Jump to content

Talk:Black people/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Proposed ground rules

Now that the article is protected, it is maybe a propitious time to suggest the following ground-rules:

  • Discuss the article, not the subject;
  • Discuss the edit, not the editor;
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
  • If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

I invite all editors involved to abide by these simple rules, and this article may have a chance. I ask ask all involved editors to make a public statement below about their intention to abide by such ground-rules, and only then proceed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will abide by these ground-rules

I certainly have no intention on violating the rules above because I know the balance of power is not in my favor. However, as far as consensus goes, the position I hold can keep this article locked and relocked for all of eternity. There are others involved that share my position, and I have shown reliable information. Now the citational red tape game (cite your citations and cite those citations as well) is something I think the moderators of a high level should handle. I should not have to cite a citation. Because then it becomes "original research". Every citation I bring which does not already agree with the opposing side... you guessed it. It is politically labeled as fringe and requires more citations. VT Rajshekhar should not require more 'evidence' than his own native contributions and his background. If just 3% of the Indian population is Black, then guess what, that number is greater than the black population in the USA. So at least one out of 33 Indians surely are black. Why are we arguing this? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is many words that you do not want to abide by these ground rules. The expected answer is a "yes" or a "no". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the question is, will you enforce the rules fairly? Or will only one side receive the consequences. I have already shown you an example below with Timelist's use of Carolus. It's pretty cut and dry. You should be in agreemement that it is not a credible example, it's not even a part of the article and certainly not discussing the article, it's discussing the subject. How can I agree to follow rules that are unevenly applied. Should I login with another screen name while you try to strong arm this one? Should I have others participate? How do you want to do it? Should the entire northeastern area of the USA and California be banned to prevent anyone with my viewpoints from coming in here? It's your call. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That was an invitation to editors to chose to abide by these rules. The invitation still stands. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Why do we not make a list of possible articles to assemble to have an array of articles? My suggestions, which I am not committed to, would be:
1. black people
2. who is black
3. black unity
4. global black history
5. local black histories (US, South America, Carribean, UK, European, North African, African, Phillipine, ??, etc)
6. black diaspora
7. Black discrimination
etc
If necessary, there could be overlap between some of these, with short summaries in some articles of topics covered more in full in a longer article. The titles I pulled out of a hat; they are basically arbitrary. What other article topics would you suggest? What other titles? What titles that I suggested are just stupid? Lay it on me--Filll 04:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. But in the meantime, the list of black people and their locations should not be excised to be only used in the others. So Aeta, and some East Indian groups known as Black historically should remain IN the article.
Please note, some Indian people, most indian people are NOT black, so if an Indian comes in here complaining that this article identifies SOME indians as Black, they are wasting their time. No one suggests that Indians are entirely black. It is equally ignorant to come from India pretending that India is devoid of native Black people. It's just false, I don't care how offended you are. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems pretty redundant to me. We don't even have enough cited content to fill this article. Now that Zaph has removed the only cited section, everything in it is original research.
Now see, that is a lie. Anyone can go to the article and see the footnotes. This is one aspect that I hope the moderators will enforce. Do not tolerate anymore false comments. It is a political ploy to say that there is no cited information. And the entire citational section was devoted to one position and that is "black people are only found in Africa and the Americas". This is the last time I address this unsigned contributor. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We have plenty of content. The discussion pages are full of content that can be mined and flshed out. People are full of ideas. They might be contradictory and ambiguous, but so what. That is reality, and people coming to the page are looking for the full range of knowledge that is available. The person who comes to the article (or what I hope will be a series of articles) will want to know: what is a black person? What is the difference between a black person and a nonblack person? Where can I find one? Why do we call them black? (since lets face it, no skin of a person is REALLY black, although it might be pretty dark in some cases). Why do other people call them black? Why do they call themselves black? What makes them black ? Do black people get treated differently? Did black people get treated differently? Why do (or did) black people get treated differently? There are a TON of related issues. I could write 500 similar questions. So don't try to tell me there is no content and nothing to write about. This is a HUGE topic and many people have great ideas they want to contribute.--Filll 05:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


EXACTLY! That is WHY I am here doing what I am doing! Read your comment with the highlighted portion. Thats exactly what brought me here. I am totally with you on that, but I do not like the idea of making "some" black people (Ethiopians, Aeta, some Asians) vieweed as "less legitimately black" than others. Who has the right to determine that? Some white Americans? Some Black Americans? Some DNA anthropologists? None of them have the authority to simply rewrite history and reclassify 5000 years of it! You don't just redefine blackness as a DNA sample of chromozomes. That's the most ignorant thing I have ever heard of. You'll have kids running around ignorantly trying to apply that! "How do you know your black really? You didn't take a DNA test. The Wikipedia article clearly states that your DNA must be of a particular way to be legitimately black"! --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the rest of your information is about as accurate as what you just wrote, you don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. The concept of race is only a few hundred years old, not 5000. People may have noticed dark skin for thousands of years but that has nothing to do with the racial concept of black as it's undestood today. Timelist 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
THATS MY POINT. Race is not a concept that has any historical credibility. yet you claim below "This article is about black as a racial category". This article is not CALLED "black as a racial category". This article is called "Black PEOPLE". Your only argument for "race" is to just limit black identity to "one that is only based on DNA heritage from Equatorial Africa". That's not the goal of this article. That's YOUR Goal, and you want to magically make this article be about YOUR goal. But nope. YOu can make an article called "The Black Race" and watch as people villify your attempt (I will just sit and watch, no need to comment on that one). Black People are not limited to one "DNA" strand, or whatever the heck it is. The CONCEPT of Black is not understood to be racial and if it is, the racial concept is not limited to the DNA or skulls or Africa. Sorry, that's just how it is. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Trying to divorce Black from its racial or ethnic meaning is absurd. It has no social meaning outside of its racial context, just ask the dictionary. If you want to write an article called dark skinned people than do it, but an article called black people can only be understood in terms of colour metaphors for race. If that's too politically incorrect for you than delete it. Timelist 06:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
THERE IS NO RACIAL CONTEXT! Never has a "racial" context been applied in a credible and honest way with Black people. There is no ethnic concept because the different ethnic groups are not in communion with each other. I'm certainly ethnically divorced from Africans on the continent! If "Aeta" and "Negrito" and other people who physically resemble Africans in every physical way is not sufficient for you, then you are simply playing a game. It's like saying the universe moves past me when I walk, but I just stay stationary. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if Black is not a colour metaphor for race then it makes no sense to speak of black people (who among us is literally black). Rename the article dark skinned people if you're not interested in discussing Black as a racial/ethnic label, because "Black people" are virtually non-existant outside racial metaphors. Timelist 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Black may be a color metaphor for race, but that is not the point of the article. The point of the article is obviously to show the clear present existence of black people throughout the world. Black people are ceratinly existent outside of racial metaphors because people who are highly mixed with so called native amerian and european ancestry are historically a part of the Black race and not the white race. People who are genetically closer to Europeans than Africans, yet who live in the USA are classified racially as BLACK! Remember the "census" says this, the "census" says that. (This is the part where NOW start to critisize the Census, instead of before when the Census was on your side!)

There's no such thing as Black people outside racial metaphors. That's the point. And yes mixed race people identify as Black, but at least they have some recent African ancestry. The groups you want to include are no more related to Africans than Princess Di was. Timelist 08:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph

Lets get started. Firstly, I will not respect any unsigned comments with a response. So we can skip that part. You don't sign, I don't address. Secondly, we all know that I am not isolated in my position. So this is not about me, we can skip that part as well, the discussion history will attest to that.

My first position is that the introductory paragraph must follow Wiki policy and clearly define what the Article Title (in this case Black People) IS. Nothing more nor less. Even in other contentious articles, the definition is not mitigated by prejudice, bias or disagreement. I have done a very fair job in generalizing or balancing the definition. I have been ok and flexible with changes. It is against policy to remove any clear description or definition and replace it with prejudicial or vague statements like "there is no clear consensus" or "black people is not" or "unlike". You merely state what it is and leave it at that.

My second position is that historically any group of people described AS Black should be included. Aeta is a tagalog word that means "black skinned person". Visually they are indistinct from other Black people in the world including those of African descent.

Thirdly DNA, a science only reliable in the past 20 years cannot possibly have been a factor throughout history in determining who is or is not black. The only DNA relevant is that DNA related to giving people their skin color and some facial features. There is no other DNA evidence that can work in this article. One white ancestor 5000 years ago can be the progenator of a trait that is found in half the black populations, but if that is not skin color nor phenotype, then it's meaningless. No way will you convince anybody that unseen DNA traits were factors in historical cultural, social, and ethnic interpretations of blackness.

My fourth position is that I illustrate my positions very logically and clearly. Much of the opposition goes into a circular debate ignoring the logic and only "refuting" one aspect of my position without taking the rest of my position into account. For example one may say "The Aeta aren't black becuse they are not african", and thus ignore the fact that this article is not called "Black Africans". In essence they say that one "should" not be considered Black if they are not African. Yet history shows that they were, that's all that matters. So I should not have myself subjected to ignorance by others in here to that fact. I illustrate my position and it's irrefutable. Aetas are considered Negritos and both words indicate that they were Black people. like it or not.

--Zaphnathpaaneah 04:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How many times are you going to say the same thing over and over again?

