Talk:Colored

message: The article says: 
However, usage of the appellation "colored" in the American South gradually came to be restricted to "negroes".
I find this statement a bit dubious.  The term was a catchall for both Negroes and Mulattoes.  And this became the standard meaning throughout the United States.  Generally speaking, in the US, colored means having noticeable sub-Saharan African ancestry, in any given proportion, as opposed to people of color, which seems to mean all non-white people.  I know race is a sensitive subject, and I'm not going to add "original research," but I think most Americans would agree this is an accurate description of the terms.  73.194.85.220 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, this was most certainly the case. Interestingly, i recall reading a lengthy essay written by some judge from south Carolina written in the 1840s, in which one of the things he discussed was the ambiguity of the term "people of color" and why he thought it should be avoided in favour of precise terminology (Negro, mulatto, etc) (this was of course a time when racial categories had legal implications)
Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern United States 

message: Uamaol, regarding this and this, Template:Globalize does not apply because this topic primarily concerns the United States. Even if one wants to go by the "This article is about a term used in the United States and the United Kingdom." hatnote, and there is some United Kingdom material to be added, the tag isn't needed. Adding that tag gives the impression that this article should not be primarily about the United States and that it should be expanded with material from other countries. And this is despite what the hatnote states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Adding that tag gives the impression that this article should not be primarily about the United States and that it should be expanded with material from other countries." To say this implies that the article does not represent the worldwide view equally. The issue here is that the article places a heavy emphasis on the United States, whilst it states prefectly clearly in the About template and lead that it also covers the usage of the term on "the United Kingdom with its former colonies". Excluding the lead, which summarises the usage in different countries/regions (of which the US is only a small part of), there is a huge section on usage in the US, but non such for anywhere else. On this basis, this article in my opinion does not reflect a worldwide view as most of its content is concerning the United States and not the rest of the world which the term is used in. As you stated in your most recent edit summary that "This topic primarily concerns the United States", you are incorrect, it clearly does not, hence the usage of this tag being necessary.UaMaol (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything else I state on this matter will largely be me repeating myself. The tag you added doesn't belong, per what I stated. What reliable sources do you have showing that this term was used in other countries just as much as it was used in the United States? The hatnote needing tweaking or the article needing fixing does not mean that the globalize tag belongs. Yes, the article currently mentions that "In South Africa, the term coloureds is used to describe people of a mixed parentage. Thus South Africa has people broadly classified as four races, namely Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians." and that "In other English-speaking countries, the term – often spelled coloured – has varied meanings.",  but "coloured" is a different topic/term, which is why it has its own Wikipedia article. Do you want to bring in other editors to comment from the WikiProjects this article is tagged with? Or start a WP:RfC on this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anything else I state on this matter will largely be me repeating myself." I am going to save you the bother by repeating you myself. Anything else I state on this matter will largely be me repeating myself. I stand by my point that the lead is incredibly misleading if this article is solely based on the US like you claim. Can you provide sources that this article is based on US usage because the very first sentence, which is usually the summary of the page, says otherwise. I disagree with your point and you disagree with my point so maybe an RfC is necessary. Usonification of Wikipædia is a joke when considering the majority of the users of English Wikipedia are not in the US and therefore strongly believe that this should be reflected in coverage! UaMaol (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You've come back months later to comment on this? I can start a WP:RfC now if you agree to that. Per Template:Globalize, the onus is not on me. The onus is on you (and anyone who agrees with you) to show why this article should have a globalize tag. Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." I don't see why you are pointing to the unsourced "United Kingdom" part of the first sentence as though it supports you. It's unsourced! And even if it were sourced, it would mean that the topic is centered on two countries and still should not have a globalize tag. Even the first source (a BBC) in the article focuses on the United States. The most it relays about the UK with regard to the term is the following: "In the UK the term is, at best, seen as old fashioned and 'something your gran might say'." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Globalize]]  

