Talk:Black people/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Why are you stalling the discussion and editing of the article?

I am waiting and willing to discuss but you are stalling but still paying attention enough to revert any edits. That is very unfair. What is your problem now? I think the previous version of the article is ideal. You are not the final arbiter of this article, you have to attempt to engage with other editors like me which you are failing to do right now by ignoring my comments. I think the previous version of the article was perfect in that it presented the US definition of blackness in the US section and the South American and Caribbean definition of blackness in the South America and Caribbean section. The undue emphasis on the us definition in the lead is not supported. What was your problem with it now? This is extremely frustrating. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Tobus responding to other editor questions but stalling my attempts to improve the article and ignoring my questions? Fine to ignore but then to revert any changes under the guise of needed consensus? Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:DONTPANIC. Unlike other editors I like to take time to properly word my responses and consider alternative methods to solve the problems. I also have real world issues I have to deal with in real time that mean I might have time to click the "Undo" button, but not time to immediately write a well-reasoned and detailed reply. Please be patient, I will respond when I get the time, usually within 24 hours. Tobus (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But the fact is that you are not the controller of this page. This page does not await your schedule of things to do. Therefore if you wish to revert an edit as other people are editing on their time then you need to provide a real-time explanation on the talk page. That is just an obvious fact. You are clearly violating WP:OWNERSHIP and are admitting it right here yourself. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not the owner either. Three editors have reverted this same content and as per WP:BRD you should leave the page as it is until there is consensus on what should be changed. I don't know where you get the idea of "real-time explantion" from - due to timezone/lifestyle differences responses from other editors often take 24-48 hours and discussions can go on for weeks before consensus is reached. I'm sure there are other editors who have an opinion on this but won't be online for a day or so, so anything we agree on right now may well be reverted by someone who hasn't joined the conversation yet... hence WP:NORUSH. Tobus (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Contested Edits`

Please specifically identify the issues with including the following highly sourced paragraphs other than your attempts to control this article in your vision and maintain a US-centric and controlled article:

Edit #1 "In addition to skin color, hair texture, facial features and genetic affiliations are also often variously used in classifying peoples as black. "

Edit #2: "Often social variables, such as class and socio-economic status, can also affect classification, specifically in the Americas, so that relatively dark-skinned people can be classified as white if they fulfill other social criteria of "whiteness," and relatively light-skinned people can be classified as black if they fulfill the social criteria for "blackness" in a particular setting. As a result, in North America, for example, the term "black people" is not necessarily an indicator of skin color but of a socially based racial classification related to being African American, with a family history related to institutionalized slavery. Likewise, in South America, classification as black is closely tied to social status and socioeconomic variables, especially in light of social conceptions of "blanqueamiento" ("whitening of the race").

It seems I have now provided ample support for these additions so what exactly is your problem? Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The page as it is makes clear that "black" is defined differently in different places and times, and that it's not primarily based on skin colour - something established in a recent RFC[1]. Your edits move away from this concept to associate "black" with stereotypical Negroid features. Perhaps we should start from the start, can you explain what you think is wrong with the page in it's current form? Tobus (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the fact that the lead is focused on US definitions of blackness at the exclusion of all else. Why first are your reverting the sentence on South America but keeping the one on North America? Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Please first answer this question.

My second issue is that I would like to at least have this sentence "In addition to skin color, hair texture, facial features and genetic affiliations are also often variously used in classifying peoples as black. [1][2][3][4][5][6]" as the second sentence in the article after "North America...Sub-Saharan African descent." I can understand stating that these features do not define blackness outside the Americas and Africa but excluding it all together with a focus on skin color is absurd and not defensible. Putting it after the sentence about North America is fine. And changing North America to Americas to acknowledge the existence of black people outside North America. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you have to accept that this is the English Wikipedia and the "US view" (really US/UK/Europe and many other places) is going to be the predominant view here - "black person" primarily means "African-American" to most English speakers and to many other cultures exposed to US media. This view will (and should) naturally be the primary or "default" focus. Having said that the lead is quite explicit in stating that it's not the only view and mentions numerous other countries (like Brazil, South Africa and Australia) where different interpretations are held. To say that the lead is "focused on US definitions of blackness at the exclusion of all else" is just not true. It states the US definition as a reference point because this is the majority definition for most of the expected readers, but it states multiple times, with a range of examples, that this is not the only view.

The problem with your "hair texture, facial features and genetic affiliations" sentence is that it's in direct contrast to the thrust of the lead - physical appearance doesn't define "blackness", rather it's a social construct based on a range of physical and non-physical characteristics depending on where (and when!) you are. The "North America" sentence is giving a well-known example of this, but what your edit describes is a very strict appearance-based interpretation found in modern Latin America, where Halle Berry and Barack Obama would not be considered "black", but "brown" or "mixed" due to their physical appearance. The rest of the page lists geographical areas where it's possible to define the particular definition of "black" used in various contexts - your proposed content doesn't work within the lead, but perhaps it can be included in the South America section.

Tobus (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I completely disagree with you regarding the US-centric approach and that is completely at odds with explicitly stated Wikipedia policy but will wait to bring in more editors before addressing that later. For now I am fine with putting the physical features in the south America or US sections as appropriate and will proceed to do so. However, you still have not answered my question as to why the sourced and referenced blanquemiento sentence is being reverted regarding South America while retaining the parallel sentence regarding North America.If I do not hear from you regarding that I will precede to reinclude that in the lead as you have not addressed this question of excluding this referenced and sourced information after being asked directly three times. What you need to do is either delete that north America sentence altogether, or move it to the north America section of the article or include the south America sentence in the lead as balance. You really have no other choice and yet to provide any reasons for any other choice. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I am proposing to move:"Often social variables, such as class and socio-economic status, affect classification, so that relatively dark-skinned people can be classified as white if they fulfill other social criteria of "whiteness," and relatively light-skinned people can be classified as black if they fulfill the social criteria for "blackness" in a particular setting.[3] As a result, in North America, for example, the term "black people" is not necessarily an indicator of skin color but of a socially based racial classification related to being African American, with a family history related to institutionalized slavery.[4][5]" to the USA section and then place my South America info in the South America and Caribbean section. Please let me know what you think and that will be the extent of my edits. I think it is WP:Undue to only have the US/North America stuff in the lead and it is probably better for that to be in the appropriate section as the only references cited are for the US. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC

I think the current version of the article is now ideal-the lead sets forth a summary of regions where blackness is defined and then the different sections for each region then set forth their individual definitions. This keeps any one region's definition by seeming more "right" or "universal" and should be agreeable to all. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - the concept of "social not physical" is a global one and should be in the lead, not a country-specific section. Using North America as an example of this gives a well-know real world context that the majority (if not all) readers would have some familiarity with. With Wdford's proposed changes to the introductory para I think any perceived "US" bias has been dealt with.

