspect of Hip-hop that has been present long before and still despite white meddling into it. And since in America, the social climate isn't receptive to direct social commentary in rap like it was in the 80s, subtlety is the name of the game on this side of the Atlantic. SO I would say that you added some insight but you also missed some, but the original paragraph is true, not withstanding "HOW" the phenomonon spread. Why didn't you put this on the discussion area instead of right into the article? Delving into how Hip-hop spread does nothing to deny that Black people throughout the world do benefit from the expression.

== Black Anarchism? ==

What the heck does Black Anarchism have to do with Black People? Do we see the KKK links on the White People article? No. It's gone!

== flagrant POV ==

This section:

:'''''Non-Black scholars''' try to take a strictly anthropological or genetic viewpoint, '''often''' in order to concentrate and further marginalize the significance of Black people in history. In doing so they subjectively establish beforehand which gene markers and anthropological characteristics to include or exclude. Because of this, attempts to base Blackness on a biological or genetic foundation are objectively flawed, and overlook the most meaningful and relevant human aspect of Blackness: a shared human experience that transcends regional boundaries and physiological criteria''

is ridiculously POV. Firstly, it quite plainly connects non-black scholars in particular with a wish to 'marginalize the significance of Black people in history'. What does their being non-black have to do with it? Are they racists? Are scholars 'often' guilty of misrepresenting black people? Another problem I have is with 'attempts to base Blackness on a biological or genetic foundation '''are''' objectively flawed' - surely they are only objectively flawed according to someone's [[POV]]!

Massively POV, and this is just the opening few paragraphs... the whole article needs to be checked, and points of view mitigated with contrary voices, so I'm tagging it. --[[User:81.154.236.221|81.154.236.221]] 16:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

:I am the major contributer to the article as it has been revamped a few months ago. What I addressed in that paragraph you pointed out is the assumption that white scholars make in determining what is or is not Black. In comparison, no one but white people define what white people are and are not. However, with Black people, there is a confirmation process that has to occur with those who are white (whether scholars or not) in determining the boundaries of Blackness. I and most Black people find that double standard unacceptable. Most notably is the insistance that Blackness is based on a regional connection to exclusively west african heritage. So that East Africans are "less Black" and non-africans in Asia are "not really Black". That is why I put that paragraph there. As far as other articles go. I believe that like "Afrocentricism", this article is being tagged because areas of it are simply difficult for you to accept, and not based on a POV. Yes many scholars who are racists throughout history have tried to create the "classical negro". In addition during many investigations of Black people, there is a habit to marganialize the people into a small grouping, and referring to any other people, whether East Africans, Nubians, people who are mixed, East Indians, etc... as Caucasoids. This is misleading to the readers. Then what happens is that Genetic markers that are present in the various groups, but not present in high concentrations of West Africans, well those are used as "evidence", but they are not evidentiary, because there has been no reason to associate those markers, or "west african orientation" with an exclusive Black heritage. It would be like us trying to associate whiteness with an exclusively "Scandanavian" heritage, and relying on genetic markers ONLY found in scandinavian people, thus creating a "classical caucasoid". From there, Italians, Greeks, Arabs, etc, would be considered Negroids because they do not fit in so nicely into the specialized Scandanavian type. As rediculous as that is, this is how many scholars take the approach with mixed people, they want to lump them into the "Caucasoid" section and keep them out of the Black section, thus redefining Blackness. This does not address their linguistic, social, cultural experiences which have more to say than a skull shape or a genetic marker. For the time being I will not remove the tag, but I am expecting an honest dialouge on your concern, and not a repetitive exasperated accusation that ignores the comments I raise. I have noticed that in a few articles I worked on. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a little overbroad, but you cannot dispute the truth of the first sentence. I'd refine it to focus it on works during slavery, Jim Crow and such recent screeds as "The Bell Curve", but if their intent is/was different, show me how. The conclusion of the paragraph, that you cannot define Blackness genetically, can not be disputed, and is certainly unbiased. If you think otherwise, by all means, enlighten me! I am not the original author of the paragraph, but I defend it's conclusion with my own life experiences. I further intend to provide references in the near future.

[[User:Juan Noyles|Juan]] 12:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

: Again, i was the writer. And if I recall, I had modified that paragraph from an earlier version that had insisted that genetics was the defnining factor.--[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, the opening two paragraphs of the article are ludicrously POV. Actually it's a shame that this article is currently linked to from the main page, as it's a poor advertisement for Wikipedia, IMHO. [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] 11:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

: Well you aren't addressing the concerns you have, nor offering a "neutral" position. What then? --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to 'be bold', and have cut the most obviously POV text from the first two paragraphs, viz.:

:As Equatorial ancestors are usually darker skinned, and over the past few centuries, they were universally oppressed by European and North Eurasians, one who openly identifies as "Black" affirms their heritage despite the current social atmosphere to denounce it.

