User talk:Middayexpress/WP:RACE

Notes

I dont think we will get around stuff like "African" in all events. The word African is used up and down the globe. But as the page suggest when dealing with specifics it is far better to be specific. Malcolm X was an African American advocate (as opposed to Malcolm was a black man). Black tells us very little and only takes us into a even more confusing understanding of his identity.

Jewish is a very specific category almost as specific as Muslim. I do not think Semitic is an improvement, just very confusing per popular usage. You will find plenty RS to Jewish Musicians but I would personally object to Benny Godman being called a Semitic musician since in any technical sense he does not speak a Semitic language, unlike Gilad Atzmon.

I feel the good will towards removing "racist" edits etc will be hard to prove. And deeply subjective. I am sure NPOV already covers that. Having worked on Racism what is and what is not racism is already a problem. --Inayity (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the goal of this to eventually eliminate, per policy, things like "List of black billionaries" and "List of black actors who have won award X" (where black is determined mostly by the color of their skin?). I agree, but the problem is, we have some RS which don't agree - and which group people based on (presumed) race. What should we do then?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is "Black" is not determined by the color of someone's skin, which is why i find it an ridiculous term. In SA the Zulu people are called "black" but far lighter than many Indians (who are not called black).--Inayity (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the policy is to clearly outline in one place Wikipedia's policy on the handling of "race" on its server pages. As we know, there already exist various website clauses pertaining to this. However, these are dispersed across multiple pages, some of which are quite obscure. There are also a few ambiguities or omissions within certain clauses that need clarification. Additionally, the clause on racism provides guidance on how to identify, handle and if necessary report edits with a racist pov or tone. There doesn't appear to be any clause outlining this important issue, so this policy attempts to do that. Middayexpress (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will be a problem because what is racist to me is not racist to someone else. There is no standard which says says if speaking the truth about Israel is antisemitism, so much so that if I said "Ethiopians suffer terrible racism in Israel" I (for pointing that out) am antisemitic per Zionist editors. And the problem faced here is everyone seems to scream racism these days, esp the people who are the biggest agents of racism (like White South Africans). So I think that clause needs some criteria or it runs the risk of being anything can be filtered out.--Inayity (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is, as an encyclopedia, we should be guided by best sources. Best sources tell us that race is a social construction, and there is no biological basis thereof. Therefore, any attempt to link African Americans in the US to Kenyans and ethiopians and Somalis and Bantu peoples should fail, since we can't demonstrate they have any linkage whatsoever -whether cultural or based on biology - and attempts that some magazines take to build "list of black X" should be discouraged and not permitted (race-based categories are explicitly outlawed, and I have no idea why we allow such lists). The same would apply to any racial grouping - e.g. list of White X, or list of Asian (e.g mongoloid/east asian) peoples. Rather, we should group things neutrally - by continent, or in some cases, by ethnic group - but not by so-called "race".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is "race" is real. Real is not validated by DNA or science/biology. Because as you pointed out it is a social construction, and along with all kinds of other social constructions accepted by Wikipedia and used to categorize things. And it might come as a shock, but Ethnicity is no different to race. It is all made-up, constructed by societies to say I am this, you are that. Billions of people feel the reality of "race" everyday. So whatever policy we formulate should be NPOV and represent reality and according to even more sources race is pretty real. Every book on Slavery treats race as valid, every policy in South Africa treats race as valid. But as it relates to LIST then I have a problem. And if you check my track record I have always taken issue with Jewish anything. Because unless the person identifies with being Jewish you cannot make them Jewish just because Helena Bonham Carter has a great granny who was Jewish. Nonsense. So I think the policy has to be very specific to attract broad approval. --Inayity (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "race as a biological concept" - is not real. Obviously, race as a social construct is very real, and people are discriminated against based on a perception that belong to racial group X or with skin color Y. But again, like you I agree, we should not group people based on outdated concepts of race, whether such racial grouping is felt as "real" or not to those who suffer from racism. Ethnicity OTOH is much better, as it is usually based on self-identification, and an ethnic group contains a lot more to bind it together than a "race" (especially something like "black", which could include people from all corners of the globe with dark skin and curly hair.) Of course ethnicity is a social construction as well, but at least ethnicity - in general - doesn't make any claim to a biological or DNA-based argument which informed much race-related thinking earlier.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I am somewhat apprehensive about being involved with this effort after effectively being branded a likely racist (as a white South African) by another editor. Helen Online 06:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly your choice. To read or misread the context and the reality of white based racism in SA. I think the track record of South Africa in 2014 is pretty clear to most. And this habit of personalizing the terrible issues of racism that do exist is worrying. I hope Israeli editors are not put off when we discuss racism experienced by Ethiopians at the hands of European Israelis.--Inayity (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really necessary to use this talk page as a soap box, as you yourself put it? Do you honestly believe that will encourage collaboration with other editors who are effectively targeted by your comments? It's unnecessary and unhelpful. Helen Online 07:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, in a progressive society we are all well aware of these issues, and I was making a very serious point by pointing out the obvious issue with policing so-called racism. What is and What is not racism. so-called reverse racism which is a habit in SA where I work, and actual racism which is something very real in SA and Israel and beyond. The point is the text in this proposal is idealistic in flushing out racism. BUT we should be professional and not get offended when our group is identified for something negative. B/c these are controversial topics which need a full discourse --Inayity (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inayity, I just noticed what you'd said above. I think that's enough. We really don't need you or anyone else branding a whole ethnic group or nationality as a purveyor of racism, no matter what your personal experiences of same might be. This is not a forum for discussion of racism, this is a talk page where editors are collaborating on a potential policy, so please check yourself before making further such comments.