Talk:Black people/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed ground rules 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Zaph

message: 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.[]  Gradually the first two races got lumped together yielding three races commonly known as mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid[[ http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html]] the latter term is derived from Negro which is a Spanish adjective for black.[[ 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]]  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)[[ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Australoid]], and viewed it as separate from  negroids (often lumping Australoids in with caucasoids) despite the fact that their skin is also dark.[[ http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2007]]  In the 1970s the term black replaced negro in the United States.[[ http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320&custom=]].   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."[[ http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320&custom=]]  Timelist 05:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History lesson BADLY needed for some editors

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talk-page discipline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. That is a much better way to present this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: PLEASE PUT BACK THE CRITISM SECTION

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sections for non-mainstream views 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Editorial conduct 

message: I am requesting unprotection so that we can redirect this article to the disambiguation page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You can add my name to the list.  Let's do it as soon as possible.  Kobrakid 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Request for unprotection

message: 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)
thread_title: Mediation

message: 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)
thread_title: Memory lapses

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.[]  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I'll overlook the ridiculous "people like you" and say, "Prove it!"  You can't.  deeceevoice 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why Black Irish are not Black

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Useless debates

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Disengage