Talk:Black people/Archive 16

message: I see blacks from almost everywhere mentioned but India!  To leave that large group of black people out does a dissiervice to the article.  If the US had thei way, blacks would only be those from the US and 'certain' parts of Africa.  You know, the parts that did anything noteworthy or who came into contact and mixed with whites.--71.235.81.39 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: Why is this article titled black people, when wikipedia redirects a search of "white people" to the article "Caucasian People." I believe that this article should be renamed to "African American People," or "Caucasian People" should be renamed to "White People"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editingisbad (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as the anonymous comment above mine states, Black People are not the same as African Americans. African Americans must live in America. Black people do not have to. Many Americans make this mistake, being to PC in my opinion. Also, the Caucasian people article does not cover White people. It mostly covers people from the Caucasus area, as thhat is what Caucasian means in pretty much every country but the good old USA.ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: An enormous part of the layout you have here is dedicated to African Americans, and as such is probably alread covered in other articles. There is an article on African Americans. This article is on black people as a whole, not black people in America. Yes, you would cover some non-American blacks with your sections on Black Muslims and on The Caribbean, etc. I understand that you think the article is POV, stupid, and controversial, because for the most part it is. It needs a huge amount of work, a near complete rewrite, and it's much too brief for the huge subject it covers. But there's already and article on blacks in America. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ????

message: My thoughts and suggestions are as follows; 
I question the whole subject as not having WPOV or NPOV in encyclopedic terms.  I conclude that the subject "Black people" is too broad a term, and is actually only an observation, and a subjective one at that, made by some people to describe or to categorize as they see fit. It can never be NPOV, not as it is now. Yet, if the subject/title would be "Blacks in the Americas" or some form thereof and which can include topics such as;
**SLAVERY
**LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
**EARLY IMMIGRATION AND SLAVERY
**BLACK MUSLIMS
**AFRICAN-AMERICANS
**Iberian Blacks
**Beginnings of the African Slave Trade
**Conditions of Slavery
**Volume of Immigration
**Blacks in Colonial Society
**The Free Blacks
**The Campaign Against the Slave Trade
**Abolition of the Slave Trade
**The Abolition of Slavery
**Brazil: suffered a long internal struggle over abolition and was the last Latin American country to adopt it.
**Prejudice Against Blacks or Racism
**Assimilation of Black Minorities
**Regional Differences
**Cultural Modifications
**Religious Practices
**Black Literature
**POLITICS
**Resistance: as Blacks resisted enslavement from the time of capture in Africa but, outnumbered by whites, North American slaves were less likely than Brazilian or Caribbean ones to engage in massive rebellions. Africans in North America typically underwent 'seasoning' in the West Indies and a 'breaking' process on the mainland, etc. 
**Other headings can include;
***THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND BLACK REBELLIONS
***SEMI-FREE BLACKS
***ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT
***GROWING ACTIVISM
***CIVIL WAR
***RECONSTRUCTION AND URBAN MIGRATION
***GROWING SELF-AWARENESS
***BLACK CULTURE IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY
***WORLD WAR I
***THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE. 
And many more topics/subtopics that have to do with valuable contributions/inventions, influence, and oppression that Black People are known for, and have persevered under great injustices, and have a rich and diverse history. We can have other pages connecting to any page(s) that have any of these and other titles listed here. Perhaps disambiguation pages too? This is just my suggestion (and not in any particular order as expressed here) that I feel may alleviate the constant bickering and do away with the many different points of view, edit wars, heated discussions, and have a better WPOV, etc. Just a thought. 
I know this is long, and it may be encyclopedic in some areas on this page. Or even ignored altogether. You may think I'm a lunatic, and you may be correct. You may think I'm ignorant of the content that already exists, which can be absolutely correct. But I think this project as it is is not going to work on this site as note worthy, encyclopedic, etc. Heck, it can be put with Genetics, Race, Human Beings, or whatever. Please, just not "Black people" as this will always be more controversial than any of the topics I've suggested, and possibly all can be included an it's own article as I suggested in the beginning of this diatribe Blacks in the Americas just not Black people! forgive me, I think this article, as it is, is embarrassing, stupid, too controversial and can only have individual POV in this context. --Jeeny 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An enormous part of the layout you have here is dedicated to African Americans, and as such is probably alread covered in other articles. There is an article on African Americans. This article is on black people as a whole, not black people in America. Yes, you would cover some non-American blacks with your sections on Black Muslims and on The Caribbean, etc. I understand that you think the article is POV, stupid, and controversial, because for the most part it is. It needs a huge amount of work, a near complete rewrite, and it's much too brief for the huge subject it covers. But there's already and article on blacks in America. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''PROPOSAL!'''