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the above, it appears that the clause on how to identify, handle and if necessary report edits with a racist pov or tone is a sticking point. I agree here with Inayity that it's perhaps idealistic. Were this still the 2000s, the npov policy might indeed have been sufficient to handle such edits. However, Wikipedia is not the same place that it used to be. It has grown considerably, in both good and bad ways. The lack of a clause on racism appears to have emboldened certain users who are inclined to make these sorts of edits. One such user was recently permanently banned for this, but only a year after the fact. Had the racism clause been in place, such a situation could have been quickly dealt with. Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to distinguish racism from race-based. For example, creating a "List of black billionaries" is "race-based" thinking, but not necessarily "racist". Maybe the first cut at the policy could be focused on limiting the "race-based" groupings we have, and extending the sensible "no categories based on race" to lists as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've adjusted the first clause accordingly. Regarding the clause I was alluding to above, it is the last one at the bottom on actual racism. The rest handles "race-based" thinking. If that last racism clause is still a sticking point, then no prob, we can leave it out of the first cut. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by everything i have written, and a review of policy will show every statement/eg is made to reveal the errors with this policy. I dont live in a PC world--at the expense of discussing controversial topics. Accusations of racism go both ways and something offends someone. See talk page Racism What I see happening is all you editors have a POV which you cannot separate from what Wikipedia is. If there are ref to African American footballers, and Black footballers, Top 10 Black sports people (a topic popular in African communities to generate pride since the 50's). People take pride in Race, religion, etc. so if you want to seriously attack those list, you will have to find another rationale. My suggestion, based on experience with identity based cats is find another path other than saying Race-based thinking is wrong. b/c right now it is all subjective. This ends my contribution--Inayity (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many problems with such groupings; you stated as much above. Among these are the fact that they are ultimately subjective, oftentimes outright rejected by populations, and (at least on Wikipedia) usually single out one or two groups. At any rate, your contributions are certainly appreciated, even if we don't necessarily always agree. How do you feel about the racism clause (last one)? Should we leave it out of the first cut User:Inayity? Middayexpress (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started making some bold edits, which others are free to reject, as that is the best way for me to think about it. I fear I have confused shortcuts with see also topics (I haven't worked on a draft policy before). Helen Online 09:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the "shortcuts" I added to the text area, but I think this should also be done with the others as I don't think the idea is to replace those guidelines linked? Helen Online 10:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done here for now, if you want to comment on my edits. :) Helen Online 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good adjustments, User:HelenOnline. Looks tighter and less repetitive, while preserving the policy's essence. The shortcuts were intended to serve as internal links to other guidelines. However, I think new shortcuts for each clause might perhaps work better. Middayexpress (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought I may have gotten carried away. :) BTW what do you foresee happening to an article such as Black people? Helen Online 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW WP:RACE is already taken and I am not sure we can do anything about that. Helen Online 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Black people is a reasonable article; although I don't think the article should uncritically claim that any of those groups of people on the page have some sort of shared ethnicity, it should be made clear that "black" is defined differently in each society and there is no global concept or membership criteria for "black"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should stay but I fear the current title would contradict this policy. We definitely need it for articles about race and about ethnic groups which use "black" as a descriptor. Would something like Black people (racial classification) work instead? Helen Online 14:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think for that page and white people, an exception can be made as far as the title. Regarding WP:RACE, it does appear to be taken. It seems more to the point than WP:RACES, though. Perhaps WP:RACIAL should be the primary shortcut? Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked what links here and it is mainly user and talk space links, so maybe we can usurp WP:RACE after all? Helen Online 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the least of our problems. We need to get this approved, which is a long road.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usurping that title does seem worth considering later on. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OWK, indeed we first need to obtain a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April#List of black Academy Award winners and nominees. Will you be commenting there? Helen Online 18:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting OWK. BTW I noticed there is a precedent at Brown (racial classification), so perhaps Black people could similarly become Black (racial classification) and White people could become White (racial classification)? Helen Online 07:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Social construct" would work better, imo. Middayexpress (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(just checking something) I am not sure I understand this sentence: "Ethnic groups may be used even if race is a stereotypical characteristic used to describe the ethnic group in their particular country (e.g. Afrikaner vs. white South African)." Does it mean Afrikaner is acceptable but white South African (which is a much broader group) is not, in which case the latter article must go? Helen Online 15:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the whole racism clause is out, as User:Obiwankenobi suggested above. Regarding the "Afrikaner vs. white South African" phrase, I think I may have misunderstood what it meant. The phrase originally used Anglo-Indians as an example, but I got confused with the newer example. However, on further thought, the newer example does seem more fitting ("Ethnic groups are commonly used to describe groups of people on Wikipedia; however, race is not. Ethnic groups may be used even if race is a stereotypical characteristic used to describe the ethnic group in their particular country (e.g. white South Africans)"). Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a subtle point - e.g. for African Americans, membership in the ethnic group of African Americans (which, confusingly, we call "race" in the US) is based partially on racial characteristics, e.g. some sort of evidence of descent from Africa - but how such descent physiologically manifests determines how much you are accepted as "black". This is normal, and part of how ethnic groups differentiate themselves, but we shouldn't reify it either. There are a number of "African-American" people who "pass", e.g. maybe one of their parents is AA and the other is white, and due to their mixing, they "pass" in mainstream society as white, while others don't. See the big debates around Obama, and whether he was really "black" or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; good point. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