How many times does it take for you to listen? You tell me? 100? A million. I will never leave this article alone. I told you in one week I would be back and you simply did not do what was necessary to handle things. And now you resort to political ploys and pretend to be dense. So here we are. I am going to get this article handled. You had your chance. You wanted to marginalize Black people to the 1950's definition found in middle american suburban schools. You lost, you will lose again. You ready to listen to the real world? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, timelist it would be nice of you to sign your comments.--Filll 05:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He knows that. His arrogance and contempt is just appalling. So what if he's a moderator or admin. He's still coming from one position, and no matter how he one line's his position, he is still just flat out wrong. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Way to keep an open mind zaph. Playing the race card will get you nowhere. You don't speak for all Black people. You're just trying to silence those of us who wish to follow wikipedia policy by calling us racists, just as you tried to intimidate others by making threats in your edit summaries. We had a series of cited definitions of a black person but because they didn't support your POV you removed them. So what's left? POV junk, nonsense about how whoever is called black is black except, uh, for the black irish Timelist 05:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You already PLAYED the race card Timelist. You are not being objective. Listen to yourself. "Whoever is called black". Obviously your not able to think clearly about this. If you look indistinguishable from another black person (a black african), and your known as black historically, why WOULDNT you be black??? DNA? Is that your hope? Thats junk. Who in 1329 in the Philippines saw a Semang or Aeta and said "Your DNA is not like the Africans far away, you are not an Aeta, you are one who merely looks like an Aeta". Or who in Ethiopia prior to European colonialism went around saying "ha ha nah nah nah naaaa nah, I'm not Ethiopian, look at my nose and my forehead. See? I'm mixed. My ancestors thousands of years ago might have come from Turkey or somewhere so I am not really Ethiopian". This whole "bantu" thing is a 1950s American fossil. Why do you hold on to it? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? You think the fact that people noticed dark skin in 1329 South East Asia has anything at all to do with this article. You're getting way off topic. This article is about black as a racial category, not dark skin in general. The concept of race is a post-Darwin invention. Timelist 05:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Timelist, why don't we stop playing the dumb dumb game. You know as well as i do that this article will probably do more to influence the way other articles are handled that have to do with black people. Your contributions have been so overly biased it's retarded. This article is NOT about black as a racial category. This article is about Black as an IDENTITY. The whole "racial" thing has been redundantly refuted. Race is so subjective and so politically driven, there is no way you can clearly define black people into a race that will be univeresally respected. Just like with Jewish, you can't racially define them. You can "call" them a race, but the definition of race in that context disintigrates. Just like with black people. You cannot pidgeon hole the most diverse group of people, who are also the original people of humanity. You cannot apply the name of a branch to the root of the tree. And like I say, this article will have reverberations to the other articles and you know it. The game with the black people article is to "call it a race" and then forever leave the definition locked in an unknown limbo. That way other articles will never be able to reference it. Egyptians, Nubians, Dravidians, Aeta, etc. The game will be that the black people article is too 'vague' or 'unclear' on the racial definition. Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians is one example of this game. Here you want another. I resoundly refute the notion of using the word "race" or the concept of race to define black people in this article. I see it for what it is, a ploy to reduce the article's significance to irrelevance. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Black as an identity means racial or ethnic origin, and racial or ethnic origin is defined by where people have lived historically. In the case of Blacks, the origin is Africa. The fact that there are dark skinned people from other parts of the world does not make them black because that identity has been monopolized by African ethnicity just as White identity has been monopolized by Europeans and does not include fair skinned East Asians. Just because non-Africans notice their dark skin or others have noticed their dark skin has nothing to do with black as a metaphor for race. Timelist 05:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Timelist you got refuted, just read the section YOU created below. Black as an identity transcends ethnicity and certainly transcends the silly notions of race (which are forever ambigious with defining black people anyway). The whole human race is originally from Africa and the whole human race started out as black looking. You can't end the concept there. There has to be a common sense logic that in history one walked outside the African continent and not physically lose their black identity by doing so. They didnt' stop being black when they crossed the red sea or the suez passage to Palestine. Black identity was not monopolized by black people because the world was not dominated under black rule over the past 500 years. So we did not get to see how other cultures interacted. Black identity is found in Asia. Your idea is "it shouldnt be counted because whites didn't think of it that way". Sorry, thats not gonna float in this article. I've shown words, people, terms, concepts, historical accounts ad NAUSEUM! Your whole scheme is to say "that doesnt count, this doesnt count, that doesnt count, because it's not from Africa" redudnant and circular and not universal. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes everyone started in Africa, that's why people often use the term "recent African ancestry" to define Black people. I'm sure some people consider negritoes and others to belong to the Black social category but most don't, and the article should reflect that. Timelist 07:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... the proper term is "historical", as in since the time of the written word, I said that enough times. "recent African ancestry" is a matter of magnitude and opinion. Siddi people in India are as recent as Black people in America. Kaffiri people in the Middle East and India however are older. This nonsense about not including people who are called "black" as "black people" is really retarded. "Negrito" means "little black people". Is it the "o" at the end that makes you feel like it's not black enough? Or the "little"? What is going on in your head that makes you feel that somehow the word "black" must only stick with "Africans"? I heard your silly reasons, don't repeat them. I'm asking your subconscious. Does the word "black" have some kind of shock value for you? If most don't agree, why on earth are they universally known as black in Tagalog? "Aeta", like "Negrito" means black. This is the upteenth time I have asked this question and not gotten a straight answer. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because wikipedia must go by reliable sources and all definitions of black people from reliable sources say Black refers especially to African ancestry or only to African ancestry. Only you think cute little terms like negrito and black irish have anything to do with black as its defined today. Timelist 12:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

History lesson BADLY needed for some editors

The concept of “black” as a metaphor for race can be traced to the 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races: Europeanus which he labled the white race, Asiatic, which he labled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race.[1] Gradually the first two races got lumped together yielding three races commonly known as mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid[2] the latter term is derived from Negro which is a Spanish adjective for black.[3] Some anthropologists added an Australoid category (which includes aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago)[4], and viewed it as separate from negroids (often lumping Australoids in with caucasoids) despite the fact that their skin is also dark.[5] In the 1970s the term black replaced negro in the United States.[6]. Debate continues to exist over whether the term black should be capitalized or not as are other ethnic labels like Hispanic. Responding to the issue, Norm Goldstein, stylebook editor for the Associated Press stated “African-Americans, Hispanics, Arabs, and similar descriptions are considered nationalities (or dual nationalities), while 'black' and 'white' are the more commonly used terms for the Negroid and Caucasian races."[7] Timelist 05:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So basically a white man decided that people will be classified into races, and those races will be defined in a particular way. And guess what he used the kind of logic that was popular with slave holders, racists, and other bad people. The terms themselves may have existed prior, but his interpretations were entirely in the context of making the western european appear superior to others. That's WHY I'm in here Timelist. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh but don't believe me, read what the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE SAYS.. YOU ALL READ THIS:

Carolus_Linnaeus

  • Linnaeus was also a pioneer in defining the now discredited concept of "race" as applied to humans. Within Homo sapiens he proposed four taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories are, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, and Europeanus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later skin color. Each race had certain characteristics that were endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were reddish, stubborn, and angered easily. Africans were black, relaxed and negligent. Asians were sallow, avaricious, and easily distracted. Europeans were white, gentle, and inventive. Linnaeus's races were clearly skewed in favour of Europeans. Over time, this classification led to a racial hierarchy, in which Europeans were at the top. Members of many European countries use the classification scheme to validate their conquering or subjugation of members of the "lower" races. In particular the invented concept of race was used to enforce the inhumane institution of slavery, particularly in the new world European colonies.


And THIS is the example from which we should base our credibility? This is a joke. I say "f---" Carolus Linnaeus. Obviously the world does not adhere to his opinions. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Now I think you have been refuted on this one Timelist. Your Carolus reference is not consistent with the Wiki-article that already exists. Your use of him illustrates your bias. He is one man whose opinions were politically motivated and biased. And certainly the whole world should not be held to his low standards. Need I say more? Or is your idea of integrity, neutrality, and credibility only limited to how fancy a 18th century man's stockings are in his picture? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I almost got blindsided. Black as an identity PREDATES the metaphor for race by centuries, so it doesnt matter ANYWAY. Good blindside, but I caught it! Lets just assume that the metaphor for race is what this discussion is about and well, guess what we get blindsided. NOT!! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

History lesson BADLY needed for some editors and moderators! You sure got the title of THIS discussion section right Timelist! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Black as an identity is too vague a topic for a wikipedia article. Black as what kind of identity? A racial identity? A political identity? A physical description. Yes people have noticed that some of us are darker than others for thousands of years just as we've noticed some of us are taller than others, but this article is about Black as a meaningful social category with political consequences, and that started with Carolus Linnaeus, however biased he may have been. Timelist 06:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You should not talk about the subject matter, only talk about the article. This article is called "Black People" and all of the above obviously have a relevance in this article. Black identity existed before Carolus, and that is irrefutable. The social category with political consequences was not meaningful to white americans, and thats why some say "it didnt begin until Carolus". That's not good enough. Some people have been cleary identified as Black (with social, political consequences for centuries). Kushites, Dravidians, Nubians. read the Rig Vedas. Read the Bible. Read the writings of earlier people like the Greeks. Read the writings of the Egyptians. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, for only 100 years was this identity by Carolus unquestioned. From his time until the early 1900s was this "accepted" Clearly when black Americans started publishing against this notion did the concept of Carolus fall apart. So the fact is, a temporary biased articulation was widely held in European circles, and that lasted for 100-150 years. That's not good enough to make this article focused on it. What was going on outside of that? We know what was going on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Carolus' definition is clearly what defines Black today as evidenced by all the cited definitions you removed from the article. Whatever may or may have been said in the Bible is nothing but historical anecdotes. You're trying to take your own original interpretation of ancient ideas and present them as socio-political realities in the 21st century. That's very misleading. Timelist 06:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No it does NOT. That's why we have been arguing this. You have your own limited narrow view and you assume some guy 200 years ago got it all figured out ahead of time. Certainly Carolus took his definition and like colonization he ignored the differences and similarities that went outside his lines. Things are not so cut and dry to make them into a damn color metaphor. That's not how people are. That silly colloquial anecdote compared to my use of reliable historical context, there is NO comparison. Some racist asshole comes up with some psychological invention based on skin tone and eye slantedness, and you suck it in like its gold! --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One white racist guy vs all of history before his time. You choose the white guy. And you then come back and act like thats all logical and objective. look at how you relegate the historical objectivity as "historical anecdotes", and mr white racist man in the 19th century is looked at as what? You trust his objectivity? You think he was operating from a perspective where he wanted to find the facts? --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk-page discipline

This page is provided so that editors can discuss the article, but not designed to discuss the subject. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, a blog or a free host.