I'll point out again that the lead does not "only have the US/North America stuff" - it mentions a wide range of interpretations and countries. Tobus (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But the problem is you have actually presented no evidence that social not physical is global and not just limited to the United States. There are no references to that at all. The only reference is to the US. Perhaps if you can include references from other areas that makes sense but you actually have not so cannot in fact make that claim. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(excessive indenting) Without having read and thought about all of the foregoing, and as a non-black American well traveled outside of the U.S., IMO, U.S. centric content ought to be downplayed. Afro-American culture today does not have much at all to do with black people (this article's topic) outside of the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's "social not physical" in Australia[2], and the increase in "black" self-identity in the recent Brazilian census suggest the same thing there[3] as does this study[4]... it's definitely not a "US"-only phenomenon. Tobus (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with wtmitchell that the US-centricism is too much. Let us just leave the lead as a bare summary and expand on definitions in the sections themselves. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wording of the lead section

I am concerned that the first paragraph of the lead is very skewed toward Americanisms. I propose instead a modification that reads:

“The term "black people" is an everyday English-language phrase, often used in socially based systems of racial classification or of ethnicity to describe persons who are defined as belonging to a "black" ethnicity in their particular country, or who have a degree of Sub-Saharan African ancestry, or who are perceived to be dark-skinned relative to other "racial" groups.”

Any objections? Wdford (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer ", typically having some degree of Sub-Saharan ancestry or perceived..." Tobus (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I object. I think the lead is fine but that they only need to move the section about socio-economics to the US section of the article because it only references the US and it is WP:UNDUE to have it in the lead like the US is the only country on earth that has black people. Otherwise I think the wording as is fine. And why are you ignoring my points Tobus? That is quite obvious you are ignoring my points and only responding to other editors. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I therefore propose that the lead section be rewritten as follows:

"The term "black people" is an everyday English-language phrase, often used in socially based systems of racial classification or of ethnicity to describe persons who are defined as belonging to a "black" ethnicity in their particular country, typically having a degree of Sub-Saharan African ancestry, or who are perceived to be dark-skinned relative to other "racial" groups.

"Different societies, such as Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa apply differing criteria regarding who is classified as "black", and these have also varied over time. In some countries social variables affect classification as much as skin-color, and the social criteria for "blackness" vary. For example, in North America the term "black people" is not necessarily an indicator of skin color or ethnic origin but is more of a socially based racial classification related to being African American, with a family history related to institutionalized slavery. In South Africa mixed-race people are not considered to be "black", and in other regions, such as Australia and Melanesia, the term "black" has been applied to, and used by, populations with a very different history."

What do you think?

Wdford (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I like it, a good compromise. Tobus (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; an acceptable compromise. Soupforone (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I can agree to this if you allow me to put the blaquemiento and hair texture, skin color, etc. info in the South America section without reverting it. If you agree to that just go ahead and make the changes as indicated above for the lead and I will return to this page later to insert the blaquemiento and hair texture, color stuff in the south America section of the article. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert that part, just the changes to the lead. I've cleaned up your text a bit, fixed the WP:EGG links, removed some of the WP:CITEKILL and reformatted the refs that remain, but left the overall meaning the same. I see the Wdford has gone ahead and updated the lead as per this discussion.

BTW as per WP:THREAD you should only add one ":" more than the previous editor used when replying in a talk page - otherwise we get massive unnecessary indenting... if your reply has multiple paragraphs then be sure to use the same number of ":"s on each new paragraph so they all line up.

Tobus (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

ok sure thank you. I will try to improve my indenting in the future. The article is a million times better now without the undue focus on the USA in the lead. The US- centric bias in articles really is not acceptable when it can be easily changed. Happy to see you saw the light. In any case it was good working toward an acceptable solution. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pending Dispute Resolution for Lead

Neither of you please make any changes as I have submitted this page to dispute resolution. Let us wait for some response from them before changing anything further. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happily the dispute ended amicably for all. See above section discussion. Regards,Andajara120000 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

North Africa

The North Africa section (and several other smaller sections) seem to be at odds with the rest of the article. As far as I can tell "black" is not used as a social construct in North Africa, we seem to be taking the "US" view of what "black" means and simply describing North African in those terms, even though "black" doesn't appear to be a term used by North Africans in North Africa. The current content reads more like a "Sub-Saharan African Diapora in North Africa" than about a "black" social construct in North Africa. From my reading "black" people in North African countries are refered to by their tribal names (eg Haratin/Gwana in Morocco) - none of the WP pages for North African countries uses "black" as part of the Demographics.

The few direct mentions of "black" in the North Africa text seem to support this:

• According to the "Black Guard" page the literal translation of the Arabic is "servants of al-Bukhari" with no connection to colour
• The statement by Egyptian President about his "blackness" is a in terms of the US social construct of "black", not his own culture
• The common Arabic term for "blacks" means "slave", with no colour reference.
• The ref for Arabs using the same constructs as Latin Americans only talks about "racial polarization" being the same, not that the term "black" is used for one of these groupings

I'm no expert in North African culture so I could be wrong, but the current content and sources don't suggest that "black" is used a social construct for race in North Africa. The closest I can see is a possible etymology for "Haratin" with "black" or "dark skinned" (but different sources give alternative meanings), and perhaps "Black Moors" if that term is in fact used in North Africa and is not a westernism applied to it. If there are reliable sources which show a "black" social construct in North Africa (and I suspect any such construct would be country-specific) then please point me to them.

I suggest we rewrite the North Africa section (and possibly other sections like India/Pakistan) with only those instances where "black people" is actually used within that culture, and remove those section from the page where there is no such construct and we are just using the US-defined "black people" to a culture that doesn't use a "black" construct.