@HelenOnline:, now that the move review closed as no consensus, I'm not sure what the best next steps are. should we put together a community-wide RFC to confirm that lists or categories that are race-based should not be allowed? I found the following lists which are race-based:List_of_black_astronauts, List_of_black_superheroes, List_of_black_supervillains, List_of_black_animated_characters,List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees, List_of_black_Nobel_Laureates, List_of_black_Golden_Globe_Award_winners_and_nominees, Black billionaires. There is a category at Category:Lists of black people. It would be good to find whether we have other race-based lists besides black - such as "Asian" (where Asian is taken to mean ONLY east asian, and excludes people from Asian parts of Russia, South Asia, Western Asia, etc). Should we start a wiki-wide RFC? Where should it be placed? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Obiwankenobi & User:HelenOnline: The closing admin recommended a centralised discussion on all such articles, so that would indeed be a logical next step. However, I think that centralised discussion would be greatly facilitated if we were to first submit this WP:RACE guideline for adoption. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi: I am confused about the "no consensus" move review outcome. Does that mean there is no consensus on the move review and/or that the move is overturned as there was no consensus on the move? Regardless, I agree the next step should be to propose the guideline. Helen Online 16:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HelenOnline:: The admin means there is no consensus on the original discussion itself ("No consensus. Both sides have made valid points about both the closure and the arguments in the original discussion itself"). For a conclusion on the whole issue of titles, he recommended a broad-based, centralised discussion covering all such articles ("I would suggest a centralised discussion that covers all those articles would be the best route of coming to a sensible conclusion on this issue"). It's a great idea, and one which Obiwankenobi also appears to suggest above. However, I think we should first consider submitting this WP:RACE guideline for adoption, as that would greatly facilitate that centralised discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that clear. According to Wikipedia:Move_review, a "no consensus" at MRV is equivalent to "endorse close", which means the original move stands, but this was a complex case since it was about title + scope. I see the value of proposing the guideline, but if we can't get consensus to fix those other articles, which would be in violation of the guideline if adopted, then I don't know how the guideline could pass. What we also have to address, for example with articles like List_of_black_fashion_models or Black billionaires is there are reliable sources which create such racially-focused groupings - but of course reliable sources regularly discuss "white" fashion models and "white" rich people, etc, but creation of such lists focused on "white" people would lead to banning. How those sources go about creating the "black" lists is beyond me - maybe they just look for dark skin and curly hair and decide accordingly that person X is "black"? Or it could be like "porn" - e.g. hard to define, but "everyone knows it when they see it"? I found this which lists people "inaccurately considered non-black" - which begs the question... by whom?? You have ainu in Japan, negritos from SE asia, andaman islanders from India, khoisans in South Africa, and indigenous groups from Oceania. I still can't figure out what is our authoritative source on who really is considered part of the "black" race, and who isn't...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Black", "brown", "red", "white" and "yellow" are terms whose meaning and application vary over different time periods, as well as from society to society and often between different strata in a given society. They are thus inherently subjective. Regarding WP:MR, a "no consensus" verdict can mean either essentially the same thing as "endorse close" or instead "relist". In this case, it clearly means "relist" since the admin explicitly recommended that we start a centralised discussion covering all such articles in order to sensibly conclude this issue ("I would suggest a centralised discussion that covers all those articles would be the best route of coming to a sensible conclusion on this issue"). However, I believe adoption of this WP:RACE guideline should be our first priority, as that will greatly facilitate that centralised discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you think adoption of the guideline first, and then, assuming that passes, go revisit the articles that are in violation and start new move requests accordingly (most are populated in the majority by African-Americans, so it wouldn't be that hard to move most of them to List of African-american x" and clear out the non-AAs, or perhaps split to "African X" if such a list is merited.