If editors want to discuss the subject, I invite them to move the discussion elsewhere. Ongoing attempts to use these pages as a discussion forum will be assessed to be disruption and misuse of these pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, on Monday I intend to archive all the above discussions, so that this page can start afresh, and focused on discussing how to improve this article. Talk-page discipline will be enforced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you look at my editing history, and for the most part i would remove or edit, and I would give reasons. I would await a response. I would bullet why i removed the edit. Now that I am gone, the article has lost its integrity. I followed the RULES, they don't. Only I (and deeceevoice) get reprimanded. You're so far not showing any intention to do anything but pull over the black drivers in the neighborhood while the white drivers get to run the stop signs. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph Jossi's not dumb enough to fall for the race card, especially not when played by you, given your documented history of personal attacks and undisiplined behavior. And how do we even know who's black and who isn't? Guessing from your posts I would assume your South Asian since that's the group your constantly fighting for. Timelist 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You're violating the rules NOW! This paragraph of yours you just posted that I am responding to is violating the rules. Run that stopsign. But I bet money nothing will be said against you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm being quite civil. I'm simply expressing my opinion that your documented history has been disruptive. You disagree and that's fine, but we're both getting off topic. Timelist 06:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The race card will not work with me, Zaphnathpaaneah. I am a dark-skinned, North-African Jew, and have experienced persecution and bigotry because of my origin, my skin color, and my religion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're violating your own rules man! HAVE you already decided before really objectively handling this article? I don't care if you are a jet black kushite Ethiopian. your opinions are what i am responding to. YOu think dark skinned and black people don't act prejudiced against their own group? Come on, we are both more intelligent than to pretend not to know that. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How is Jossi violating his own rules? He's simply stating that claims of racial bias (which you clearly made) are not an effective way to make your point. Timelist 07:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And I am informing him that he is not folloiwng the rules. You've violated the rules I pointed it out. He says nothing against you. What does race have to do with that? Who knows. I have my opinion, but that has nothing to do with it. YOu done talked about so much subject and so little article matter it's rediculous. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph discussion

Black people are people who have historically inhabited most of Africa, parts of Southern Asia and the Pacific Rim. During the past five hundred years, due to the Middle Passage, Black people have inhabited most of the Caribbean, the Southeastern U.S., most of Brazil and parts of other countries in South America. The Black identity is racial, ethnic, and social classification that has been applied to various groups of darker-skinned people in different ways. There is no united ethnic group, however African heritage plays the most dominant role in historically underlining black identity.

  • This paragraph clearly defines where black people are in the world.
  • It describes the general concept "The Black identity is racial, ethnic, and social classification..." (notice it doesn't say black identity is a race, but it says it's a racial classification, which it is, which is why I didn't remove that).
  • I show that African heritage plays the most dominant role, showing the reality that the opposing side insists on (I am ok with that anyway, it's a fact.). It is not the exclusive role, that would be going too far into a biased POV. Violating policy.

Am I following the rules? Yes. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I's incredibley POV since most dictionaries and census definitions clearly contract the idea that South Asians are black, and no dictionary or census mentions south asians in their definition of black. You should have left the article as it was since it was finally starting to get better. Timelist 06:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You are asking if you are following the rules? :Not really. Articles in Wikipedia describe what reliable sources have to say about a subject. If there is an attributable source that describes "black people" in these terms, then we can add this material to the article. I am sure that there must be some sources that describe this subject. Rather that proposing our opinions of what is considered to be "black people", editors should do some research and find these sources. Original research, i.e. opinions that cannot be attributed to a reliable source, have no place in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Rule violation. I never said that South Asians are Black, you have therefore misrepresented my position (weaseling tactics are not allowed). I said that Black people have historically inhabited parts of Southern Asia. Your comment implies that the paragraph says that South Asia is predominantly or exclusively black. But it clearly does no such thing. The first paragraph follows policy by articulating where significant populations of Black people reside historically. You violate policy by stating "You should have left the article as it was since it was finally starting to get better.". This is not a forum for blogging your opinions. Two violations. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Attributable sources describing Black people in Asia: " Articles in Wikipedia describe what reliable sources have to say about a subject."

  • [[1]] - Chinese newspaper recognizing the black people of Taiwan, who are anthropologically ancesters of the Negrito people. The Chinese called them historically "Little Black People"
  • [[2]] - Reed College article that describes how the Formosa (Taiwan) ancestors of the Negrito people went to other areas of the pacific rim. See the section called Inhabitants of Formosa in the middle of the article.
  • [[3]] Discusses the recognization of the Andemanese people as Black calling them again "little Black people" See section 2 (People who look like Africans) and the pictures throughout the Article. Andeman islands are EAST of India and West of Thailand.

Do you need more? or can we say I have fufilled your request? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to one of the articles the "Formosan Negritos, survivors of an old race now almost entirely extinct". It does not say anything about these being "black people". What we need is a reliable source that describes what is considered to be "black people". If there are no such sources, then this article needs to go to AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I think three hours for you to correct your statement here is enough. YOu took 6 minutes to read the article before you made this statement. Yet if you took 7 minutes you would have read Which is in the NEXT paragraph of the same article:
  • In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places.

It is obvious that you are not being honest or you are very sloppy --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


the article had about a dozen cited definitions of black people. he removed them all. Timelist 07:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Also the articles Zaph cites called them people with black complexions or "little black people". Using that type of evidence you can conclude the Irish are black people too since thousands of articles say "black Irish". This is getting to be too much. Timelist 07:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
and what praytell are the Black Africans blackness known for? Sex? being tall? Black Africans and Black Negritos share so much visually, only their height sets them apart. What tribe of Black Africans will you mistake a Black Irishman for? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Zaph you keep missing our point. Saying the negritoes have black complexions is not the same as saying they belong to the Black social category. Timelist 07:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And your missing your own point. THEIR SOCIAL CATEGORY IS BLACK! They are socially known as NEGRITO, little Black PEOPLE! Saying that negritos have black complexiions has the same power as with Africans. You are leading to the whole DNA assumption of Africa thing. That's not credibility thats called weaseling. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying it in capital letters doesn't make it true. Little Black people, Black irish, these are simply cute little names given to various segments of different populations. What is needed is cited definitions of a Black person that list the groups you want to include. Get back to us after you've researched the census of South Asian countries. Timelist 07:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The capital letters is to show you how hypocritical your logic is. They are socially distinct from other people. Black Irish and Negritos have totally different social contexts. And The Spaniards called them black people, not in a cutesy way, but in a real way. To you and your limited respect for Black history, the context is nothing more than two cute names. The cited definitions are shown clearly in the articles I presented below. The Census is not a matter of objectivity but of national recognition. Many ethnicities are not recognized in various census forms, yet they exist. So "getting back to you" is ignored. Your flippant attitude is also noted and the lack of enforcement against you is also noteworthy. Black for African is no less or more relevant or "legitimate" than it is for the Asians. Just because it didn't carry over to the English language (only due to the lack of English involvement in East Asia prior to the 20th century, they didn't colonize or enslave the Filipino Asians, so they had little interest in them past Negrito.) Just be real here. If America colonized or enslaved those people, you actually want to pretend they wouldn't have called them "black" just as the Spaniards did? No they are Black, Aeta and Negrito means Black in the langauges they originated.--Zaphnathpaaneah 08:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Jossi, the first article clearly shows that the Chinese recognized them as Black. The second article you clearly use the word "negrito" which means "little BLACK person". Negrito doesn't mean "a little less black person", it means little as in "physical stature". It almost seems like your expecting them to talk about Africa. What more would it take to recognize them as black people, when they are called "black people" and the chinese call them black people? If China with it's own history isn't credible enough, what is? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish were not called black people, SOME among them were called "black-irish", they had no cultural, or ethnic distinction. Like that clown that invented the races 150 years ago, the concept didnt exist historically. It came up in the context of a pure-white-American philosophy. Like "grape-fruit" the term was a compound word whose context was unrelated to the worldwide concept of black people. Secondly Black-Irish had no relationship or similarity to any black people in the world. The Negritos however have both. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever been to Europe? Swarthy Irish people are called Blacks all the time. And "little black person" is a term just as "black irish" is. What Jossi is looking for is a formal definition that says Black people are a group of people including South Asians. All the formal definitions single out Africans, but none single out South Asians. Timelist 07:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're off topic AGAIN! This is not about swarthy Irish people. There is no way that an Irishman will interact with Black Africans and identify himself as "black". I know for a fact that East Indians, Filipino Aeta, and other Asians which have been identified as Black will without a doubt identify as Black. They are indistinguishable from continental Africans. And since you also insist on equating Blackness with Africans, then your left with a connundrum, people who resemble black Africans resemble Black people. And people who are historically called and called themselves black who resemble black people are BLACK! --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So now your definition of a Black person is someone who identifies as Black when interacting with an African. If I identify as Black when interactiing with a European or an African-American I'm not Black enoughh, I need a pure African to witness it to make it official. Do you have a citation for this fascinating definition? Timelist 07:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You're either related to, or a derivitave of EO. You're so intent on somehow repackaging what I say in some misguided context. One strong arguement for my position is that they certainly RESEMBLE Africans. "My definition" is not the issue at hand in this discussion. It is how we objectively identify black people. What is contradictory about your position is that you insist (sooner or later) that only Equatorial Africans are Black. Why only Equatorial Africans? Is it because the way they LOOK? Is it some magic about coming from Africa? Your definition defies visual relavence (dark skin), it defies historical context (cultural identity), it defies social issues (the shared social contrasts to non-black populations), and the effects of colonization. No, you run instead to some sarcastic ambiguity. And yet again, jossi is silent, maybe he is sleep, who knows. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't rocket science. There are 2 races with dark skin: African ancestry people (negroids) and native South Asians and Pacific Islanders (Australoids). To avoid getting the 2 groups mixed up, only African ancestry people are generally known as Black (hence the word negroid which comes from negro means black in spanish). It could have just as easily been the other way around, but that's not how racial history was written and this article should reflect reality. Timelist 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, obvioulsy at this point your not going to act fairly, who higher up now do I have to talk to? I showed you articles, and you just wipe away the entire thing with a flippant attitude. You have your own opinion of what black should be and an entire culture of historical legacy in East Asia that I presented to you in those articles mean nothing to you. That's some serious bias. And with Timelist, he's just running those red lights. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And you just wipe away the legacy of the Black Irish by comparing them to grape-fruit. Timelist 07:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You're playing games. You are ignoring the obvious differences.
  • Black irish do not resemble black people in any distinct way.
  • Black Irish do not identify as Black people, they only identify as black in a context that contrasts them colloquially, not historically, and certainly not ethnically from other Irish.
  • Their identity was not created from a historical distinct context. Legends may describe they may have been descendants of Spaniards or whatever, but culturally they have nothing that historically distinguishes them from other Irish.
  • There is no Black-Irish culture, only nuanced family customs intertwined with Irish culture.
  • Their legacy is not being wiped away. No one who is Black-Irish has a legacy that is related to Black Identity. And even if there were, their legacy is so sparse and diffuse that it certainly merits far less contribution to the article than the Aeta or other groups whose timeline and legacy and history dwarfs the black irish. (Why would you want to place a group with less of a historical legacy more prominently than one with a greater legacy?)--Zaphnathpaaneah 07:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Dark South Asians only resemble African diasporas people in superficial ways, there not at all the same race, not even close
  • Dark South Asians do not generally identify as Black people they identiy as members of their specific ethnic groups
  • Dark South Asians were discriminated against by light South Asians just as the Black irish were discriminated against by the fair Irish. Jews were also discriminated against. Discrimination has nothing to do with being black.