I've left the content as is pending discussion, but have restored the position of South Africa before North Africa as it has a genuine social construct for "black" that is more relevant and informative in relation to the page topic. Tobus (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually black is very much a term in use by the non-blacks in North Africa. In Arabic not only is the derogatory Arabic term abd used in reference to black populations, the Arabic terms aswad versus abyad is also extremely common. The indigenous black populations of North Africa also make distinctions between themselves and these later Berber, Arab, Greek etc. back-to-Africa migrators. In Mauritania for example the difference between the abyad (white) and aswad (black) is extensive in the language and among Berbers distinctions are made between the abyad (white) Berbers and the aswad (black) Berbers. The term Haratin is also in use. The return to Africa migration of Berbers around 10,000 BCE and the Arab invasion of North Africa created the differences in referring to black populations. Black populations as shown in genetic studies were indigenous to North Africa, and the invasions of these new peoples is what created these racial distinctions. Also in any case yes racial distinctions between the indigenous black populations and later Berber, Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern and Arab migrations is made, just like in South Africa the indigenous black populations have numerous terms in reference to the European migrators and their coloured offspring. Let us be clear: the back to Africa migration of these non-black populations is not in dispute in any of the scientific literature: genetic studies show that phenotypically and genetically black populations are the indigenous peoples of all of Africa (and the world in fact to be precise, before genetic changes over thousands of years created phenotypical differences and the genetic mutations that define the differences in the mtdna and yDNA of regional populations). The earliest (and still disputed) presence of phenotypically and genetically non-black populations back to Africa is 10,000 BCE ago with the berbers at the northern tip of Africa. The evidence is easy to show because African DNA is the oldest in the world and the berber and other non-black peoples' DNA shows much, much more recent mutations that occurred in Eurasia that led to their phenotypical change into non-black Eurasians. In any case, I am familiar with the Arabic terms but not for the Berber but am sure there are Berber terms as well. Second point-North Africa is alphabetically and geographically before South Africa so you reasons for changing the orders here even as our discussion is pending is unclear. The references for the indigenous black populations and later Eurasian migrations are well cited in the Out of Africa article and the multiple genetic studies I have referenced in this article in the North Africa section but let me know if you need more. I will proceed now to bring some references for the color and racial terms in use in North Africa shortly. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I do agree though that some of the examples in the North Africa section with Fathia Nkrumah and Sadat are somewhat misplaced:the actions of just these two North African Arabs is taking up a great deal of space. it would be better to have references to actions of recent and larger groups, like political associations or identified communities (artistic, musical etc.) that represent these indigenous black populations, well-known writers, intellectuals etc. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good quote for understanding differentiation and history of blacks in the Maghreb: Chouki El Hamel, "Tracing the Origins and Roles of Black People in Morocco and West Africa:The Autochthonous Blacks of Morocco," in Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race and Islam (2012), pp. 109-113, books.google.com/books?isbn=110702577X:"Moroccan Arabic sources assert that all the black people in northwest Africa were originally slaves who had been freed under different circumstances through time. However one group of black people-namely the Haratin-might not have been of slave origin from Sub-Saharan Africa, but native to Southern Morocco. French anthropologist Denise Jacques-Meunie argued that the Haratin are the descendants of black people who inhabited the Draa valley since time immemorial...The ancestral form of the term Hartani derives from the Berber word ahardan , which is connected with skin color. It means "dark color" and the earliest known usage of the term was among the Berbers of Sanhaja and Zanata before the great Arab migration of Banu Hassan in the thirteenth century. The Berber speaking Tuareg people inhaviting the western and central Sahara and Sahel use a similar word to designate a person of both white and black parentage: achardan. Among the mountain dwelling Berbers of Sanhaja origin, the term designates a person with black skin, Ahardan, in contrast with white, Amazigh. In fact the Berber term ahardan (pl. ihardin) was used by Berber-speaking people not only in Tafilalt but also in the High and Middle Atlas and in Mauritania. Hence the term Haratin was in use long before the arrival of the Arabs...There is also a commonly used term, asuqi (black), especially widely used among the Berbers in the Sus valley region in southern Morocco. Berbers generally use three terms to designate black people:asuqi, ismakh or ismag, and aharadani (Hartani)...According to scholar Gabriel Camps (1927-2002), the founder of the Berber Encyclopedia (Encyclopedie berbere) in 1984, the first inhavitans of the Moroccan Sahara were of dark complexion but distinct from the so-called blacks of the Sahel or Savannah regions, albeit descendants...The story of their displacement goes back to the Roman era. With the advance of the Romans into the Moroccan interior, the Jazula Berbers may have been forced to move toward the south and compete with the blacks in the oases of the Draa..."

Here are the references I have added to the North Africa section:

There are a number of black

• Chouki El Hamel, "Tracing the Origins and Roles of Black People in Morocco and West Africa:The Autochthonous Blacks of Morocco," in Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race and Islam (2012), pp. 109-113, books.google.com/books?isbn=110702577X:"The ancestral form of the term Hartani derives from the Berber word ahardan , which is connected with skin color. It means "dark color" and the earliest known usage of the term was among the Berbers of Sanhaja and Zanata before the great Arab migration of Banu Hassan in the thirteenth century. The Berber speaking Tuareg people inhaviting the western and central Sahara and Sahel use a similar word to designate a person of both white and black parentage: achardan. Among the mountain dwelling Berbers of Sanhaja origin, the term designates a person with black skin, Ahardan, in contrast with white, Amazigh. In fact the Berber term ahardan (pl. ihardin) was used by Berber-speaking people not only in Tafilalt but also in the High and Middle Atlas and in Mauritania. Hence the term Haratin was in use long before the arrival of the Arabs...There is also a commonly used term, asuqi (black), especially widely used among the Berbers in the Sus valley region in southern Morocco. Berbers generally use three terms to designate black people:asuqi, ismakh or ismag, and aharadani (Hartani)..."
• Frank Senauth, The Making and Revolution of Libya, pp. 126-127, books.google.com/books?isbn=1479780650: "Tawergha's problems have been compounded by the fact that most of its population was black Libyan citizens...Given that there were between a million and two million black Africans in Libya, a slow and under-reported massacre was unfolding in the country..."
• Unity Elias Yang, The Third World Where Is It?, p. 159, books.google.com/books?isbn=1467893447:"Even in Libya under Kadhafi's rule, black people underwent harassment and abuse because of the color of their skin."
• Richard C. Jankowsky , Stambeli: Music, Trance, and Alterity in Tunisia (2010), Page 17, books.google.com/books?isbn=0226392198: "Blacks in Tunisian society, whether or not they are associated with stambeli, continue to experience racism.Conversations with members of the sṭambēlī community and close Arab Tunisian friends confirmed the existence of widespread prejudice limiting the social, marital and employment options of dark-skinned Tunisians. This is reinforced in a variety of ways. The government still uses a stamp of a "Negro head" to denot the lowest grade of silver in the grading system of precious metals. The servitude of slavery remains linguistically inscribed on the black body in Tunisia, where the most common socially acceptable term for black people is wasfān (servants), and where it is not uncommon to hear a speaker specify someone's race by designating that person mahruq (lit. "burnt," i.e., black)..."

communities in North Africa, some dating from historical communities before the abrupt desertification of the Sahara in 3500 B.C. due to a shift in the Earth's orbit,

• Frigi et. al 2010, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/summary/v082/82.4.frigi.html Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations, Human Biology, Volume 82, Number 4, August 2010
• Sahara's Abrupt Desertification Started by Changes in Earth's Orbit, Accelerated by Atmospheric and Vegetation Feedbacks, Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990712080500.ht
• Chouki El Hamel, "Tracing the Origins and Roles of Black People in Morocco and West Africa:The Autochthonous Blacks of Morocco," in Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race and Islam (2012), pp. 109-113, books.google.com/books?isbn=110702577X:"Moroccan Arabic sources assert that all the black people in northwest Africa were originally slaves who had been freed under different circumstances through time. However one group of black people-namely the Haratin-might not have been of slave origin from Sub-Saharan Africa, but native to Southern Morocco. French anthropologist Denise Jacques-Meunie argued that the Haratin are the descendants of black people who inhabited the Draa valley since time immemorial......According to scholar Gabriel Camps (1927-2002), the founder of the Berber Encyclopedia (Encyclopedie berbere) in 1984, the first inhavitans of the Moroccan Sahara were of dark complexion but distinct from the so-called blacks of the Sahel or Savannah regions, albeit descendants...The story of their displacement goes back to the Roman era. With the advance of the Romans into the Moroccan interior, the Jazula Berbers may have been forced to move toward the south and compete with the blacks in the oases of the Draa..."

others as descendants from the historical Trans-Saharan trade

• Harich et .al 2010, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/138 The trans-Saharan slave trade - clues from interpolation analyses and high-resolution characterization of mitochondrial DNA lineages

and after the Arab invasions of North Africa in the 7th century, descendants of slaves from the Arab Slave Trade in North Africa.