:Non-Black [[scholars]] try to take a strictly [[anthropological]] or genetic viewpoint, often in order to concentrate and further marginalize the significance of Black people in history. In doing so they subjectively establish beforehand which gene markers and anthropological characteristics to include or exclude. Because of this, attempts to base Blackness on a [[biological]] or [[genetic]] foundation are objectively flawed, and overlook the most meaningful and relevant human aspect of Blackness: a shared human experience that transcends regional boundaries and physiological criteria.

But a quick look through the rest of the article suggests to me that this isn't the only POV text in there. [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] 11:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So, what gives you the right to be so bold? Isn't there a method for resolving disputes that precludes such unilateralism? Why didn't you REWORD what you felt was biased, instead of destroying it? Do you have a patent on the presentation of facts that we must license in order to use them in our presentations?

I strongly suggest that you reinsert the text while it is being discussed. Your censorship is not appreciated in the least.

Are you trying to mask the fact that Europeans and Eurasians oppressed Africans? Maybe you are of the school of thought that believes and propounds the theory that describes race as an identifier of species? If so, and even if not, who made you the arbiter of NPOV?

Once again, I strongly suggest that you reinsert the text, and allow it to be reworked by consensus.

[[User:Juan Noyles|Juan]] 12:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus. I had also noted in the Eurocentricism article, that Eurocentricists take a unilateral approach in resolving issues of dispute, rather than coming to a consensus. I believe here we have an example of that. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

:Wikipedia recommends new users to 'be bold' (I'm newish), so that's what I was. We all have the right. I'm not the (sole) arbiter of NPOV but I can spot blatant POV as well as anyone! I have no view on the issues in this article and no sinister motive (as you seem to imply). But I think the opening of this article is (was) far below the level of objectivity Wikipedia aspires to.

What is NPOV to one person can be very biased to another. You have not explained what you feel is a neutral position, but instead, you complain about what you do not like and unilateraly try to change it. Shall I change (being a Black person) the parts of the White People article I do not like in the same unilateral fashion? --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

::Rights have responsibilities, and your responsibility here is to be objective. You claim to have no view, but all I see in your action is your view: you think the article is below Wiki's aspirations, so you alone destroy it? How "viewless" is that? You think the article cannot be saved (whose point of view is that?) so you think you have the right, again, to destroy it. Even in the face of an attempt to straighten it out.

:::That is a unilateral Eurocentric approach. I agree, the user is masking the rules of Wikipedia to cover his intentions. But I want to see how far it goes. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

::So, rather than continue to argue, I am going to restore the text, then we can all work on it. I think the text can be saved. I also believe that you must prove your claims before you take destructive action. [[User:Juan Noyles|Juan]] 23:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

:I also think the above text is largely unsalvageable, which is why I didn't edit it. Re the first chunk:

::As Equatorial ancestors are usually darker skinned, and over the past few centuries, they were universally oppressed by European and North Eurasians, one who openly identifies as "Black" affirms their heritage despite the current social atmosphere to denounce it.

:while I doubt they were 'universally' oppressed, the central point made by the sentence is POV and unsourced (and also in my opinion both untrue and strange) - namely that there is currently a 'social atmosphere' (where? worldwide?!) to denounce 'it' (what - Black heritage?) Though no doubt this makes an interesting and provocative subject for debate, such a statement would not be presented as fact in any objective publication.

:: How can anyone doubt that Black people around the world were universally oppressed by white people in the 18th and 19th century? There was no country in the world that a Black person could live in, which white people ruled, that was not subject to slavery, until probably the mid 1830s.

:As for the second chunk above, 'Non-Black scholars...', well, what can one say. I have no expertise or opinion on what the paragraph says, but that it is unsalvageably POV (not to say quite inflammatory) speaks for itself. I have no shame in just cutting it. Nor do I agree with your statement 'you cannot dispute the truth of the first sentence' - while knowing little about it, I do dispute it. The sentence is suspect from the second word, and the second half (that many non-black scholars have evil ulterior motives) is implausible and inflammatory. And, of course, unsourced. If you think you can fix it to a NPOV state with sources, please go ahead. [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] 14:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

:: I would like us to debate why it's POV. What kind of evidence would contribute to this statement? Do you disagree with it personally? Do you believe that Blackness is NOT determined primarily by gentics? If you believe that Blackness is based primarily on a west african genetic makeup, then I would say that you are proving the point I put in that paragraph! --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to revise this myself or get heavily into the debate, but for the record, I agree that this article is ridiculously POV and needs major revisions to become NPOV. [[User:Kwertii|Kwertii]] 00:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

==POV and source warnings==

Juan, I see you've removed the POV and source warnings on the article. I think this is unwarranted. This extremely long article contains no sources that I can see from a quick look-through. It therefore gives the appearance of a series of original research (and somewhat POV) essays.