The point is t's absurd to call dark South Asians or dark irish people black. Timelist 08:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree its absurd to call the Irish. The S.E. Asians who were black, they were black. You keep lumping all of S.E. Asia together into one lump. You have a hard time calling these people black [4] because you are afraid. You are afraid that an African can interact with them on a level that tunes your foolishness and your pride out. The people in this picture are obviously as humanly black as any african. But wait, I'm debating with people who want to take the black out of Africa. Ethiopians, and Sudanese, and other East Africans aren't even 'really black' to you guys. I feel bad for you, because your hope to control this article is so dashed. Your own ignorant words simply attract more and more attention. So I win either way. Just keep fighting, keep fighting the inevitable. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is funny. The little kid here [5] isn't black because some dimwit with stockings 200 years ago didn't know his people existed. And dimwits today do not want to adjust their minds to the reality. They want to hold on to some white-washed legacy that they "created" or "discovered" the races from their European intellect and clairvoyence. You try to support a fabricated house of fantasy. This article is slowly becoming the nexus and a microcosm of the battle against racial ignorance, you have no clue as to the pandora box that will occur in time. They aren't black because they didn't "come from Africa", but even people who come from Africa aren't black because they don't exclusively look like other people who come from Africa unless they are people who live in America, who are black whether or they look like they came froM Africa, unlike the Asians who can't be black no matter how much they look like they come from Africa. And this is scientific? This is going to be a real joy in the coming months to watch this play out. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science. There are 2 races with dark skin: African ancestry people (negroids) and native South Asians and Pacific Islanders (Australoids). To avoid getting the 2 groups mixed up, only African ancestry people are generally known as Black (hence the word negroid which comes from negro means black in spanish). It could have just as easily been the other way around, but that's not how racial history was written and this article should reflect reality. The whole world understands this obvious point. Only you and a few others find it so confusing Timelist 08:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And both are called Black people historically. Your thinking its noting but a mere word, but you are incorrect. This discription of black people comes from more than a label applied by Spaniards (but the spaniards simply added more fuel to the fire). Its funny, everybody else who is called black (except the west and central african) isn't black. Its funnier that you keep going back to "racial" this and "racial" that. No one here finds it confusing. I know that every black American I show pictures of Aeta to, they all say "those are BLACK PEOPLE". Your part of the shrinking ignorant minority who holds against it. As people find less and less of a reason to distance themselves from people of african ancestry, they are more and more vocal and objective of recognizing they are also black and rememebring that historically they were. You're insulated from this, but its happening. And you know how I know your biased? You never ever mention the significance that colonialism and racism played in "downplaying" the Black identity in Asia. You never acnowledge the stigma over the past 150-200 years in Asian cultures due to colonialism that contributed to the whole thing. You want to pretend like somehow people just psychologically followed some DNA trait that some punk in 19th century "discovered". And he was a punk. If I could, I'd go back in time to the 19th century and I'd slap him in the mouth a few times. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank goodness it's not (rocket science).
  • You are simply incorrect. There are more than two groups of human populations with dark skin. Several distinct populations of India and the subcontinent are about as dark as humans get. What "race"/groups do they fall into? Yes, some of them, like many Tamils, are Australoid -- but what of the rest? What of Tibetans, the aboriginal populations of Cambodia, etc.?

Tamils are not Australoid, Tamils like all other Dravidians are classiefied as caucasoid. Those who are labeled as Australoids are the native inhabitants of India. Both Indo-Aryans and Dravidians are of the same Sub-Branche of the Mediterranean Race. And Btw Tamil is a ethnicity not a distinct Race in India. There is no Difference between a Telugu, Tamil, Malayalee and Kannada in term of Race. Get ur Facts correct. --Asian2duracell

  • I direct you to my comments and citations above (A few comments) under the subhead "A Compromise" with regard to your clearly erroneous assumptions regarding Australoids and the term "black."
It would help if, when arguing your point, you'd rely more on factual information instead of spouting opinions born of ignorance and clearly misrepresenting what "the whole world understands" as "obvious." When it comes to virtually all non-Western (read "non-white") areas of study, there is a chasm between normative "knowledge" (in reality, abysmal ignorance) and scholarly knowledge. People aren't taught the facts. They're not part of popular or mainstream culture. And people don't recognize the facts when they are presented with them. And, finally, because far too many people today simply don't read, don't (or can't) think critically and are hidebound in their opinionated ignorance, they don't -- or won't -- recognize the facts when presented with them. deeceevoice 09:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The original people of Cambodia are part of the Australoid family. Indians are mostly dark skinned with caucasoids with the really dark ones having australoid blood. And no one disputes that some Australian aboriginals and some brunette white irish people have been called black, but that's hardly a solid basis on which to build an articleTimelist 10:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You know. you are right. It's not rocket science. From the Wiki article Race

  • The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, currently holds that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species"

So if it's a social and cultural construction and other societies and cultures outside of Africa have their own black populations, why on earth are we discussing this? Further more, why are YOU discussing this in the context of some racial definition. Even more so why do you discuss this racial definition as if it's scientifically sound and validated by anthropologists? Odd if you decide to reject the American Anthropological Association but accept the Census Bureau. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC) More from the Wiki Race Article:

  • At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists questioned, and subsequently abandoned, the claim that biologically distinct races are isomorphic with (related to) distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups. Then, the rise of population genetics led some mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon. Those who came to reject the validity of the concept, race, did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional, the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical (Lieberman and Byrne 1993).

I would say "go read it" but even moderators have a habit of only reading the first paragraph and then coming back in here and saying "it doesn't say that Zaph". That's why I post it in here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all there's virtually no such thing as an objectively black person. If people want to be objective they'd call themselves dark brown. Black is simply an abstract racial category (whether you believe in race or not) used to lump peoples of African ancestry together. If it makes you feel good to pretend that some South Asians are also part of that racial category, then I would ask you to find a more appropriate forum to induldge your fantasies. If you want to be objective, just say "we're all dark brown people" or "we're all people of colour" because Black is purely a racial metaphor that you're applying in very inappropriate ways. Timelist 09:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And btw the concept of race has not been discredited at all. Don't believe anything you read in wikipedia. But even if it were discredited, race in the form of ethnic identity (common ancestry) still has social reality. Timelist 09:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Your credibility is really tainted. I took those particular quotes because they were taken from other sources. Both are cited quotes, one from the AAA, and the other from Leonard Lieberman and Byrne. So if you are going to have a low opinion or discredit the accuracy of Wiki articles, then you're totally losing your self in this discussion and further violating the rules that were set earlier. Surely you won't say that these quotes were misquotes. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you stop giving advice and take some for a change. You have poor listening skills and your coming in here with a prepackaged opinion. Now you are coming at me telling me something I already told you. I went around as I said before and asked a wide variety of people how they perceive the Asians in the photographs. Almost unanimously they regarded them as Black. I talk to Asians in Asia, and black is the word. Beyond that original research, I showed you guys historical and valid references, yet you simply respond with illogical denials. "Race in the form of ethnic identity still has a social reality". Do you even know what you are saying? I have been telling you that the ethnic identities of various people encounter a black identity. You leave that social reality and instead try to insist on a western or American seal of approval. So even if the social reality of the Aeta, or others indicates they are black. If some white guy from virginia doesn't feel comfortable, you will just ignore that social reality in those countries and follow the White American's comfort zone. I showed you CHINESE historical and present realities in the article. Jossi must have had a system crash or some kind of syntax error in his mind because he just didn't read the next paragraph before he decided that the evidence wasn't THERE! Now you come back and tell me something I already told YOU! Are you paying attention to what is going on? Or do you just feel like you are so sure you already got this figured out? --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I've figured out: Hundreds of millions of people define Blacks as peoples of African ancestry only, there were many cited definitions that reflected that view (which you were wrong to remove) and so its inappropriate to say in the intro that Blacks have historically lived outside of Africa because your imposing your definition of Black on the reader. There are also Afrocentric views which state that Africans and some South Asians are part of the same race, but this view should not be mentioned in the intro either because wikipedia does not take sides. And how many times must we explain that just because people have been called black historically does not justify us saying they are black. As we explained, the irish were called black too, being called black proves nothing. You say the irish were different because blah blah blah, I don't want to hear it. It's original research. A good article is based on well referenced definitions of what black person is (which you removed), not selective examples and anecdotes. If all the black people you know think those South Asians are black then publish an article about it in a reputable magazine and we'll reference you, but for now it's original research Timelist 09:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How did you figure it out? Did you ask them all? Did you at least interview a small sample like I did? Did you figure out what part of the criteria makes it consistent, relevant, and meaningful within the identity group? It makes little sense for a bunch of non-jews to define who is or is not Jewish. Did you discuss this matter with Black people? The Aeta people? The reader needs to see that the people of the identity mutually recognize being a part of the identity. The meanings and variations within the identity are important, but that is not the same as rejecting the identity itself. There is no mention of blacks and S. Asians being in the same race. You keep equating identity with "race" and although you admit its a social and ethnic construct, you run back to some biological, DNA, ancestral exlcusive definition when the temperature gets too hot for you. How many times do I have to tell YOu that historical context certainly plays a role, especially if people are currently calling themselves black. If the Aeta call themselves black and historically call themselves black, what are you smoking that makes you think they are not black? You don't want to hear, then stop posting. I didn't want to hear you as soon as you started opening your mouth. Neither one of us is going to stop the other. So you'll keep hearing original reseach when I show you how dissimilar visually, culturally, and socially "black-irish" are to black people. You ignore when I show you how similar visually, culturally and socially black asians are to black africans. So keep your ears closed and hope that things will magically go your way I guess. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Zaph has no cited definitions or census or anthropological categories to back up anything he has to say and is simply stating his opinion. Timelist 10:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I showed 3 articles that did a fine job of citing them. You just keep pretending that never happened. Listen, you and I both know you're fighting a losing battle in the bigger picture. Yes, sure, Wikipedia policy holders and moderators will likely side with you. Public opinion however is not in your favor. Your counting on an antiquated racist definition of black people, which is slipping through your fingers. And that definition, which defies any sense and any objectivity today is not going to run this show. I don't care if you are a Dark Skinned Jewish Moroccan, A Black Canadian, a Native American or a Klingon. As you post and then go to bed, just keep this in mind as you sleep: Black people are becoming more and more aware of each other and more and more secure in recognizing each other. In due time the identity will be strengthened despite your objections and that will translate into a global phenomonon which will make hip-hop look like a children's party. This article here is the first step in restoring at least what was present, what was unconsciously present before colonizers with their arrogant attitudes decided to villify. My job is to remind people that black identity has nothing to do with any attempts by white racists or ignorant Americans to narrowly define it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually your definition of Black is racist because your lumping all dark skinned people together instead of recognizing the enormous differences between Africans and South Asians. That's what racism is. Treating everyone who looks a bit similar as if they were the same. Timelist 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Here we go, EO's same argument all over again. You know what? I am not going to waste my time reminding you that what you are saying is false. You go and do a keyword search further up or in one of the priorly archived parts of this discussion page. This false accusation of yours has already been dealt with. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask

I am getting dizzy from this article and the discussion. Is it true that:

  • black people refers to people that others call black or who call themselves black? (or used to?)
  • black people somehow someplace has an identification with skin color, either at present or their ancestors or in comparison to some other standard?
  • that there are going to be differences of opinion about what black people means?