• Harich et .al 2010, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/138 The trans-Saharan slave trade - clues from interpolation analyses and high-resolution characterization of mitochondrial DNA lineages

I think this is helpful to answer your questions.Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here, the first is the content of the section - at present it's about sub-Saharan ancestry and not about any "black" social constructs. Thank you for the Morocco link, it clearly establishes an ongoing usage of words meaning "black" to indicate different social groupings. The Tunisian one is less clear-cut but I'd be inclined to include it as well. I think sources like these would be a great starting point for a rewrite of the North Africa section. The rest of the links and much of your text however is simply attesting that there are people with sub-Saharan ancestry present in North America - this is absolutely not under any dispute from me. I totally agree there is, and has been for a long time, dark-skinned people with sub-Saharan ancestry north of the Sahara. But this page is not about African ancestry or about dark skin, it's about people calling themselves or each other "black". We don't need source that say there are US-defined "blacks" in North Africa, we need sources (like the El Hamel one) that show North African societies use "black" as a social construct. We should be discussing each population referred to as such in it's own context, not just assuming a generalised contextual association with any sub-Saharan ancestry.

The second is the issue of positioning. The page isn't ordered by alphabet, geography or population, it's ordered by the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment. The last time it was discussed it was considered that people who searched or linked to this page would be mainly expecting the US/Global definition, then the Latin American one, then the South African one and only rarely others like the Australian one. If you want to reopen the debate then feel free to, but know that the current order is the result of much previous discussion so please leave it the way it is until there is agreement from a number of editors to change it. As before, I note that this expected as per WP:BRD and not doing so could be considered WP:Disruptive Editing (something I see you've recently been warned about for other articles).

Tobus (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

*Order of sections: No, no, no. Black people are not only defined by white societies. Perhaps you are astonished by black people in North Africa but the over 500 million English speakers in Africa are not and the black population in North Africa is more relevant than that in South Africa. I am sorry, there are more English speakers in Africa than in the US, UK and Australia combined so based on the principle of least astonishment the North Africa section should be first. Additionally, geographically and alphabetically it should be first. And I am not being disruptive when I am dealing with people with clearly less knowledge of the subject who want to control the article. Time and again as this talk page shows you have assumed more knowledge of the subject than you actually have and I am supposed to defer to that? Sorry, I want this to go to dispute resolution I do not believe you know enough about this topic at all to be deleting referenced sources because they do not line up with your Platonic vision of things.

• Editing North Africa Section:Let me make this clear, you want a section on North Africa but no information on how the people got there and no DNA information? But why? It is overwhelmingly known that they are known as black. Anyone with general knowledge of North Africa knows this. I have presented numerous references supporting this. I can provide hundreds more but perhaps you will then delete it under the guise of WP:CITEKILL like you did with my South American and Caribbean references. I can understand maybe if you are not an Arabic-speaker this may be unknown to you but anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the African continent does not dispute the relevance of this section and what is included now. And with the references now in front of you you just need to now admit you are wrong and move on. That is why I would rather go to dispute resolution with those more knowledgeable on the subject because your knowledge, especially on comments regarding my North Africa additions and India/Pakistan is not heartening. Your attempt to own this page is so problematic precisely because you seem to know so little about the topic as expressed on this talk page over and over again.

Again, there is well-sourced well-referenced information in the North Africa section that is extremely relevant. If you attempt to delete it without further discussion on this page I am going to report you for editor misconduct. I don't know your agenda with this page and I do not care, but you do not own this page and your expressed ignorance on the topic is not going to dictate its contents. So please clarify which of the multiply referenced and sourced and relevant to topic statements you now wish to delete because they do not fit your vision of how your article should be. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in responding to ad hominen attacks and misguided rants. If you want to rearrange the order of countries on the page then start a discussion and get consensus first. You have provided some very useful sources for making the North Africa section more relevant, so if and when I get time I will use them and any others I find to improve the existing content. Tobus (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

While you are "improv[ing]"the content kindly make sure you do not delete relevant referenced and sourced information again that does not fit your POV under the guise of WP:Citekill, misleading edit summaries or any other inappropriate tactics or you will be reported for editor misconduct. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of References to Blackness in Pakistan after Requesting Proof That They Are Black

Why did you delete the references to blacks in Pakistan after explicitly requesting proof that they are black or you would remove the section? I have restored those references. Do not then delete them under the guise of WP:Overkill and then later attempt to delete that section on black people in Pakistan with the claims that there are no references that they are black or you will be reported for editor misconduct. I thought you would at least try to be less obvious. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

References deleted by editor about blackness in Pakistan after explicitly requesting proof that they are black:

• William Ackah, Pan-Africanism (1999), books.google.com/books?isbn=1840143754, 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, books.google.com/books?id=TGZWAAAAMAAJ:"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), books.google.com/books?id=_xwTAQAAMAAJ:"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."

Because we only need one, and it's better to place it at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle. I've made no attempt to delete it this section, in fact I've actually added information to it. Please calm down. Tobus (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually that is untrue. The revision history shows you deleted references to black Pakistanis while keeping the ones on India. Pakistan and India are no longer the same country. I will not argue with you: the revision history before I restored the references makes that clear. Please do not do so again under the guise of WP:Citekill. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk)

Only one link at a time is indeed adequate; too many and the text becomes challenging to read and looks unkempt. Soupforone (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Andajara120000 is now indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Black" or "Sub-Saharan African"?

I believe that "Sub-Saharan African" is a better term to replace "black" in some areas. Here is my edit. It would also help to use Sub-Saharan African because it would help distinguish a dark skin tone from the "Negroid" race. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see. However, the phrases at hand allude to areas where "Negroid" does seem to be implied. Soupforone (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Black African" returns this page if you search for it on WP so it's self-referential to use it unless we're going to define it clearly somewhere in the article. Since the article lead says that "black" is a socially-defined term and I'm fairly certain Sub-Saharan Africans didn't refer to themselves as "black" in their own communities before enslavement, a generalised "Black African" term is going to need some (white) reference point to have any meaning - different people from different societies may well interpret it differently. "Negroid" is old-fashioned, controversial and not geographically specific - it refers to individuals all over the world so isn't a good replacement anyway. Except in cases where the cited reference uses either term, I think we should should use "Sub-Saharan African" as the generalised term, or better still the actual region, language group or tribe we are referring to. Tobus (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Negroid" wasn't stated in the link; it was just implicit in the context. "Black" was instead indicated. "Sub-Saharan African" is also inappropriate for universal usage since, among other reasons, Australian Aboriginals, Negritos, etc. reside in Oceania. The most neutral solution therefore is to simply specify what exact population is being referred to. If, for example, the people are originally Ashanti from the Gold Coast or Bantu descendants from the Mozambique area, than this is what should be indicated. Soupforone (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why I suggested it being used in some sections only, when it's specifically referring to Sub-Saharan Africans but uses the term "Black". You are both correct, though. The article would definitely be improved if each section would refer to the peoples' actual ethnic background instead of just "black". That's the purpose of this article, to explain the different types of peoples that are known as "black" throughout different regions. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That would include much of the world at various points, so there's more to it than that. Anyway, Nkrumah's Ghana is in western Africa. Soupforone (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Siddis