message: In the section United States, the last para says, 'In the 21st century, "colored" is generally regarded as an offensive term,....' I have tagged this 'where?', although 'by whom?' might be more appropriate, since the same para goes on to describe the NAACP's justification for continuing to use the term. Although the section refers specifically to the US, the statement is so broad I believe it requires qualification. Curiously, the first ref cited is from the UK, which I think bolsters my argument. Since the article as a whole discusses other cultures, it would also be useful to know in which of these it is regarded as offensive—with cites, of course! --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding Template:Where there is like adding Template:Where beside "is an ethnic slur typically directed at black people" in the Nigger article. As for the rest, I stand by what I stated above. But I suppose I better get on to sourcing parts of this article soon. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your analogy is a good one, because up until about WWII 'n--' was only a pejorative term in the US & maybe to some extent in the rest of North America, and did not specifically refer to black/Afro-american people, as I think that article makes clear. In the UK in particular, it was used without any intent to be offensive (well, no more offensive than the customary British attitude to anyone non-british) for almost any person of colour, American, African, East Indian, Jamaican or whatever (though the usage was distinctly lower class), right up until the WWII posting of US troops to England raised the Brits' consciousness rather abruptly. The ODE and other non-US dictionaries list 'coloured' as dated or offensive. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I get what Patriarche is actually intended to ask for clarification on (all this grumbling aside). It  be better to have timeline and context information in there, especially since Colored (like Negro) did retain some use, even among African Americans, for longer than many preferred at the time or would like to remember now (cf. NAACP, UNCF).  And see my thread below; the entire US section needs work, starting from its opening sentences, which are [as of this timestamp] a trainwreck.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st century usage 

message: >NPR reported that the "use of the phrase "colored people" peaked in books published in 1970."<
With the allover English or American English corpus from 2102, is 1970 one peak. A higher peak is 1886. With the corpus from 2019, the highest peak is 1876.
In British English in the corpus of 2012 and 2019, the peak of "coloured people" (with u) is 1970.
coloured people,colored people,people of color,people of colour
--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 12:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I found that "1970" claims suspicious myself, or at least too imprecisely worded as to "highest peak in what context", to be encyclopedically useful, though it remains in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak of "colored people" in the US 

message: The "United States" section begins with material that verges on nonsensical, in which I have inserted some cleanup tags (after massaging the content  enough to not just be blatant nonsense, though it still verges on that):
The term "African American" was not in use during most of the period that "Colored" was used, and certainly not when retro-colonization was an active endeavor. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that "Colored American" was ever a term in wide use.  There's only one source cited in this entire block of material, and the odds that it is a source for more than the last sentence are very low.
I think what this is intending to say is something like the following, though with more sources (which I don't have on hand):
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious, kinda mangled material in US section 

message: I searched "coloured people" it redirected me to the south african one. I searched "colored people" it redirected here. Any reason why? Luwuyi (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "Coloured" is a souther African ethnicity (which is not spelled "Colored"), while "Colored" is an obsolete American term for "African-American" (not conventionally spelled "Coloured". only occasionally that way by foreigners).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

text: And new talk-page posts always go at the bottom of the page, not the top.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: Please replace this
 The first 12 United States Census counts enumerated "colored" people, who totaled nine million in 1900. The census counts of 1910–1960 enumerated "negroes". 
with this
 The first 12 United States Censuses counted "colored" people, who totaled nine million in 1900. The censuses of 1910–1960 counted "negroes". 
Explanation for non-native English speakers: "enumerating" is correct only in a context where a finite known number of items is listed, it is therefore synonymous with "listed". This is not the case in a census with an open-ended outcome where the result is a number, not a list. Example: "He enumerated his three reasons for resigning: harassment, low pay, and garlic in the canteen food." Therefore the general word "counted" is the correct verb for the Wikipedia article. 86.132.48.232 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. That seemed reasonable enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: please replace "enumerated" with "counted"