I think that if we cannot acknowledge those three statements as correct, then we have a severe problem here--Filll 12:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with Zaph's intro. It's written as though we agree with his definition of Black people. While most people (including the census) define Blacks as dark skinned people of only African ancestry, Zaph defines Blacks as dark skinned people of African/South Asian/Pacific Islander ancestry, and imposes this definition as fact in the intro. Zaph feels that just because he can find an example of someone somewhere in the world calling a South Asian black, he has the right state categorically that South Asians are black in the intro, ignoring the dozens of definitions that beg to differ. Timelist 13:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If I am a user of the encyclopedia, I want to know BOTH. I want to know that there are people around the world that have been called black or who call themselves black, and that there are contradictory definitions of the term "black people". Is that not true? --Filll 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well there aren't really any contradictory definitions of black people. All the major dictionaires and censuses converge on the idea that Black refers primarily to African ancestry. There are pockets of people here and there who have been called black (swarthy irish called black irish, arabs called sand niggers, negrito means little black one, Clinton called first black president) despite not fitting the standard definition, but I don't think our intro should categorically state that these people are black. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article though. Timelist 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that. I want to know that not everyone agrees on the same definition. I want to know that there is controversy.--Filll 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there controversy? 99.9% of the world seems to agree that black is defined by only African ancestry. The only people who disagree are Afrocentric scholars who agree with Zaph that South Asians are Black, however they say they are black because they believe they are africoid, so even those who believe non-African ancestry people are black, do so because they believe they are african after all. So the real controversy is not about whether black means african ancestry, it's about whether south asians/autraloids have african ancestry Timelist 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That viewpoint can be explored in Afrocentrism, and a small mention of that can be added to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone has taken a vote or a census on who thinks who is black, there is absolutely no support for the contention that "99.9% of the world seems to agree that black is defined by only African ancestry." It's simply an unsupported statement.
What is supported, however, by multiple posts and multiple, easy-to-access links on this talk page (with numerous other examples if people would get off their a**es and Google the terms) is precisely the opposite. There are Asians and Veddoids/Australoids and Negritos and others around the world who either are considered black or who consider themselves black. And that's a fact. deeceevoice 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
All the cites you provided concerning negritoes etc are by Afrocentric bloggers (and pretty obscure ones to boot) who consider those people Black because they have some nutty idea that they are Africoid. So the cites you provide do not dispute the African ancestry definition of black, they simply dispute the definition of African ancestry. You need to create an article or section there of called People Afrocentricism labels Black. Timelist 16:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
WTF? Hardly. I suggest you actually click the links and read the information. Several of the citations are very mainstream. deeceevoice 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Then, this article should be renamed People that consider themselves black. It all boils down to the definition of "black people" as described by authoritative sources and published by a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I for one would have NO PROBLEM with a page called "people that consider themselves black" as part of a suite of interlocking black topic articles. WHy not? --Filll 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well one reason why not is that the people themselves generally don't consider themselves Black, it is Afrocentricism that's imposing the label on them. Witness the violent reaction of the Tamil editor upon hearing he was Black. Timelist 16:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hell, 60 years ago, you couldn't tell African-Americans we were "black" either; it was a fightin' word. Besides, no one has said that all Tamils consider themselves black. But they historically have been known as "blacks" (and by other, pejorative names usually assigned to black people), and many do -- as (again, for the umpty-upm time) is noted and cited here on this very page. deeceevoice 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And what of the people who themselves take a globalized view of blackness? Like many Tamils, who -- again self-identify as black? Like the Tamil human rights activists quoted here on the talk page? Like many Australian aboriginals? Like the state official from Papua New Guina (also noted on this page)? In many instances, the racist colonialist regimes have long gone. No one has imposed blackness upon these peoples. In fac, the label is an exercise in self-determination and empowerment. Those cited voluntarily have accepted or assumed that identity. deeceevoice 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you as an African-American are so desperate to make Tamils Black. I don't see Tamils trying to figure out ways to make African-Americans South Asian. I don't see orientals claiming white people are oriental. I only see some African-Americans doing this and I think it's because some African-Americans are desperate to latch on to an identity since their true ethnic herritage in Africa is lost to them. That in itself could be a fascinating topic for the article. If you consider yourself Black, and are proud to be Black it shouldn't matter to you what other people consider themselves. If however you are insecure about who you are and are experiencing an identity crisis, then I can understand why you wish to associate with ethnicities other than your own or resent the fact that only your people are considered Black. And you keep repeating the fact that Tamils were called Black. So what about the Irish being called "Black Irish"? What about Arabs being called "sand niggers", what about Bill Clinton being called the first black president by the most prestigous black author? Everytime these examples are brought up to you, you accuse people of trolling or being absurd, but that's not an argument. If you think anyone who has ever been identified as Black belongs in this article then that means everyone, not just the people who you arbitrarily decide are dark enough. If on the other hand you wish to include only those who are considered Africoid by Afrocentricism, then let's be up front to the reader that these are Afrocentric views. Timelist 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"No one has imposed blackness upon these peoples. In fac, the label is an exercise in self-determination and empowerment." I would remind editors that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any kind. For the nth time, I also remind editors to discuss the article and not the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I ask that people stop casually slapping the label "afrocentric" around. Both the assertion that all black people are Africans, and that some non-Africans are black could be labelled as afrocentric depending on what POV one is trying to push – especially since some people are carelessly using "African" and "black" interchangeably in their arguments. --Ezeu 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really Ezeu. Afrocentricism is the perspective that the world in general revolves around Africans, and so the populations of Oceania and South Asia are actually Africoid. Afrocentricism has nothing to do with saying you have to be African to be Black (though they believe that too). Those who equate African ancestry wih black are not promoting an Afrocentric view, they are simply going by standard definitions that are also extremely common in Eurocentric thinkers and the public at large. Afrocentricism seeks to broaden the range of people considered black, but it does so not by broadening the definition of black, but rather by broadening the definition of African. Timelist 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Afrocentrists argue that these black populations are genetically closely related to Africans due to their skin color, while most people recognize that the only connection (aside from the original migration from Africa) with these people is their skin color, which also breeds some cultural connections in expatriate communities (e.g. in the U.S.). To them African = black = African, so any black population (like Australoids) are also genetically African, just living outside of Africa. This page should neither promote Afrocentrism (by claiming these people are genetically closer to Africans) nor promote Eurocentrism (by claiming that because these people aren't genetically closer to Africa than nearby populations they do not or cannot be identified as black). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. They are broadening the definition of African to include anyone with dark skin so that they can justify calling all dark skinned people black. To most people, the African race is defined by recent ancestors that lived in Africa. To Afrocentricists, the African race is defined more broadly to include even people who left Africa at the same time as the first modern humans did, but never lost their African phenotype, so we're saying the same thing. This rationale should be reflected in the article in a neutral way.Timelist 02:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The argument is that some black people are not Africans, not that all black people are Africans. --Ezeu 02:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That is the bottom line. And for someone to dispute this. The burden of proof is so heavy on their side. It's funny, if you let the Timelist/EO position have their way, then in the end, black people are simply those from "sub" Saharan Africa and the only ones outside of Africa are those descendants of slaves. Nice anti-black bias there. But then they get to skip and frolic into the meadows pretending they are telling the truth. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Why was this deleted? Considering the volume of debate i think this is central to the topic! or is there only one voice? You guys are making a mess of this article, every 5 minutes it turns into something else, one persons voice and bullying tactics win.--Halaqah 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Many people feel that being Black is too complex an issue to be adequately captured by any of the standard definitons. Lewis R. Gordan (IDirector of nstitute for the Study of Race and Social Thought at Temple University) says "Not all people who are designated African in the contemporary world are also considered black anywhere. And similarly, not all people who are considered in most places to be black are considered African anywhere. There are non-black Africans who are descended from more than a millennia of people living on the African continent, and there are indigenous Pacific peoples and peoples of India whose consciousness and life are marked by a black identity". [8] Psychiatrist Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye says "being dark skinned is a widespread phenomenon which does not define any specific group of human beings. The tendency to reserve the designation black to sub-Saharan Africans and people of their extraction is manifestly misinformed". [9] Cultural writer and filmmaker Owen 'Alik Shahadah adds "the notion of some invisible border, which divides the North of African from the South, is rooted in racism, this barrier of sand hence confines/confined Africans to the bottom of this make-believe location, which exist neither politically or physically". [10]" Activist Nirmala Rajasingam also considers most standard definitions of Black too narrow: "It was a failure because it divided the Black community into its constituent parts.. into Jamaican or Punjabi or Sri Lankan Tamil and so on, rather than build up Black unity.. But you know, there are young Asians who would like to call themselves Black, but the African youth will say 'You are not Black, you are Asian. We are Black'. Similarly, there are young Asians who will say 'We are not Black, we are Asian.'. So it has all become diluted and depoliticized.[11]