The web article assertion that the term Siddi etymologically means "black" is incorrect. The term is actually derived from Sayyid, which was the title borne by the captains of the Arab vessels that first brought Siddi slaves to the Indian subcontinent. Also, the modern Siddi/Makrani aren't exactly Bantu, though they do have such ancestry (mainly paternal). Genetic studies show that they in fact possess more West Asian ancestry than does the average Indian. This is presumably because the Makrani in Pakistan live in a largely Iranid part of the region. Soupforone (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that Siddi doesn't mean "black", but the sources show that it is a widespread belief in the Indian community that it does. I think this is relevant to their context as "black people"... would you be happy with something like "Although the name "Siddi" is widely attested to mean "black"(ref), it is in fact derived from the title borne by...."? Tobus (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there were two links. One had no page number, and the other is a web article which doesn't specify how widely attested that particular etymology is. What's more certain is that Siddis are of Bantu origin, and many folks in the Indian subcontinent seem to be aware of this. Soupforone (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

For some reason Google Books doesn't have page numbers for that book. If you search for "etymology" the first result[5] says "In Sindh today, most people will tell you that Sheedi means 'black' or 'African' or even 'slave'", but there's no page number given. There appears to be many competing theories for the origin of the name (see Siddi#Etymology_of_name), with no clear winner, but since this is the "black people" page I think any theory that refers to "black" is worth noting here. The newspaper ref was just a real world example of such usage and I'm happy to leave it out. Tobus (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The link doesn't seem to be working for some reason; it leads to an about the author page. In any event, the Indian government describes the etymology as follows [6]: "According to the Oxford Dictionary (Vol. IX, p. 22, 1933) the word Sidi has originated from the Arabic 'Sayyid' meaning 'lord' or 'prince'. According to Wilson (P.482, 1885) the word Siddi (originally and more correctly, Saidi) is a honorific title in the west of India, some of whom were distinguished officers of the Mohammedan princes of the Deccan." So the Sayyid etymology appears to be dominant, though perhaps not the only etymology. Soupforone (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point - I'm not contesting any given etymology. I'm saying that, a) regardless of what the truth is, it's a widespread misunderstanding in India that it's related to "black", and b) that this is worth noting in this "black people" page. The real etymology was only mentioned in the first place in contrast this mistaken belief - there's not much point including it if it has nothing to do with "black" (we don't give an etymology for "aboriginal" for instance). My suggestion is to say "people think it means 'black' but it really means..." - reinforcing that there is a strong "black" social construct in place, even though the facts behind it are wrong. Do you have any objection to this? Tobus (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that and I know that the term is used in that way. I was just clarifying Siddi's actual etymology because that is what the wikipedia phrase alluded to. Anyway, I've adjusted the statement to reflect the foregoing. Soupforone (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that the source says "Siddi" is widely believed to mean "black", and the edit you made says "Makrani" means "Negroid". What's up with that? You've ignored all of the forgoing and the source you provided for the "Negroid" meaning doesn't support that at all - it says "Makrani" came the name of the town (Makran) where the slave trade apparently centered around. I also note it's from 1960 and the term "Negroid" is very old fashioned and we shouldn't be using it here. I've reverted the edit. Tobus (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Siddi" and "Makrani" are interchangeable. Makrani are just the Siddi of Balochistan. That paper is also titled Makranis, the Negroes of West Pakistan, and its contents reflect this usage [7]. This is of course old fashioned, but it's also still part of the general narrative there. From the Indian government's Tribal Sub-Plan Annual Development Programme (1998: 39) [8] -- "Siddis is the only scheduled tribe possessing completely Negroid racial traits. They are strongly built, tall, black and curely hair protruding jaw, and thick black lip". Soupforone (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

But only "Siddi" is widely believed to mean "black"... a fact you seem to be going to great lengths to ignore. Do you have some reason why you don't want a link between "Siddi" and "black" to be included on the page?

Tobus, "Siddi" is used in the Indian subcontinent to mean "black" as in "Negroid". For a further demonstration of this, please see here. As long as this reality is made clear, I don't have any objection. Soupforone (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The refs I provided in my original edit indicate that "Siddi" is widely believed to mean "black" the colour, not just "Negroid" as a racial type ("The root is ‘swd’. It means black."[9], "In Sindh today most people will tell you that Sheedi means 'black'..."[10]). Even though it's not true, I think this belief is relevant to the categorisation of the Siddi as "black people" and so is worth mentioning in the section. Tobus (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We can mention it. However, per the links above, I think we should also make it clear what they actually typically mean by that. So something along the lines of ""Siddi" in the Indian subcontinent is widely believed to mean "black", with the Indian government, among other local authorities, traditionally associating the term with "Negroid" physical traits". Soupforone (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Negroid" meaning is already implied by "descended from Bantu peoples from Southeast Africa" so there's no need to mention it again, but it is worth stating the accepted etymology. I was thinking something like "Although it is commonly believed that "Siddi" derives from a word meaning "black", the term is actually derived from from the title borne by the captains of the Arab vessels that first brought Siddi settlers to the area". Tobus (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That could perhaps work. But it would be even clearer if we mentioned what word it's derived from; so something like "Although it is commonly believed that "Siddi" derives from a word meaning "black", the term is actually derived from "Sayyid", the title borne by the captains of the Arab vessels that first brought Siddi settlers to the area". Soupforone (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've updated the article. Tobus (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Just specified the location, otherwise looks okay. Soupforone (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bedouins et al.

User:Tobus, a new account copied & pasted some generic material from the Bedouin page, claiming here that they are regarded as "black people" in their respective native region. This is of course nonsense. If anything, tribal Bedouins are considered the most genealogically authentic Arabs. He/she also copied & pasted material on adivasi in the Indian subcontinent and some populations in North Africa, none of whom are regarded as "black people" in their respective native regions. Soupforone (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The bedouin of Arabia, the adivasi of India, the aboriginals of Australia and the Negritos or "Orang Asli" of South Asia are all seen in the same perspective, that is, the first inhabitants of the land (often called the Old Ones/Elders/Ancient/Firsts) and they all share the characteristic medium to extremely dark skin, wooly to wavy hair, and a distinct archaic look that sets the apart from the majority of Arabs, Indians, and South Asians, with the exception of Australians. It makes no sense to list the Negritos and Australians, and not mention the Adivasi and Bedouin.MariaRodrgz (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That is patently untrue. Your edits also do not have consensus, and smack of Afrocentrism. Do not revert again. Soupforone (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What was Afrocentric about anything that I said. The out of Africa theory clearly shows that there are reminants of black populations (founder populations) that stretch from Africa, thru the Arabian peninsula into all Southern Asia. What's Afrocentric about stating a fact, other that the fact it's something you don't want to hear.

Arabia

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92278137@N04/sets/72157634451178366/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92278137@N04/sets/72157634451308878/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92278137@N04/sets/72157634544664543/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92278137@N04/sets/72157634451280320/

India

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92278137@N04/sets/72157634452744650/

Southern Asia

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92278137@N04/sets/72157634447516787/

The derogatory words for arabs are and have always been "dune coon" and "sand nigg3r", and that's because like the Australians and Negritos, they are a "black" people. Notice I didn't include Syrians, Lebanese, or Iraqis in my edit because they are not nearly as closely related to Africans as the Yemenis and Saudis. If these people aren't black to you, then African Americans and Australians aren't black either, if that's the case then there are no "black" peopleMariaRodrgz (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You are obviously editing from an Afrocentric perspective. This is evident from the comparison of African Americans with unrelated Aboriginal Australians. It is also apparent from the equating of a continent with one so-called race, and especially the claim that peninsular Arabs are regarded as "black" people within their respective region. Various populations, including many from Europe, have at times been called similar derogatory names; so that in itself doesn't mean much. Those links above likewise lead to an Afrocentric user-page. Also, there's no evidence as to what exactly the Out of Africa population may have looked like since that suggested demic diffusion is itself theoretical. We're talking tens of thousands of years ago here. Anyway, stop reverting. Soupforone (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Maria, this page is devoted to discussing "black" as a social construct, not for discussing people who have dark skin. "Black" is not widely use a description for Indian people in India and as far as I know, neither is it used in any social context to refer to Bedouins. If you have sources that show otherwise please provide them, but otherwise it's not appropriate for us to discuss them on this page just because they have relatively dark skin.