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other potentially race-based articles: List_of_white_Africans_of_European_ancestry, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_White_South_Africans, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_white_people,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_White_Latin_Americans--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Adoption of the WP:RACE guideline will greatly facilitate one followup, broad-based, centralised discussion covering all such articles as the admin suggests. Not sure yet where that centralised discussion would be held, but that can be decided in due time. Middayexpress (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More articles: List_of_Asian_astronauts --> ("Asian" in this sense refers to people from the continent of Asia, exclusive of Asian Russia, who are not of predominantly European, African, or American ancestry.); List_of_Asian_pornographic_actors (debates on whether this is only for "East" asian or could it include russians or turks; List_of_Asian_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees - this one seems ok now, the lede was just updated to note that it is for all citizens/nationals of the Asian continent; List_of_Asian_politicians_in_non-Asian_states seems ok, as it focuses on politicians from any country in Asia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. It's interesting that the "list of white x" pages were all summarily deleted. The WP:RACE guideline already contains provisions on how to handle such pages. Middayexpress (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would consider White South African and similarly named articles to be ethnic groups similar to African/Black Americans. Helen Online 19:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, White South African does seem more like an ethnic group - is it a container that Afrikaans lives within, or is it considered separate? Race is such a complicated topic in South Africa we'll have to take your word for it. However, People from any of the 54 countries of Africa who had some ancestors who at some point in the last 400 years came from continental Europe and who still have fair skin seems like a bit more of a racial category to me, because I presume membership in this category is not determined solely by your parentage, but by the skin colors of your parentage - e.g. a British-Indian family who had lived in England for 200 years who then moves to Nairobi and has a child, is their child considered an "African of European descent"? Probably not - even if members of said Indian family had intermarried with brits, as long as they retained their "Indian" look their children wouldn't qualify. Or would a half-french, half Egyptian born in Cairo in 1900 qualify? Perceived race is often used as one criteria for admission into an ethnic group whether we like it or not - that's a simple fact - I just find it problematic when Wikipedia attempts to draw a line, and say "This person is white, this person is black, this person is Asian" - based almost entirely on racial characteristics. See [1] for the challenges faced by "black" people who have white skin...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty arbitrary overall. This becomes even more obvious when actual scientific data is examined. At any rate, "White South African" is indeed one of the exceptions mentioned in the guideline. As it turns out, there's also a formal WP:PROPOSAL process. Middayexpress (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, yes Afrikaners are Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans (most of the rest speak English as a first language and are assimilated into the British diaspora in Africa). These groups were historically quite distinct whether they liked it or not as while blacks were segregated from whites, Afrikaners were also to a large extent segregated from English-speakers (by virtue of language-based schools, work as state employees e.g. were predominantly Afrikaners under the Nationalist government, and even churches which were Dutch Reformed versus Anglican, Methodist or Catholic). This distinction is not as strong in smaller towns for practical reasons (less schools and churches etc). There has been intermarriage between the two groups, which is why we have English-speaking South Africans with Afrikaner surnames and vice-versa. This distinction is also lessening over time parallel to the integration of blacks and whites, as people become more integrated in general. English is now the predominant business and teaching language overall (depends on where you are) and traditional religion is in decline so language-based influences are lessening.