Zaph deleted the entire definition section (including the criticism section you pasted) because apparently he just wanted to impose his own uncited definition without any criticism. Timelist 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That section was an excellently sourced piece describing the competing viewpoints about this issue. I would think that, rather than having that section under "Criticism", it should be placed under "Compeing viewpoints". Actually, this whole article needs to be structured in that manner: Describing the very different viewpoints on the subject, include these held by Afrocentrists, anthropologists, sociologists, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes "alternative viewpoints" would have been a better heading than criticism since the views were alternative to most of the standard definitions being presented. I created a separate article called definitions of black people to preserve the cited parts of this article just in case this article gets deleted. Timelist 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That is a much better way to present this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. I think things are more manageable if everything has its own seperate article. For example issues concerning who black people are perhaps best handled in the definitions article. Issues about admixture are best handles in articles of multiracial people. Issues about Tamils and Australoids probably belong in their respective article. I'm not sure if a general article called black people is even needed. Timelist 20:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's move any useful and well sourced materialto the most appropriate articles, and then we can redirect this article to [definitions of black people]]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Good on you Timelist. The article Definitions of black people is well balanced. It captures the differing viewpoints in a NPOV manner. --Ezeu 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As it looks like this will not be resolved anytime soon, I've created a disambiguation page that can be expanded at Black people (disambiguation), and that could replace this page. --Ezeu 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that the Definitions of black people article is NPOV and well balanced. The challenge will be keeping it that way. Under no circumstances should we allow editors to make authoritative statements like "the term black people refers to" or "black people have historically lived in" because such statements assume the term is clearly defined when in reality it's a culture dependent, arbitrary, and very rough and ready constantly changing category, and that's what makes so interesting. The article can and does quote an enormous range of people stating their opinion of who is black, but unlike this article, the definitions article makes clear that those are just the opinions of whoever is being quoted and does not endorse any particular view as correct or dominant. Timelist 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we should certainly remove those same things from the Arab, Kurd, Jewish, White, Hispanic, Chinese and all other people based articles! And that in the context that the name of the article is "Definitions!". How do you guys handle the clearly defined (depite the arbitrarinesss) statements in the "Who is a Jew" article? Heck, let me ask those editors! I'll use their explanations here and when you refute them, I will post your refutations in their article, and have the two of you debate until some kind of "agreement" is reached. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE PUT BACK THE CRITISM SECTION

why you delete the thing? You can move like that!!!!! i remember complaining about the pan-American slant of this article and someone came back to me and said these two guys (cant remember their names) went and looked at the whole against issue and put it up there. I SHUT MY MOUTH. Someone had brought balance to the Force. They did the research and came back. Now I return the beauty of the whole introduction has been messed up, have the def but you must have the critic of the term. I dont agree with black but i had to agree that the introduction was the most balanced view of the word. Now it is gone!!! Is it fair, for people to build something and then someone blindly cuts the work and bins it. You cant have such a controversial topic and not add the "critic" of it. Madness. Some of us are victims of ourselves and we dont see we blind our own objectives in our single-minded. I was once a victim of this so i speak from experience---Halaqah 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's all been preserved at the Definitions of black people article and hopefully this article will be deleted soon. Timelist 23:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So why do you want it to be deleted, is there a link from this article to that one?---Halaqah 01:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


I dont even like the title. "Definitions" of black people. Unlike "Who is a Jew" which implies the article and the attitude is more mutually respectful of the various Jewish perspectives. "Definitions" of black people take, yet again, the paternalistic condescending attitude towards blacks. I wonder, what could be said if the article was changed to Definition of a Jew. Look! Doesn't that sound offensive? We don't even have to wonder, you see how different the phrase "Definition of a Jew" is from "Who is a Jew". So whoever changed the "Who is a black person" to "Definition of a black person" is assuming that:
  • Jews are asked (respect the jewish people's own POINT OF VIEW)
  • Black people are not asked but are to be defined (by whom pray tell?)

Once again, thank you and have a nice day --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


And I want you to understand something. I can see that how you use the language has an impact. I also can see that you are aware of that. Timelist, you, hoping the article will be deleted soon, were you the one that changed the article's title? Why? Why did you (or whomever) change "Who is" to "Definitions". What goes through your mind that you feel that defining whether than questioning is the more appropriate measure? Why as you can plainly see me taking the same mutually respectful approach with other groups (like Jews), which certainly would not approve of "Definition of a Jew" (and for good reason) being the title... why then would you (whoever it was) ignorantly change the title? You define animals, you define objects. You do not take that approach to resolving complicated issues with groups of people. You do not "define" Black people in this context. So, considering that was changed, I am more convinced than ever that a psychological attitude is behind this whole anti-black routine in here. You guys keep playing into my hands and you don't even realize it. So open your mouths and give your excuses. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Then, this article should be renamed People that consider themselves black. It all boils down to the definition of "black people" as described by authoritative sources and published by a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WHen will Black people be respected that white "authorities" will ask instead of tell and define them. Can black "authorities" define Jews or Whites? Or is it the whites and jews themselves that play the deciding and authoratitive role in answering the questions at hand? Come on guys. Give me your excuses! Feed your ignorance and prejudice. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"OH wow Zaph, now we see what you are saying. Now we understand why you're so hostile. All this time, we've been taking the attitude that the entire conversation is only legitimate from the perspective of white people and other non-black people. We never realized that this issue can only be clarified from the people in question. LOL, you're right, how stupid would it be for us to expect black (or any non-white) people to define white people. You're very confrontational Zaph but we understand why. I guess we should take a different approach and perhaps much more clarity and NPOV will occur." Wouldn't it be nice if someone else said this instead of --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sections for non-mainstream views

Maybe this could all be taken care of if we had sections for historical, regional, or afrocentrist views of who are Black. The article could then have the view that most all the world accepts (recent sub-Saharan Africans and descendants), but still include information of interest about other uses of black to describe people, such as Aborigines and dark South Asians and a list of all the people the British called Black a hundred years ago. The historical notations are important and relevant, but we shouldn't make this article a platform for "empowerment" by latter-day Black Supremacists seeking to claim Tamils or fringe views that include every non-white, non-chinese as Black. Proper placement will take care of this. It will also create a logical place for the "Black Irish" and pirates described as "black".

I hope we can end the poor use of citations and photos as well. There are people in India that fit the current, commonly accepted view of Black, but the Tamil children in the photo don't. Afrocentrist material does not usually meet wikipedia "reliable sources" as it is commonly self-published blogs and low quality websites.

Opinions?

CarlosRodriguez 20:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


I think dividing the article up into multiple interlocking overlapping articles is a good idea. There is just too much information and too many different ways to look at blackness to capture it all in one article. Plus if we have several articles, we will have more of a footprint and more potential impact. And any particular article will not be so long that we bore or overwhelm the readers. We will establish a presence and be a force to be reckoned with. Plus the reader that wants to learn about blackness will have a fantastic resource to use. And isnt that what an encyclopedia is all about? I want ALL the information in there, including the stuff that is contradictory or silly or biased or whatever. I want it ALL.--Filll 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that whole Ethiopians are kinda white people needs to go, Just because Oxford did it. Man those people probably do a study to see if Africans are monkeys and if HIV came from Africans marrying apes. But on a serious note, reading the entire article and coming to that gives unwarranted creditability to the work, it is an exotic study. Imagine putting all of their mad research into African people? I have been battling to keep the term Anti-African in wikipedia. A term used by many African scholars, I just find the experience strange that our reality is painted as a childish dream yet anything they do is instantly valid----Halaqah 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says it's instantly valid? It's simply a team of Oxford scientists giving their opinions. There are all kinds of opinions in the Definitions of black people article that I disagree with but I want them in because the disagreements are what makes the article interesting. As Fill keeps saying, we should show all sides, all perspectives, and if there's room in the article for Afrocentric thinkers with no academic standing then there's certainly room for a source as credible as Oxford. Ethiopians are black by virtually every definition in the Definitions of black people article so if you want to argue they are black you have plenty of ammunition. But for those who want to argue that they are not black (and I don't know why anyone would want to make such an argument) there's the oxford study they can cite. People come to encyclopedia's looking for useful cited information that they can use to make whatever point they are trying to make so I think all cited referenced opinions about who is or isn't black make the article more useful and interesting and the more variety we provide the better. No one wants an encyclopedia that only shows the politically correct side of the story. We want to hear all views. Timelist 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct but then put some other stuff, because it is isolate i just feel it gives it validity. Like if it is a popular opinion---Halaqah 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


The problem is some people consider their views as "mainstream" when they are not. It makes no sense to consider it mainstream that people historically called "black people" are "not" Black people. "Negrito" means black person. You guys have been unwilling to acknowledge that and instead insist that "well it says black but it means something else". That in addition to the fact that this entire "maintream" assumption is really based on ignorance (literally a lack of knowledge) about what has been happening in other parts of the world. It's like saying "there were no black people in Asia, because we didn't know they had existed." That's just not right. Now, I haven't read all of the comments over the past few days because I just don't feel like spending hours responding to each comment (which is redundant at this point). YOu guys know my position very clearly. I also did a resounding job of refuting the positions last time I was here. One guy using a 200 year old racist biased person as a credible reference. Carolus. I even referred to the race article, which someone said "don't trust", even though the references therein were citations from other materials. So I really think you guys are trying to just bulldoze your Eurocentric position into the article and will just turn your head to the side and pretend you don't see the evidence against you. You keep repeating some of the same things that have already been refuted, or you just try to further and further nit pick the detail, losing the context along the way. It's silly to say "negritos aren't black". Or to compare the visually distinct Irish from the visually identical Aeta, and then try to rationalize the comparison. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be mainstream to acknowledge that these people are black, or have been known as black historically, and then to explain in another section or article why some people (esp. in the west) do not feel they should be included. THAT (like the Who is a Jew article) is a responsible way to handle this endlessly contentious issue. And one last thing. I am really getting tired of some people playing this game: I mention that some people in India are black, then someone (trying to be slick) responds that they are offended because it's obvious that Indians (as a group) are not black. Then they try to have an idiotic debate as to whether the Indians are black or not. What is the term for this kind of underhanded tactic of debating? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys have a great day with your 21st century version of the Berlin Conference. You all talk amongst yourselves about what you think should and shouldn't be black. While your at it, why not redraw the maps and relocate people that you feel should or should not be in certain areas. of course, the white people will not be affected because no one has the right to tell white people who should and should not be white... unless those doing the directing are of course white themselves. And feel free to call my bluff regarding how this whole process has illuminated itself and attracted more attention than it otherwise it had. This whole "who is black" and "who gets to deterime who is or is not black" will become a hot topic sooner or later. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, seriously, that you write a blog and develop your viewpoint there rather than in this page. It will be much more satisfactory than edit warring, and filling these pages that will anyway be archived and lost in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, it is not too much to ask, nor is it biased to include the various asian and pacific peoples I have mentioned. It is also reasonable and important to have a clear definition in the first paragraph. Now, this whole thing is about attitudes, not about objectivity. Why oh why did someone change the companion article to "Definitions of Black People"? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Editorial conduct

I applaud the editors trying to make progress here. Timelist, Fill, Jossi, good work.

Zaph, you might take some time to consider you actions here. You are making a fool of yourself and are not convincing anyone of your points. Here's a few things you can do.

  • Read up on the subject. Stay away from Afrocentrist blogs, they will only confuse you. For the most part, Afrocentrism is ridiculed by educated sociologists, anthropologists, biologists, and just about everyone else. It is a mythology, nothing more.
  • Meet people from all over the world probably live in your neighborhood. Talk to these people about who is Black to them. Ask your Tamil neighbor if he things he is Black.
  • Travel. You might go visit Latin America, New Guinea, England, or the state of Tamil. Your anecdotes would still be worthless as far as the article is concerned, but you might learn a little about mainstream views of "Black"ness.