In terms of process please read WP:BRP which says that in the event of a dispute the page should be left as it was before the contested edits. So please get agreement here from the other editors before reinstating your edits.

Tobus (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the Negritos are displayed because the Spanish called them little black men. Yet they are not considered "black" in a social setting. With the case of the Australians, they were racially discrimated and demeaned, called fauna and "black people". Yet they as well aren't seen that way. The British viewed the Arabs as sand n's and dune coons, and by that aspect are seen as black, yet they don't see themselves as black, nor do the Australians or the Negritos because determining who's "black" was always done by the Europeans. The adivasi whom are the Dalit or untouchables, and are considered "black and unclean" and due to these circumstances they should be listed as well.

http://m.outlookindia.com/article.aspx/?281938 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaRodrgz (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about Australian aboriginals - they (and the wider Australian community) consider themselves "black" - not in the sense of African, but in their own right. There are host of references in the article that show this.

That "Negrito" means "little black" is a valid historical social reference worth mentioning in the article.

The source you give is not WP:RS and appears to be song lyrics, metaphorical in nature.

Tobus (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not wrong because I never said they didn't say that they are black. I said they aren't seen that way, as in, by the white Australians. And with that said the inhabitants, (the nomadic inhabitants) of arabia come from the same wave of people as the Negritos, the Andamanese and the Australians. If we want to talk about black as a social construct, they all of those populations should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaRodrgz (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Then you *are* wrong because white Australians do see Aboriginals as a "black people", as you'd know if you read the article text. I doubt very strongly that the nomadic inhabitants of Arabia, the Negritos, the Andamanese and Indigenous Australians all come from the "same wave of people" - I suspect this is just your personal opinion with no actual evidence to back it up. In any case it's irrelevant to this discussion because we're not talking about genetic relationships or physical descriptions here, we're talking about the constructs of "black people" as used within various societies. Tobus (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Out of Africa theory actually posits that Arabs and Europeans were spawned from the same migration wave. In any event, it's not particularly relevant and is pretty speculative. Soupforone (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Skin Color As Only Feature

Skin color is obviously not the only feature defining black people and not just in the Americas and not just those of direct Sub-Saharan descent. In all the regions referenced in this article, hair texture, facial features and genetic affiliations also variously play a role. The lead as it stands neglects this obvious point. Further reversion on this issue should wait until discussion on this talk page as to the reasons why this fact is being neglected while economic variables which are secondary takes up almost half the lead. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Toni Morrison on Clinton - Correction

Greetings. Toni Morrison's famous quote about Bill Clinton being the "first black president" was famously taken out of context. Rather than it being reference to his pro-black policies or poor upbringing, as the article states without citation, Morrison actually intended the remark to mean "he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp."

I am prohibited from posting on this page; otherwise, I would have made the edit myself. I urge anyone so inclined to make this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajc2136 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Black billionaires

Black billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be renamed to African billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the discussion, see talk:Black billionaires -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Black people aren't black people??

So, according to the way this article used to be, if a Nigerian family visits the United States, many Americans would say "they aren't black people" because they're not the descendents of slaves. This sentence has been removed (from the lead!!) because it is both unsourced and absolutely absurd. Red Slash 03:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read the sentence you deleted again, it clearly says "is not necessarily an indicator of skin color... but is more of a socially-based racial classification" - this means a Nigerian family visiting the US may well be considered "black" by some people due to their skin colour, but that many people in the US who have much, much lighter skin than them are also considered "black" because of their ancestry and self-identification. Note that there are certainly people (and pretty much everyone in certain circumstances) who would *not* refer to Nigerians visiting the US as "blacks", but instead use the term "Africans" to distinguish them from the African-Americans that "black" in the US commonly refers to, while at the same time people like Halle Berry and Barack Obama are universally called "black" in the US despite having decidedly non-"black" skin colour. The point is that "Black People" is not (just!) a physical description, but a social, economic and cultural one and this article is devoted to the various social contructs of "black people" in use throughout the world. As such, including a general statement about how it is used in the US (and somewhat globally since mass-media) is warranted in the lede.

There are at least three refs in the article that explain this paricular aspect of how the construct is used in the US: [11], [12] and [13]. Please read them and familiarise yourself with the topic before claiming it is "unsourced". I do not support adding these refs into the lede as there are no refs for any other statements in the lede, and the lede is simply summarising what comes below and those statements are well-sourced in their respective sections. That being said, if you and others find it confusing perhaps it needs to be reworded.

I note that User:Paul Barlow has also contested your edit, so as per WP:BRD I will restore the page to the status quo while the matter is being discussed. In line with WP polcy, please don't reinstate your edit until we've got agreement from other editors here as to what (if any) changes should be made to the lede.

Tobus (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Differences from other races

Should links and minor pieces from Race and IQandRace and crime in the United States? I think they should as it is quite notable.--Youngdrake (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the U.S. should be the first section after the lead?

The reason that the U.S. is the first country is that 'Black People' is an English language term, and it is mostly used by and about people in the U.S. who fit into the social category 'black people'. If the article is arranged by country, and if the countries are arranged alphabetically, then the U.S. comes last. This would mean that people would only read the U.S. section after, for example 'Turkey' - which does not speak English (and, even if it did would only designate very few residents as black people). Therefore, the article with the U.S. at its head prioritizes the country where the term is most used and has most significance. After that, should come South Africa, Britain, Australia and Caribbean - those English speaking countries where the term 'black people' is used in daily discourse. Then should come those non-English speaking countries which habitually use loose translations of 'black people' - such as Brazil, France, Angola etc. Editors need to distinguish between their desire to apply/deny the English label 'black people' to various populations - and the willingness of societies and individuals to accept/reject it as applicable to themselves.Ackees (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed repeatedly. Just plonking the US first, while everywhere else is alphabetical is utterly arbitrary. Your argument that this is the English language Wikipedia makes no sense, since the article is about a concept that appear in many languages. In any case, by that logic Britain should come first, since the English term was used there as a racial label before it was used in the USA. The reference to Turkey specifically is irrelevant - alphabetical order is alphabetical order. In any case, there is no requirement to read the article in order - the hyperlinks in the contents page function as an index pointing the reader to relevant sections. The order is not a "hierarchy", just an arrangement. People in a list whose surname begins with A are not somehow given more "importance" than those whose surname begins with M. Your assumption that "loose translations" of the English term is "accepted or denied" in other cultures is historically and linguistically false. You are confusing the issue of whether US definitions of race are accepted, with whether terms analogous or identical to "black" are used as racial identifiers. Paul B (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