Race is definitely a component of white South Africans, as it is for African Americans. For people born before 1991 when the Population Registration Act, 1950 was repealed, our legal identity documentation specified our race. Today we are asked to specify our race in the national census (self-identification) and race is a factor used in employment equity legislation to redress past imbalances (for people born after 1991, presumably the only way of applying this factor is based on how they self-identify based on how their parents were classified or the colour of their skin). When I was much younger, "European" was synonymous with "white" but "European" seems to have mostly disappeared from common usage.

I am not too concerned about White Africans of European ancestry. I just don't see how White/European South Africans can be treated as different from African/Black Americans. Helen Online 09:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps White Africans of European ancestry could be moved to something like European diaspora in Africa? (Incidentally, I moved Anglo-African, a neologism someone was trying to promote here, to British diaspora in Africa).Helen Online 09:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but how would that jibe with the phrase "Southern African ethnic group" on Afrikaner? Would "Africans of European ancestry" be more or less confusing? Middayexpress (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European diaspora in Africa is better, but the question is, European since when? There has been interchange esp amongst peoples of the Mediterranean for time eternal, and certainly some exchange of genes. But as long as "European" isn't taken to mean "white skin", this should be ok (in the same way, African disapora in the United States should not exclude Egyptians or white south africans... OTOH, I think White South Africans specifically is a different case - that is a specific and identifiable ethnic group, which does, like African American and other ethnic groups, have a race-based component, but it goes beyond that; if I immigrated to South Africa today and took a citizenship, I wouldn't necessarily be welcomed as a "White South African", I'd have to marry into the group and live there for a while before being accepted as a member of that group - and indeed I may never be so. Thus, I think a list of List of White South Africans or List of Afrikaaaner people and associated categories would be fine. I think if such an article was created today it would survive, due to many other examples of lists-of-people-by-ethnicity. Indeed, there is also a category tree at Category:European_South_African and Category:South_African_people_of_European_descent, which is nationality vs racially based.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see White Africans of European ancestry is linked to Category:African people of European descent so that is also an option, but I think European diaspora in Africa is more specific to historical migration?

The Afrikaner ethnic group is a Southern African ethnic group because that is where it was formed (and not only from Europeans as covered in the article). I don't see a contradiction with "African" (in the non-racial sense) or "of European ancestry/descent". Helen Online 17:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Afrikaner issue is made easier by the fact that Europe is indigenously inhabited by only one so-called "race", whereas the other Old World continents of Africa and Asia are more complex because they each have several different autochthonous "racial" groups. Something along the lines of Africans of European ancestry or African people of European descent could thus work here. Middayexpress (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Existing race-based lists

Let's keep this section just to catalog race-based lists that exist already:

Black

List_of_black_astronauts
List_of_black_superheroes
List_of_black_supervillains
List_of_black_animated_characters
List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees
List_of_black_Nobel_Laureates
List_of_black_Golden_Globe_Award_winners_and_nominees
Black billionaires
List_of_black_fashion_models
List_of_Afro-Latinos
List of composers of African descent (hard to tell, this could just be for anyone from the continent - not clear)
List_of_first_black_Major_League_Baseball_players_by_team - this one could be an exception, since it is not "all black players", it is focused on firsts, for a league where a de-facto rule preventing black people from participating was put into place, thus first "black" is notable
List_of_National_Hockey_League_players_of_black_African_descent
List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture - actually more of a DNA-based list. The only one I've found to date. I've requested that it be moved to be of an ethnic-group based list.

Asian

List_of_Asian_astronauts --> ("Asian" in this sense refers to people from the continent of Asia, exclusive of Asian Russia, who are not of predominantly European, African, or American ancestry.)
List_of_Asian_pornographic_actors (debates on whether this is only for "East" asian or could it include russians or turks)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ice_hockey_players_of_Asian_descent_(2nd_nomination) (rather funy, deleted even though the black list was kept - here the argument was that we have no definition of "Asian", whereas apparently we have a good definition of black??

Asian, but not race-based

List_of_Asian_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees - this one seems ok now, the lede was just updated to note that it is for all citizens/nationals of the Asian continent;
List_of_Asian_politicians_in_non-Asian_states - seems inclusive of all parts of Asia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]