CarlosRodriguez 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Carlos, you assume too much. "Stay away from the Afrocentricists blogs". How about you stay away from the "Eurocentricists blogs"? I am not in agreement with Afrocentricist opinions which among other things support your notions of a "pure black breed", and on the other hand support "diffusionism". My position comes from dialogue made with people all over the world. The point is, you've already made your conclusions based on YOUR limited ignorant point of view. "You might want to". How about YOU Carlos, YOU might want to start doing some research yourself. Because you're living in an American fantasy world. I showed you a book published by a leading Indian Intellectual VT Rajshekhar titled "The Black Dalits of India" and you guys once again ignorantly ignore it! You guys are not aware of where this discussion lies. You have your comfortable position, and you think I'm on the outside making a fool of my self. Like I said, keep on talking. Blackness is not limited to mutual ethnic identity anymore than Jewishness is. Blackness is a social identity more than anything and you all know it. But you want to hold on to something comfortable. I have friends in Latin America who would remind you that the slave ships didn't skip those areas. Go ahead and feel like you have some consensus, and ignore the conversations of other contributors made supporting the viewpoint I have throughout this. I'm sure Carlos Rodriguez, if you are from Latin America, you have the experience of disdainfully looking down on black people in your culture or worse yet, pretending they never existed. What country Carlos? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any comments from Jossi acknowledging your pat on the back, Carl, dear. Perhaps because he (she?) recognizes your own obtuseness in ignoring facts laid out for you in multiple mainstream publications that clearly refute your unfounded/uninformed opinions, which you continute to advance without any evidence whatsoever. From what I've read, you've contributed absolutely nothing useful to the discussion -- just condscension. About the only thing you got right was some niggling, little correction of a spelling/grammar problem. Nice going. deeceevoice 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

I am requesting unprotection so that we can redirect this article to the disambiguation page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your kidding! Make "Black People" a "disambiguation" page? While the white people page remains! Unbelievable! I disagree 100%. How this information is presented is equally as important as what is presented. Black people as a disambiguation page, that's garbage! The only people group on this wikipedia that is not given the respect of just having a page! This is funny, in "consensus" white administrators do crap like this then they wonder why black people are viewed "seperately". No, do not unprotect. Do not make a disambiguations page. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you not an administrator? You're capable of doing that yourself. Either way, there's nowhere near a consensus for a disambiguation page. Ezeu's support of Definitions of Black people and your (and Timelist's) support for the disambiguation page is not a consensus. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't leave me out. This article is uncited and very POV and needs to be deleted immediately and replaced with a disambiguation page. I support Jossi, Ezeu, Timelist, and Carlos on this. __Whatdoyou 14:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You can add my name to the list. Let's do it as soon as possible. Kobrakid 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He cannot do it without acknowledgement in Request for Protection. I put up a protest against unlocking in the same section for the Black People page. This page is not ready for editing. If you all have to find every opportunity to marginalize black people with the clever use of language like making "Definitions of a Black Person" instead of "What is a black person",, then no, this page is not ready for unprotection. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is really funny is that some of you believe that there are no native black people in Asia. I mean there is no scientific explanation or historical prescedent that can justify that, but you all continue to assume. I show you examples, and you just re-explain them away. No, this article will become and endless battleground of contention because you have a predisposed agenda. YOu asked for reputable sources, I showed you 3 jossi, you then ignore the content within them to the point where you denied the content was even there. You response to the Taipei Times article is that "They never called them black"... but the article clearly calls them "black men!". Your integrity and neutrality is lost on this issue Jossi! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on Yom and Zaph's comments. deeceevoice 14:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You cant have a topic called "black people" and the have a page off some where in the blue called definitions of black people. Where is the link, where is the sub-topic giving an over view on this page? the biggest problem i have and everyone seems to have is "what is black people" so i think that must also be the focus of this section. It must be written from and idiots guide to black people, so ones can appreciate the issues relating the subject. I dont like to see one person dictating this topic, its not right. If Jossi or whoever brings proof for their claims then it MUST BE ADMITTED. Black is not exclusive to African people. Many Africans do not call themselves Black--reflect reality. Please pick up a newspaper in Hausa land and see where you find the term, Go to Addis and find the term, the global black identity is strongly associated with racial oppression-we need to reflect this---Halaqah 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, your ok with the notion that some people in Africa are not black, but you totally reject the notion that some people in Asia are black, what is the source of this bias? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I am an admin, but I am now inlvolved in the dispute, enough not to feel comfortable using my admin privileges. Note that protection is only a temporary mesaure and sooner or later it will be lifted. I would suggest that involved editors request mediation, as I see that Zaph and a few others will not relent and apply common sense. As soon as the protection is lifted, all what would happen is an edit war, a lot of aggravation, stress and a royal waste of time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Memory lapses

According to one of the articles (The Taipei Times) the "Formosan Negritos, survivors of an old race now almost entirely extinct". It does not say anything about these being "black people". What we need is a reliable source that describes what is considered to be "black people". If there are no such sources, then this article needs to go to AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I think three hours for you to correct your statement here is enough. YOu took 6 minutes to read the article before you made this statement. Yet if you took 7 minutes you would have read Which is in the NEXT paragraph of the same article (taipei times):

In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places. It is obvious that you are not being honest or you are very sloppy --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They call them Black MEN. Where on earth have you ever heard a "black-irish" male called a "black man"? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Why Black Irish are not Black

Here is why Black irish cannot be held to the same standard as the Negrito people of Asia. The Black in Black-Irish is only part of the compound word. I think its obvious. No one ever calls a grapefruit a "kind of grape", and no one ever calls a black-irish person a "kind of black person".

  • Never, and I mean NEVER in ANY reputable reference have I ever come across any mention of these black-irish being known as black people. Never do you read the writer saying "this black man" or "those black children" when referring to black irish. The term does not employ it's base meaning. I use the Grape-fruit example. Although grapes and grapefruits are both "kinds of fruit". Grapefruit are more closely related to the citrus family. Grapefruits also look nothing LIKE Grapes, taste nothing like grapes! The look and taste more like other fruits in the CITRUS family. Black Irish look more like people of the Indo-European family.
  • Black-Irish simply do not resemble black people like Africans nor like Negritos. Negritos resemble Africans in appearance. In many ways they are indistinguishable from some African groups.
  • Aeta are described as "black people" by Tagalog, Spanish, and American references. It would be like the Black-Irish actually being called "Black" (without the Irish). Someone said, "have you been to Europe, if you have, you'd know that people call them blacks." That is such nonsense, and is not part of any educational nor cultural experience anyway!

So because people continue to debate the obvious here it is very clearly.

Aeta = called "black people" Black-Irish = not called "black people" Negritos = part of a historical heritage linking various people of Asia Black-Irish = a social group characterized by slight variation in hair color to the larger population. Negritos = a long distinct history largely unrelated to the various non-negrito groups around them, hence their distinctive presence. Black-irish = a small customary group arising from social prejudices and assumptions, they never had been seperate or historically seperate from other Irish.

Do not waste my TIME with this Black-Irish nonsense. You have the distinctions here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Black Irish merit no more than a mention in a "Compare" (much like a "See also" section) at the end of the article. deeceevoice 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Black Irish deserve MORE mention than negritoes (little black people? Is that a joke? Talk about condescending). You guys can't have it both ways. Either we go by the standard definition of Black as only sub-Saharan or we entertain all views and the historical record. Africans were called "smoked irish" but you don't know that. The Irish were called "niggers turned inside out" but you don't know that. The Black irish were called "White negroes" but you don't know that. The Black irish experienced extreme discrimination and were forced into dangerous and low paying jobs but you don't know that. Please educate yourself before making ignorant comments about Black Irish people meriting no mention.[[6]] If South Asians and Australoids can be Black, than why not Europeans? Is it because they don't look African? You guys are contradicting yourself all over the place. First you reject the idea that Blackness has anything to do with being African and redefine it to include everyone who has been historically described as Black. Then when others try to educate you about the Irish being historically called Black you say "Oh they don't look African". LOL! You don't even know how much credibility you've lost.__Whatdoyou 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please. Don't tell us ("you guys") what we don't know. You ASSume too much. John Lennon's "Woman is the Nigger of the World" didn't make all women black. Discrimination doesn't automatically make someone black. And the so-called "Black Irish" were never called that because they were considered black people. Never. deeceevoice 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I second that. This is the offensive nature of the process that it seems only black people are able to articulate. You continue to handle the conversation as if the black contributors are kids that you need to chastize or wag your finger at. The silly "black-irish" attitude is obvious and a poor comparision, yet you continue as if we "guys" are too slow to get that. The "character" of this discourse is not geared towards your approval (the article is locked in part due to my own desire, not because the noble white contributors felt the need to lock it). Not once have you asked or investigated the intellectual honesty of our side. You have yet to find (in honesty) any black intellectual standard that supports our opinion, even though that should have been your first step and the easiest step. Your goal is to unilaterally remove any legitimate references to black people outside of Africa (except caused by slavery). Why? Well again, this goes to psychology, racism, a belief in the intellectual inferiority of blacks (which obviously is related to the whole skull shape debate). And that is silliness, that is POV pushing, that is dishonesty, that is violating Wikipedia. Now for me and deeceevoice, who have vehemently castrated each other online from arguing each other to come to the same conclusions, you would think, "oh wait, maybe they are trying to tell us something and we aren't listening because WE have an agenda". --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
They were never considered part of the African diasporas, but they were considered black by people like you who believe that you don't have to be African to be black. Kobrakid 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That's right. "Negrito" means little black person (little in stature, not in respect). You DONT have to be African to be black. Who made YOU Kobrakid the "Decider" that all Black people MUST be Africans? Is this article called "Kobrakid's Black People"? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll overlook the ridiculous "people like you" and say, "Prove it!" You can't. deeceevoice 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You prove that South Asians were considered black? People have already cited the fact that many Irish were called not only Black but "negro" and "nigger". How do you prove that someone was considered black other than to cite examples of them being called black. There's even a major movie called "black Irish". No movies called "black South Asians". There's a major book called "how the Irish became white". I have Irish friends who to this day don't consider themselves white and are very offended by the term nigger because of how that word was used to oppress thier people. Kobrakid 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Useless debates

These "debates" are useless. Wikipedia does not concern itself with such debates. Ou role as editors is to describe what reliable sources say about this subject and not to engage in endless debates about what editors think about this subject. Thes debates are better off for USENET, an online discussion group or forum. Please respect talk-page discipline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I put THREE good references in this talk page as you requested. You ignored their significance and falsely concluded that there was no mention of black people in those references. WHY? What difference does it make if you simply pretend that the rules aren't being upheld? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, my request for arbitration has been erased from existence on Wikipedia. The references to it are not to be found. When are you guys going to own up? How much does this racial debate matter to you guys that the entire Wikiprocess has to be undermined to such a degree? I can't even find the Request for Arbitration in the ARCHIVES! There is no other issue on the planet that creates such fear and delusion in white people that they have to through such extremes. The issue is not THAT deep! Handle it responsibly! Heck, I'm open to the fact that maybe my request is there and I just can't find it. Can you? But it doesn't matter, I've called enough attention that it doesn't matter. That's why I'm not even participating that much. I've planned this out over the next year or so, you guys continue doing things that create more controversy regarding racism and the whole Wikiprocess. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

boldness

the first line: Black people should be bold. --Ysangkok 12:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Disengage

I am an experienced editor and admin of Wikipedia with more than 21,000 edits in two years, and in my experience, the type of behavior and contentious editing such as the one exhibited by some editors, never produces any satisfactory results. All that it produces is a waste of time, aggravation and stress for involved editors. It is only by using common sense and good judgement, and applying Wikipedia content policies within a framework of assuming good faith and civility that anything useful would be ever accomplished.