North Africa

North Africa is geographically in Africa, not the Middle East. This is why the political term "Middle East and North Africa" or MENA exists to begin with. The region therefore belongs in the Africa section alongside Southern Africa, especially since North Africa has populations like the Haratin that are indigenous to it. Also, the Greater Middle East is a political neologism that encompasses some European and South Asian nations, such as Cyprus and Pakistan. Soupforone (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about pedantic nomenclature. Middle East, Greater Middle East, MENA, whatever. This sections in this article are not about following some arbitrary systematic conventions, but about convenience in presenting the topic in a natural and logical way, sometimes grouping regions in sub-sections (Balkan), sometimes having an individual country as a top-level section (US), sometimes a continent and part of another (S. Am & West Indies). The groupings ought to make sense from a human geography point of view, and not be forced into an (artificial in the context of this article) physical geography compartmentalisation that is not helpful to the reader. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. is top-level because it is the only part of North America discussed. South America and the Caribbean have a single header because the text actually discusses them in tandem since they are geographically proximate and adhere to similar social concepts such as "blanqueamiento". With regard to the human geography vs. physical geography, it's actually physical geography that is more empirical and objective. It is therefore least arbitrary to place North Africa within the Africa section. That is, after all, where the region is located. The neologism "MENA" won't do since it is essentially a synonym of "Greater Middle East" (as is, incidentally, noted there), with similar inherent ambiguities. Soupforone (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is very simple. Northern Africa and the Middle-East have much more in common with each other than with sub-Saharan Africa, what with them being " geographically proximate and adhere to similar social concepts such as" Islam and speaking Arabic. This is a trivial and undeniable fact. This is due to empirical and objective physical geographical factors that historically, the Sahara has been a much greater barrier to human travel than waterways, which reflects itself in linguistic, ethnic, and cultural patterns. The intialisms "GME" and "MENA" may be faddish International Relations wonkspeak, but scholars have recognised North Africa & the Middle East as a cultural unit for centuries. And anyway we don't have to follow scholars' classifications, we can organise our articles here on wikipedia as we damn well please, for instance we could rank them by percentage of black people in the population if a consensus agreed it was the most useful way to present the topic to readers. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Also your assertion that the US is top-level because it is the only country in North America is bizarre. If we hypothetically agreed to group north africa & the middle east, then we should have South Africa as a top level section by this logic. Does really whether there is a ==South America and the Caribbean== section stand and fall on whether or not there is a general introduction paragraph? ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"GME" and "MENA" are neologisms. They also have no standardized definition, as is noted on both pages. This means that, unlike actual physical geography, those terms are neither consistent nor empirical/objective. Your suggestion that North Africa and the Middle East have much more in common with each other than with the rest of Africa because of them being geographically proximate and adhering to similar social concepts such as Islam and speaking Arabic is irrelevant since North Africa doesn't share a single header with any other region, just as China is separate from India/Pakistan despite both being umbrellaed under Asia. Unlike blanquiemento, Islam and Arabic (neither of which, by the way, are indigenous to North Africa, nor is Islam the only religion of the Middle East) are also not directly relevant. With regards to South Africa, it isn't a top level header nor need it be given the presence of North Africa. If Afrikaner society is mentioned under Africa, there's no reason why North African populations can't. Especially given the latter's great in situ antiquity rooted in the Iberomaurusian, Halfan, Qadan, Capsian, etc. cultures. Anyway, North Africa isn't in the Middle East, so it shouldn't be subsumed under such a header. The only actual empirical and objective alternative is to place North Africa in Africa, the continent where it is actually located. Soupforone (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This article makes no sense...

What is "black ethnicity"? And how can one be black, "regardless of skin color"? Lastly, why does having black skin mean you are a "decedent of slaves"? So if I stay out in the sun I will become a slave? But then color means nothing. If that is the case, then what is "black" if not a color? And why is everything referenced here to Africa? Is no one aware that blacks come from all over the world. Not all blacks come from Africa! WTF?184.155.130.147 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your final point is acknowledged pretty well in the second sentence of the lead where it mentions, among other places, Australia. In Australia "black" is a word commonly and quite positively used to describe people of Australian Aboriginal descent. Because of interbreeding, many such people have quite pale skin. When it was a much more negative thing in Australia than now to have it known that you were Aboriginal, many just never told anybody and got away with people thinking they were of European background and did just tan easily. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest including an introduction discussion of etymology of racial classifications

I would like to suggest adding an initial paragraph which makes plain the history surrounding the initial proposed division of humanity into 5 races (namely Blumenbach). While the idea of 'Ras' predates Blumenbach, it was really the drive to apply order and classification to our world during the enlightenment, that gave the western world their current concept of race.

I do not think you can meaningfully discuss and attempt to define 'black' without doing this. There is significant doubt among the scientific community that such a thing as distinct races within humanity exist. Even Blumenbach, when he coined the terms Caucasoid, Negroid, etc. made it plain that there were no biological criteria of any kind which could help to distinguish any one individual reliably as belonging to this race or that. It is as useless and meaningless as phrenology, and should likely have been put to bed around the same time.

Diving straight into an incredibly detailed (and fascinating) discussion of the term 'black' without addressing this first may lead the reader to wrongly conclude that 'black people are a race of humanity' when in fact that is quite probably a nonsensical statement. As the page does a great job of illustrating, 'black' has meant so many different things in so many different cultures; what it fails to point out is that from an anthropological perspective, it likely means nothing. If history had provided breeding populations with sufficient isolation to yield distinct races, they would in fact be different species. The history of humanity however, has been one of consistent radiation. Cultures and populations intertwined, regularly. You can see this clearly in our cultural record, and it is writ just as plainly in the biological record. Humanity is and has been one giant gene pool, certainly with observable variation along its various shores, but never with any demarcation anywhere which can allow you to say 'this, these features mean this one is part of that group there.' As even Blumenbach said (paraphrasing) 'the features of humanity do so grade into each other as to make any absolute classification meaningless.'

'Black people' may exist, but I think it important to come right out and say that there is no such thing unless and until a cultural convention makes it so.

Thanks for considering my argument. Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mseguin (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, but this is the wrong page for that. That disclaimer belongs on the general race (human classification) page. Soupforone (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Soupforone, I respectfully disagree. The point of the suggested edit is to make people aware that most scientists think the idea of race is nonsense... It is important to add to this page, as most users will never visit the human classification page, I suspect. Even just one line at the top that indicates that science no longer generally believes in the idea of races of humanity, and then links to the page you suggest, would be a huge step in the right direction. Again, appreciate your considering my argument. Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mseguin (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The race main page already contains such a disclaimer in its lede. The typology pages in question do as well. Soupforone (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like we are not understanding one another, and for that I apologize. The average consumer of information is far more likely to search for 'black people' or 'white people' as they try to understand how we deal with race. To allow this page to exist, absent any of the caveats that you agree help temper that understanding, does the information, and those who would consume it, a disservice. I believe it would be better if the page did not exist at all, rather than see it ignore this fundamental issue altogether.

Respectfully, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.1.110 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What sort of phrase/sentence did you have in mind, Michael? Soupforone (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish I was better at this markup interface. My apologies if I am using it incorrectly. Also, I apologize for the delay, I got very busy. I am very open to suggestions. Since the main race page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification) does such an excellent job of dispelling essentialism or typology, I would humbly submit that the first paragraph could say:

"... be dark-skinned relative to other "racial groups". It is worth noting that the (link to main race page starts here)notion that there are discreet races within humanity is heavily disputed(link to main race page ends here). "Race" is therefore now largely used as a cultural, not a biological, distinction.