message: why nominate this article for deletion when it is pretty obvious the deletion will not go through. Muntuwandi 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy undeletion

message: well its up to the readers i actually think i did a good thing. well if the page isnt gonna be deleted then why worry? i think it is a strange page anyway. and i think it is wrong to point out black and white people. and i think the black people section is full of wrong facts and alot of racist facts.the msot strange thing is the massaj man,i mean does he really represent the black community?--Matrix17 18:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't believe blacks form a single community, and the other guy doesn't believe blacks form a race, and if they obviously don't share the same language, culture, religion, appearance, experience, and identity, then why should they all share an article? Iseebias 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thats up to the readers

message: make your vote on the deletion tag on the front page on Keep or Delete. Their is already one saying strongly deletion on this page because of the constant editing wars and strong opinions for deletion and not deletion here,their is no use to fight over it here. make your voice heard in the issue. i think this is a strongly deletion page to,i have also now voted for strong deletion due to the various racist toughts on this article like the vanuatu man ,whats that?>?..--Matrix17 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Make your vote

message: The AfD nomination was (permaturely) closed after a mere 4½ hours. I sent it to Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Black_people. Editors may care to comment. Jd2718 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DrV 

message: Firstly, the first statement in the sentence was problematic. The statement that people who equate black with African descent have a narrow minded view is personal opinion. A lot of people argue that blacks are the only people indigenous to Africa, and any Caucasian presence is due to relatively late immigration. Africans traveled and populated the entire world, it would be extremely foolish and plain racist to assume that they couldn't of populated the northern part of their own continent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taharqa (talk • contribs) 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Census reference is bullcrap, IMO. It was used to represent certain people living in the US with Government representation. Early on, because of Slavery, there was much ado, because States (like those in the South with plantations) wanted to have it both ways i.e. Slaves as non-people (so they could justify the use and abuse and treatment as property like a friggen tractor.), yet they also wanted them to be counted so their State would have better, or more, representation! Today, that is not the case, as all Humans are considered "real and whole, not sub-human" people and are counted as such. (I'm not talking about prejudices here) This subject is Black people, although it does apply and is important to point out how they are viewed in the US but not a whole article almost exclusively based on US policy and views especially involving the US Census crapola. This article is American-centric. The U.S. Census, and Hefny etal, would be relevant to Race, Racism, etc. But, Black people? It's a whole different thing in the US. Black and White are still at odds. This is not a world view topic, as it is mostly American and some Western European ideas..etc...I don't know...<sigh> Jeeny 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-Saharan Africa debate