Most concerning is the attempt to use articles and this talk page to advocate a viewpoint. It is that perspective and that intention that creates most problems in this project: the inability of some contributors to edit an article dispassionately and without a motivation of "I am right and these other people are all a bunch of XXX" (replace XXX with your favorite peyorative).

I am disengaging from this article and wish you best of luck. My view is that the best approach is to move pertinent material to existing articles, and use the disambiguation page to point readers to the different articles about the subject, leaving this article as is for now. Once the farming out of material has been accomplished, you can then evaluate what to do with this page. If no consensus is reached, you can place a WP:RFC.

This page is now deleted from my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider. We need calm and neutral voices like yours here now more than ever. But I know it gets discouraging when editors like Zaph act like they're on a mission from God to tell the world who truly is Black (he even quotes from the Bible LOL!). I think some need to get rid of this dumb idea that some people are "truly black". Unless your skin is literally the color of charcoal, then none of us are truly black. We may however have been defined as black by different people at different times. Even most Africans do not have Black skin. They were called Black out of a racist attempt to associate them with what they viewed as the most evil and hated of all colors, and African-Americans reclaimed the term in the 1970s because they didn't like the term "negro".__Whatdoyou 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The bible quote is not to prove that my POV is divine. If you view the Bible as merely the writings of men, then you will still be left with an objective conclusion that black people were in the Bible. The problem you are having is that you are only comfortable with the darkest skinned Africans retaining this identity (even though you personally feel that it's dumb to label people "truely" black). You yourself base your arguments against me on a belief in "truely" and "not really" black people. Since most Africans do not have black skin, and since some Asians surely have the kind of black skin that some (not most) africans have, why then choose only the african with the dark skin, and not the asian? See? You are back to defining what you think "should" or "should not" be black. We black people are perfectly accepting of our identity as black and we need not your justification nor permission to acknowledge or accept it. For whatever the historical context in Europe, we black people know that the black identity predated European colonial mentalities (as the example in the Bible indicates). For you to ignore that is illogical and POV pushing yourself. It's like you only accept the "english" word black as 'really' black in any historical context, as if before english, the concept of blackness didn't really exist. This is a major reason this article will remain in locked status, perhaps for eternity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have become fatigued by the efforts of a few to try to put forward some sort of personal political agenda. I do not mind that, except that different people have different agendas. I would love to see them ALL documented with references. I think that it is best for reasons of space to farm them out to different pages. But people do not seem to be interested in allowing others to have their say. I think we should all "live and let live". To be honest, it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. All that matters is that the readers can learn about the issues and the controversy.--Filll 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay so what we do is present a balanced article full of facts and let them decide---Halaqah 22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We direct this article to Definitions of black people. That's a balanced article full of facts if ever there was one and could become a feature article. Black people should be very proud because this is the most balanced, neutral, and thoroughly cited ethnic group article in all of wikipedia. It's outstanding. Kobrakid 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That article lost it's balance and integrity when the title was changed. It was changed without reason (which further diminishes it's integrity), and throughout the past couple of weeks, no answer has been given as to why the title was changed (which further and further destroys it's objectivity). It's outstanding to you because your goal is to compartmentalize and define black people. I read it, and again, it has a POV that is very one sided. Each example ends in the same way "even though the census says this, the Afrocentrists say that." that's not objectivity, that's manipulation. Just FYI, whoever the writer(s) is/are that are using this manipulative use of the English language, isn't it beyond obvious by now that I can see right through it? I mean, are you just practicing for some debate class or some political pundit on the news? You will not get away with clever use of innocuous and sublime wording in this subject matter! It's time to be honest and mutually respect each other. Until then, this article, the discussion page will continue to meet the frustrations you have felt. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem here?

I don't understand why Zaph and Deeceevoice can't respect perspectives other than their own. There are hundreds of millions of people of sub-Saharan descent who use the word "Black" to describe their unique ethnicity and ancestry and do not consider South Asians and Pacific Islanders to be black so for Zaph to state in the intro as a matter of fact that they are is very disrespectful and creates confusion for all the organizations that use the black label to describe sub-Saharan ancestry only. There's also millions of South Asians that would prefer to be identified by their own unique identity and don't appreciate Zaph simply lumping them into this huge amorphous black identity. There are others of sub-Sahran ancestry who try to deflect focus from their sub-Saharan ancestry by using the term black to describe all dark skinned groups instead of sub-Saharans only. So it's very POV to have an article called black people that writes about the subject as if we all agree with the last definition. Much better to have an article called Definitions of black people that reflects the true complexity of this issue. Zaph and Deeceevoice, can you respect that the whole world doesn't have to think like you? Kobrakid 23:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CORRECT more views should be expressed, I agree with the above and i think we need to take whatever steps to make the above statement so. Because i think the ethos of this site is about balance. And yes Definitions of black people is balanced and should be (at least in summary) in this section, as i said before, most of the debate is about "blackness" so the defn is actually the biggest aspect of "blackness" how can you then put it on a seperate page?? makes no sense---Halaqah 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually it makes sense to get rid of this article and have the Definitions of black people article instead because the definitions article covers all the main points in a cited neutral way. This article is just a long speculative essay with very little encyclopedic content not already covered in the definitions article, so this article needs to be deleted ASAP.__Whatdoyou 16:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes Kobrakid, we should try to keep this article reasonable and use the standard, mainstream definitions for the topic, not some Afrocentrist mythology or personal essay. Zaph and Deeceevoice, will you agree to this Kobra's proposal? CarlosRodriguez 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think They have Afrocentrist mythology, because they would argue these "standard def" are mythologies in themselves. I think plurality needs to be respected, So agree or disagree plurality is better, let the reader decide---Halaqah 02:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what makes the Definitions of black people article so much better. It implies that there are many different views on what it means to be black and cites all the different views without pushing this childish idea that some opinions are right and others are wrong.__Whatdoyou 16:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about Definitions of black people. I don't see it surviving a VfD once this article is done. deeceevoice 03:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What don't you like about it? The fact that it's well sourced, cited, and NPOV, instead of platform to push personal opinions as if they were facts? The only difference between this article and Definitions of black people is that the latter actually follows wikipedia policy.__Whatdoyou 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Whatever is decided, I think it should show the full range of different opinions that exist about what a "black person" is. It is clear that there is no agreement on this. So an encyclopedia article or articles should show the full range of opinions that exist.--Filll 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There is actually widespread agreement, Fill. The agenda-driven shouting of fringe Afrocentrists makes their view seem more prevalent than it is in reality. Hence the small number of obscure citations used to claim Tamils are Black and Tamils coming here angry about being claimed. You'll see the same editors trying to claim Egyptians are Black. One editor here claimed we are all either Black, White, or Chinese, ignoring entire continents. What are Mexicans in this scheme?
The frigne views may be notable, but they belong in a breif section labeled "Fringe views" or in another article. This is similar to the "flat earth" situation. Some people do think the Earth is flat, but we don't give their voices equal weight. CarlosRodriguez 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What widespread agreement? Have you read the archives? --Ezeu 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. For example: outside of a few politically motivated fanatics very few people, in this century anyway, calls Tamils "Black". CarlosRodriguez 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Very few people in this century in America know what a TAMIL is! Ignorance is not bliss. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Well as someone who is interested in reading an encyclopedia article, or series of articles, I would want to see all views, including minority views, including fruitcake views, including extremist views. I want to see ALL views as long as they have references. How on earth can I learn about the subject if I do not get some impression of all the views? Even if the view is only held by 0.01% of the people, I still want to know about it. And the encyclopedia is the place to learn. So do not block anyone else's opinion, even if you think they are a kook, a crank, a nitwit, a fruitcake, sadly ill-informed, etc. I want to see it ALL. And we should help EVERYONE get their 2 cents in, even if they are a wild-eyed crazy extremist.--Filll 21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Fill, we're going at angles to each other. I am not opposed to cited content (though most of this is uncited). What I am proposing is to put it in a breif section that states clearly that only a fringe, minority subscribes to it, and that it is not based on any sort of understandable definition (not science, not phenotype, not historical usage, etc). Fringe views should not be stated as if they are held by the mainstream. CarlosRodriguez 22:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Well I do not know if it is the mainstream or not. All I know is I want ALL views down, and all documented with copious references. And if you have references that demonstrate it is not maintream, then include those in any counter discussion of any stated views. Period. EVERYTHING and I mean everything should be backed up with high quality references.--Filll 01:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

what is the idea behind having def of black people with no link in this article?---Halaqah 05:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


I am sure there will be links once the article can be edited again. But that is not possible until people start behaving in a more responsible manner--Filll 06:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Make a list of the problem people and then get an agreement. We have to realize that at some point the article actually needs to be completed. It cant change every week! something strange that this article is about black people and it is a mess, lets get something we all can be proud of --Halaqah 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the 2 or 3 or more groups that have such strong views here each develop a page. Then we figure out how to link or merge the se pages. --Filll 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ [[7]]
  2. ^ [[ http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html]]
  3. ^ [[ http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:lDEuCwny0QIJ:www.codesria.org/Links/Publications/bulletin1_04/keita.pdf+%2BBlack%2Bwebster%2BNegro%2Bequivalent+sets&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1]]
  4. ^ [[ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Australoid]]
  5. ^ [[ http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2007]]
  6. ^ [[ http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320&custom=]]
  7. ^ [[ http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320&custom=]]
  8. ^ African-American Philosophy, Race, and the Geography of Reason
  9. ^ [Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7059/760 Who is "black" in medical research?], British Medical Journal, 1996;313:760
  10. ^ [[8]]
  11. ^ [9] Lines. August 2002. Retrieved on 2006-10-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_people/Archive_6&oldid=1136568005"