While your reinstatement of the text I deleted is certainly better than it was, it is still POV (and not the only POV stuff in the article):

:Some non-black researchers have taken a strictly anthropological or genetic viewpoint to concentrate and marginalize the significance of Black people in history

What is the objective evidence of this sinister motivation? (None is cited.) This sentence is clearly from the POV of someone who disagrees with these unnamed non-black researchers and wants to present the alternative view as objective fact. And also, while they're it it, wants to impugn their motives. A sentence like this would not appear in any reputable print encyclopedia. Anyway, I don't have much interest in editing this article further as I have no expertise in the subject matter. But I still think it falls short of Wikipedia's standards. I hope someone will improve it. [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] 11:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

::The difference between us is this: you saw a article full of errors and mistakes, and wanted to abort it; I saw the same article and began cleaning it up. It's not gonna be done in 5 minutes. I have to review things and add references and citations.

:::OK, good luck with it, Juan. [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] 00:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

::Now, by your own admission above, you brought nothing to this article but a desire to criticize it, hack it up and talk about ancient metaphors (print encyclopaedia? We don't need no steenking print encyclopaedia!!). I'm glad that you've been honest with yourself about your motivation, and I hope you'll come back from time to time and watch it grow.

[[User:Juan Noyles|Juan]] 23:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

== Why I modified the article. ==

I see the complaints being made by some regarding the POV in the article. What I presented was a widespread point of view by BLACK people on what they consider THEMSELVES to be. Not what someone who is not part of that experiences believes. IN addition, much of the content is from a Black point of view. What is so hypocritical of those complaining about the POV in the article is that, before when the article was so crappy with a lot of anti-Black pov, and empathsis on what the word "nigger" and "negro" means (which has little relevance to Black people), very few people complained except those who were Black. Now here we are, and once again a Black perspective, which is complex, and difficult to grasp is being attacked for the parts that are critical of the white aspects. That's too bad, because White people need to get it that they are not above reproachment. I am not here to villify White people, but I am here to accurately describe what and who considers themselves Black and how that inclusionary grouping has come to be, changed, and currently is changing. PART OF THAT is the impositions by white government officials, white judges, white scholars... throughout the past three centuries. Those imposition define and redefine it for their (white people) own convenience, whether economic (slavery), social(Jim Crow/Apartheid/NAZI), or cultural (bell-curve, concerns about diffusionism and Afrocentricism).

The complaints that come and go in some of the racial articles in Wikipedia follow this format, that is, when they are distortions of Black people, no white person cares. When the distortions are removed, and in the process white people are noted for their participation in the accurate portrayals or distortions, white people cares and wants to dump the whole article. No the article won't be dumped. It doesn't matter how much you dislike my point of view, we will find a equitable (and I empathize that word) way to a consensus. We will not allow unilateral Eurocentric exasperations to dominate the future of this article. Yes, it's sad, someone said, about the article. Go back in time before I touched the article, with it's stupid chart of "negro" and "nigger" and tell me how sad that was to you? Did you find that crap enlightening or did you not read the article at that time?

yes I am very critical when the quality of insight into an issue is determined by how much a white critic is exasperated. Enough! --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not represent black POV any more than they should represent white POV. They should represent NPOV. (Though that may of course include objective statements of what white and black views/beliefs are, to the extent that that's relevant.) As to the issue of whether criticisms against the article are being leveled by whites or blacks, it's of course irrelevant. The validity of a criticism depends solely on whether it is true or not, not the race of the critic. (As for my criticisms, you don't know what race I am; nor is it relevant.) [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] 10:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well here is a newsflash, Wikipedia seems to present a white POV all too often. Except for the Nazi articles, I find an annoying habit of the articles being softened up when White people are being criticized. I do not see this softening up of other groups. I also see an unnecessary need to "prove" things with racial issues, for example, in the Curse of cain article, the writer tries to somehow soften up the significance of associating Black people with Cain because a slave had made the connection in her writing in the 19th century (you know, the old idea, if one black persoon did it ignorantly, then it must be ok to flaunt it as fact). One article on Mormonism, the writer tried to make it look like a Black Mormon had somehow been the catalyst of all of the anti-Black policies in the Mormon church. In another, the Caucasoid article, someone kept trying to include Ethiopians as Caucasoids, based on craniometry, and Coon's analyses, despite the fact that Coon himself had indicated that the Ethiopians had Negroid tendecies in their skulls. It's hard to do checks and balances on POV about race when the owners of the media, the arbitrators of the service, and those of an opposing view are all overwhelming of the same background. Again, where were you when the silly "negro" chart was on this article?--[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 04:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