message: 300px
</span>
This map is completely misplaced. I already removed it once. By placing a map so high that links to articles that all refer to various terms in the United States - with no caption or explanation to its relevance - is not helpful. It was restored on the basis that it shows who is "legally black" in the U.S. Whatever that issue involves should be in some subsection which deals with that country. Not high up in what appears to be a general part of the article. It is very misleading in its present context.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it's not helpful.  It shows exactly what part of the world you must have indeigenous ancestry from to be considered black in the U.S. and what parts classify you in a different category.  It's not a general part of the article; there is no general part of the article because the article is divided into 2 separate definitions of Blackness: African ancestry & skin color.  It's in the African ancestry section where it belongs Iseebias 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I did move the section lower in the page though as per your concerns Iseebias 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still no caption, Iseebias, and no surrounding clarification as to how it refers to black people. In fact the whole section seems to be about the United States census, which is probably why someone added a huge tag to it to complain. The mapo should still be removed, the global nature of the map is extremely misleading. Asians, Africans, Europeans and Latin Americans are going to do the same thing I did, see it - click on their locale - only to get linked to some article about the United States. -- Zleitzen(talk) 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text itself explains.  And yes the debate is personified by the case of one individual who happens to be American? Is that a problem? Iseebias 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point doesn't seem to be clear enough. I'll try again. (1)The map has no caption, which is pre-requisite for all maps, graphs etc. Thus it is confusing to readers (2)The section seems to refer solely to the United States - thus the section title  (Sub-Saharan Africa debate) and body should be clarified to explain this debate is something that is happening in the U.S. not something that relates to black people in general. The clearer the better - to prevent people like me clicking on it and then complaining; to prevent the editor who added the global-tag, and anyone else in the future who feels the same way which is almost inevitable. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  The section is mostly about the views of Owen ‘Alik Shahadah who is German. And the sub-Saharan African debate is not confined to the United States.  We quote other non-Americans in the article defining Blacks in terms of sub-Saharan ancestry.  Do you think the term Black Africa is confined to Americans? Do you really? Do a google search on Black Africa and you'll get about 88 MILLION hits.  Do you think our readers are so dumb, stupid, and unitelligent that they'll get confused by a map just because there's no caption? Are they not able to read the text?  Iseebias 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and be even clearer, and stick to the main point: The map has no caption. All detailed maps and graphs should have explanatory captions. -- Zleitzen(talk) 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why, but I can't spend all day arguing with you.  You're SO persistent. Who has the time? Iseebias 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed it again. The map and template are for the U.S. census page and have not been created for pages like this. Without adding a clear caption, which seems impossible at this stage, it means that readers are clicking on universal terms but finding themselves at pages that deal with the United States only. -- Zleitzen(talk) 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be an improvement. I notice Iseebias restored the offending U.S. map claiming "incoherent reasons" and "no support on the talk page". Which part of the globalise tag added by an other editor, and my repeated statements that the map without a caption is misleading does Iseebias find incoherent?-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded the image to the Commons so it can be used here, and therefore have a caption. Now, who's going to write the caption?  Jeeny 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jeeny. Now we need to figure out what the map actually signifies. Are there five boxes on the U.S. census, and you have to tick one of the above? Any ideas?-- Zleitzen(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, Zleitzen. This ONLY represents the 5 definitions of race according to the year 2000 US Census. I believe, but not sure, this has changed since. I think they added another category, I will check. Also, I was just trying to add the new map with caption but I don't know how to format it so it stays the same size and to the right. OH, No, you cannot tick any one of the above, it's just one image. I would not know how to do that in this Wiki format. Sorry. Heck, I can't even position an image correctly on this format...yet.  Jeeny 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant ticking categories on the census form. This section  seems to discuss these categories in relation to the 2000 census. Here is the map formatted.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't be sorry. You were clear, I misunderstood. After I wrote that (about the image ticking) I actually did think you meant the categories not the image, duh me. I then went on research and posted the stuff below. Thanks for formatting the map. :)  Jeeny 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Most Ethiopians are Afro-Arab so technically they too could sue the U.S. government to get classified as White.  According to Jeeney's argument though, second generation Ethiopian Americans would be free to self-identify as White if they chose to identify with their Arab ancestry.  Anyway, not sure why you want to get rid of the hefny case. It's a high profile case that relates to the topic. Yes he's the exception not the rule, but text books often discuss exceptions if they are high profile Christmasgirl 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmasgirl, this is exhausting. Anyone can 'sue' anyone they want to in the USA for anything. Doesn't mean they will get far, depending on the subject/reason/crime/etc, that is. But, in this topic about the US Census crap... Most people entering the US and applying for citizenship or for visas, etc. do get classified, yes.... BUT they can CHOOSE later to identify with whatever they wish. Within reason, of course (so you don't jump on me again) Within reason!. ARG!. Jeeny 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This case is from 1997, ten years ago, I have not found any resolution, seems more like frivolous lawsuit. Muntuwandi 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank YOU! 10 years ago! I tried to make this point and put it in the article and kept getting reverted. Jeeny 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You kept getting reverted because you kept trying to rewrite the section in the past tense as though whatever problem Hefny was fighting had been solved.  