The page as a whole is an amazing read. I don't want to detract from its value or flow. Any change you can offer to make that small but important point would be invaluable, in my opinion. Thank you so much for your patience and consideration! Mseguin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.1.110 (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, so it appears the confusion here originates in biology. The physical aspect, however, is discussed separately on the individual typology pages. This is why they have caveats quite similar to the one above. Human skin color and its subpages dark skin and light skin cover the biology of skin pigmentation in humans. Soupforone (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, the confusion originates with the widely held belief that there are such things as races within human biology. While the scientific community has in the last 30 years largely moved away from such beliefs (Wolpoff et al aside), culture, most especially North American culture, has not. Hence the (urgent) need to connect the cultural concept of race to the discussion of its (mistaken, now revised) biological genesis. Simply put, science once embraced the idea of discreet races. It has since disproved that notion. Culture, on the other hand, has never stopped embracing the idea. To discuss the cultural understanding of race, or in this case the most often referenced 'minority race' in 'black people' without a direct and immediate reference to its flawed genesis does the topic a disservice, don't you think? Could I provide an accurate and complete discussion of the concept of lunacy without referring to the fact that science has now disproven any link between the phases of the moon and human bevavior? I could not, nor can I meaningfully discuss 'black people' without referencing the flawed rationale for dividing humanity in the first place. I again submit that it is better that this page not exist, than to have it exist without any linking to the flawed context from which the term originated. Respectfully, Michael Seguin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.1.110 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. However, I was referring there to the phrase above, where you suggested that ""race" is therefore now largely used as a cultural, not a biological, distinction." Such a disclaimer is unnecessary because this page isn't devoted to biology. The physical aspect is discussed separately on the individual typology and human skin color pages. That's why they have similar caveats on them. Soupforone (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am open to suggestion on the language used. I will happily defer to your expertise here. However, to state that because one or even several of the 4,604,045 english pages on wikipedia dispenses with the nonsensical urge to classify humans by race, therefore we are free to use terms like 'race' or those that are derived from its history of flawed science as though they have some validity, is highly problematic in my opinion. As wikipedia itself states on the Race (Human Classificiation) page: "Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications." Yet here, on this page, even a generous reading of the first few paragraphs finds nothing but the liberal use of quotes around terms like "race" to dispel the concept; a casual reader is forced to conclude that while racial classification varies through time and space, it is a continuing endeavor which simply hasn't been perfected yet: "Different societies, such as Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa apply differing criteria regarding who is classified as "black", and these criteria have also varied over time..." I apologize again, perhaps I am simply being dense. I am strongly of the opinion that when we use terms like these, that we must take the time, in every venue and every context, to point out the monumental flaws in logic that caused them to exist. To say that the physical aspect of race is discussed elsewhere ignores the ways in which our cultural understanding of difference is still inextricably entwined with our biological understanding. Respectfully, Michael Seguin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.1.110 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well above you mention Caucasoid, Negroid, biology, etc.. This physical aspect is not what this page is about. Alluding to biology therefore serves to confuse its purpose. The eponymous typology pages are instead there for that, so they have the requisite caveats, as do the human skin color pages, anthropometry, etc.. Soupforone (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The term 'black' in the united states, as described on this page, is a term that arose as an alternative to other terms which fell out of favor. The etymology, therefore, as I pointed out in my first entry on this talk page, is an unbroken chain from a biological description. You cannot meaningfully discuss the term 'black' in North American context without understanding its biological basis. I repeat, this page should not exist if that connection cannot be made plain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.1.110 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Please review my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mseguin (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael, I realize you mean well but please understand that the page isn't about biology. This was actually just explained on the white people page too. The physical aspect is instead discussed separately on the individual typology, human skin color, etc. pages. There are already brief caveats/disclaimers on these pages for that purpose, with the issue more fully explained on the race general page. Soupforone (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Soupforone, I also recognize your good intentions. Yet, I also am honestly not certain how many ways that I can say the same thing, but will keep trying in good faith. You cannot discuss the North American concept of 'blackness' without discussing race. You cannot discuss the cultural concept of race without discussing the failed biological paradigm on which it rests. Yes, you have 'brief caveats/disclaimers' on this page, but they are not high enough or central enough. I mean that respectfully, but also believe it passionately, not just as an advocate for change, but as a scientist. We do not live in a vacuum, and not all those who visit wikipedia are academics. Out of respect for the page, and for your patience in our dialog, I will not reinstate my edit which someone else removed (though I wish that user would have referenced this talk page for context). Still, I feel that this page fails to make plain, right at the outset, that we are discussing culture NOT biology, as you yourself keep pointing out to me! Help me, please, to find a better way to make that plain, so that I can stop making your life miserable. If you cannot agree with me that this is both a desirable and sensible addition to the first paragraph in some form, then I will respect that and leave you in peace, though I will be forced to ponder the value of a collaborative knowledge base... Respectfully, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mseguin (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not write that there are brief caveats on this or the white people page or that we are discussing here a singular culture. I said that there are instead such biological disclaimers on the typology, human skin color, etcetera pages because that's where physiology is separatedly discussed. The central race page also has several such caveats. Anyway, this was and remains my point; glad it's understood. Kind Regards -- Soupforone (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, because it is understood, does not mean that it is agreed with. This is not capitulation, this is deference to the technocracy. This pages existence sets the understanding of the concept of race back 50 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.25.81 (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means, but all the best. Soupforone (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Austronesians

Despite their appearance, genetics tells us that Austronesians are not at all Sub-Saharan, and should be removed from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.130.147 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a list, nor is it on "Sub-Saharan". The physical aspect is discussed separately on the individual typology and human skin pigmentation pages. Soupforone (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is watching this article?

Hi, everyone,

I see a variety of random edits in the recent history of this article, often without sources, and I'm wondering who is keeping track of changes in the article to see whether or not the article is staying on-topic, for whatever coherent topic the reliable sources say this article is about. Which of our fellow Wikpedians are keeping close watch on this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Weije, I keep half an eye on it, particularly the Australia section, but I don't have as much time as I used to so wouldn't say I'm keeping "close watch" on it. Tobus (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I recently began to watch the page, basically to watch out for disruptive edits and vandalism....not really keeping a close watch on citations and all that and I haven't gone through the article.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I try and keep an eye on it for any oddities. Soupforone (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"Black"

The definition of the term Black as used in this article comes up from time to time. This was recently touched on in the Suggest including an introduction discussion of etymology of racial classifications and Austronesians sections above. This has been previously discussed to death. For reference, one prior discussion can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_people/Archive_22#Contested_Edits.60. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Soupforone (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

African diaspora already has its own article

This article confuses African communities with the term "Black people". I have removed random images of contemporary people who are included just because they would be considered as "Black people" in the USA. It is a concept which is different in different countries and at different times, and this approach is the same on the white people article as well. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Valid point, but the files aren't random. These individuals would commonly be regarded as such in their particular areas of the globe at those particular times. They aren't especially borderline in that respect, which indeed would be inappropriate if they had been. Soupforone (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OR.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The files reflect the text. None also seem to be borderline as far as place and time. Soupforone (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)