== East India omitted from the article ==

WHy is any reference to East India taken out of the article? I agree that we need to cite the sources, a process that I am horribly unfamiliar with doing. But I do believe that Black people are abundant in India, about 20-30 percent of the population, depending on who is counting. I am aware of the Dalit movmements that AFFIRM the blackness of the Dalit people in India (about 100 million of them), as well as the Siddi people and many Dravidians consider themselves Black. However, I am aware of many East Indians who hate Black people so much that the mere mention of there being a Black presence in that country scares them to death. I will place the East Indian references BAAAACK into the article. Unilateral removals of course is underhanded, and I would like some insight BEFORE it's done.--[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate some assistance in resource citing and what not. i am not able to go through 500 books and a thousand articles to cite to prove what I have put into the article. I do know that we all in here can collaborate and find the references. Since web-based material is not considered on par with written material (and I can respect that), I would hope someone in here can provide. Runoko Rashidi, for example did a very well in depth insight into this topic.--[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

==Proposal to completely rewrite article==

Hi, everyone. I just stumbled on this page for the first time today and it's causing me to lose faith in wikipedia as a concept. The language and organization is so bad, most of the sections overlap and repeat information, and there are so many confusing, slanted, and false statements that I can't even begin to address them one by one. I think we could do a lot better if we started from scratch, but before we do that, we should have a discussion about what the goals of this article are, and what the layout should be. In my opinion, race is a social construct, not a genetic one, so to me the article should focus on the sociological use of the term "black". The various anthropological 'research' over the years that has attempted to define ''who is black'' should be presented as just that: attempts to define who is black. We would also do well to define ahead of time what sections to have and what info these sections will cover. What does everyone think? [[User:ThePedanticPrick|ThePedanticPrick]] 21:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

:I am going to make a guess. I am guessing that many people are so race-charged about Black people, that when they find an area of something that deals with Black people, there is a stronger than normal sense of urgency, stronger than normal loss of faith, stronger than normal concern for quality. I rewrote this article, because before hand it was horribly disconnected from reality. It did not show any real insight into the topic. Much like the "Yoruba" article, which summarized the 25 million Yoruba people as a "merry making tribe", it seemes that those Wikipedians, like yourself, who have a lot of faith in the concept, did not find their faith lost with such crappy quality. Look at the Yoruba article now, and see the difference. Same thing here. If you want to discuss the matter I'm all ears. I am the number one person who will INSIST that race does not have anything more than a social component. But let us be objective, and not run to a dramatic exasperated attitude that seeks to unilaterally remove the hard work that is being done so far. I am so ok with major changes to the article. I am not ok with omissions and erasure of content (for example, someone I believe has erased most of the East Indian references) to uphold a status-quo mentality. So let us discuss some of the false statements, and see what we can do about them.

If you find false statements, please post them and lets discuss that. The goal of the article for me is to make sure that Black people are presented in a unique way on Wikipedia, and not as a mirror or reflection of White people. I read the White article, and I find the first sentance particularly misleading and circular ''The term White ... refers to a person ....with a connection to White culture'' Can someone tell me what "white" culture is? The White people article to me seems to be more of an attempt to defend the comfort zone of those of West European descent.

Zaphnathpaaneah --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 04:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

::Zaph, I haven't seen the Yoruba article, but rest assured that poor quality is what gets my ire up, not positive portrayals of black people. The word "pedantic" in my screen name reflects my sometimes obsessive concern for quality, accuracy, and comprehensibility of any writing. The problem with the article is not due to a lack of hard work. On the contrary, what we have here is a "too many cooks spoiling the broth" phenomenon. It's like a bunch of people keep coming by and piling more bricks onto a lousy foundation, and the building looks terrible and is about to fall apart 'cause it wasn't designed correctly to begin with. Some of it can be salvaged and made part of a better-designed article, but most of it is just poorly-written garbage.

::I don't have time right now to enumerate all the POV statements, but I'll start with one (actually, it shows up repeatedly) that I believe you were responsible for based on your comments on this Talk page: the repeated accusations of "eurocentrism" being leveled at everyone, but primarily at scientists. The problem with this is not that it's not true (I have no doubt that it is true, btw), it's that Wikipedia has a policy of [[no original research]] and [[neutral point of view]]. That means that this article can't just come out and say "European scientists are racist, white-supremacists, and euro-centrists". We need something more like "Professor So-and-so in his book Such-and-Such made the claim that many studies of racial differences have been adversely affected by the biases of the scientists conducting the studies." See how much better that is? [[User:ThePedanticPrick|ThePedanticPrick]] 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)