I personally like to see relevant evidence before relegating an issue that occurred only 10 years ago to the history category and your evidence failed to convince me Christmasgirl 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get it. 10 years ago IS past tense. It happened 10 YEARS ago. The way it was written suggested it happened at least just recently. 10 years is a decade! A decade ago (past tense). A long time ago. Why is there no other information ANYWHERE if he actually DID sue the US Government AND could not take advantage of the Affirmative Action available soon after he "threatenED" to sue? Jeeny 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you're incorrect. Please read Race (United States Census) Iseebias 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to clarify this on the map, adding a source which should have been on the map in the first place. Readers shouldn't be expected to navigate other parts of the page and even other wikipedia articles to find out what and where information has been taken from. If all this doesn't emphasise how unclear the map was in the first place - then I don't know what. -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Census has gone through many changes from the beginning of "America", to today. It is very complicated and confusing and needs a whole article on it's own to explain the classifications, justifications, legislation, caste systems, gender, laws affecting it, etc. It is based on complicated American history and it's many changing laws. I believe a mention should be made somewhere, somehow, but I don't know how without misleading others and without making this all about America. How does one condense 500 years of history, much involving race and politics in America, while maintaining a WPOV, and keeping the article at a reasonable length? (I deleted a bunch of stuff trying to prove a point, just to explain the US Census) This just in talk page would have been a whole article itself. Sheesh, my head hurts and I bet a number of comments where place while I was writing this and deleting a bunch of crap. lol. __Jeeny 15:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Question: Does the Census Bureau have a policy on which tabulation options data users should use when comparing data on race from Census 2000 and previous censuses?
Answer: The Census Bureau is providing different tabulation options so that users may decide which option best satisfies their needs. In addition, the Census Bureau will provide a data file, using results from the Census Quality Survey to be conducted in the summer of 2001, that will assist users in developing ways to make comparisons between Census 2000 data on race, where respondents were asked to report one or more races, and data on race from other sources that asked for only a single race.
Question: What are the race groups that federal agencies are to use to comply with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance for civil rights monitoring and enforcement?
Answer: The categories (made available in OMB Bulletin No. 00-02, "Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement") to be used are: 
#American Indian and Alaska Native 
#Asian 
#Black or African American 
#Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 
#White 
#American Indian and Alaska Native and White 
#Asian and White 
#Black or African American and White 
#American Indian and Alaska Native and Black or African American 
#>1 percent: Fill in if applicable with multiracial combinations greater than 1% of the population 
#Balance of individuals reporting more than one race 
#Total
(end, there is more at the link above)
I had an editing war when I first saw this section a month of so ago, because of the example of Hefny (1997), and no mention of him since! Not in any references that I can find. Another reason I was against it is because it's about the frickin US Census! Which is, supposedly, only to help "create equitable legislative representation" and to monitor civil rights and enforcement for protection. Not make people choose between Black and White, Blue or purple. 
While, I am not sure about immigrants entering the US at this time, I DO KNOW one can choose one's race that one identifies with, ALSO one may choose NOT to check ANY one of them. It is NOT required. Again, I don't know about immigrants entering the US, but those who are in the US at the time of a Census. Another ALSO, not everyone fills out those dang things either. It's not a law to comply (It is illegal to be in the country illegally, lol. but that's a whole other story). I guess one can call it a civic duty (census) so that the people are fairly represented in the US, but it's not a law but it is strongly encouraged that everyone participate.  Jeeny 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Ethiopians are Afro-Arab so technically they too could sue the U.S. government to get classified as White.  According to Jeeney's argument though, second generation Ethiopian Americans would be free to self-identify as White if they chose to identify with their Arab ancestry.  Anyway, not sure why you want to get rid of the hefny case. It's a high profile case that relates to the topic. Yes he's the exception not the rule, but text books often discuss exceptions if they are high profile Christmasgirl 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmasgirl, this is exhausting. Anyone can 'sue' anyone they want to in the USA for anything. Doesn't mean they will get far, depending on the subject/reason/crime/etc, that is. But, in this topic about the US Census crap... Most people entering the US and applying for citizenship or for visas, etc. do get classified, yes.... BUT they can CHOOSE later to identify with whatever they wish. Within reason, of course (so you don't jump on me again) Within reason!. ARG!. Jeeny 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This case is from 1997, ten years ago, I have not found any resolution, seems more like frivolous lawsuit. Muntuwandi 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank YOU! 10 years ago! I tried to make this point and put it in the article and kept getting reverted. Jeeny 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You kept getting reverted because you kept trying to rewrite the section in the past tense as though whatever problem Hefny was fighting had been solved.  I personally like to see relevant evidence before relegating an issue that occurred only 10 years ago to the history category and your evidence failed to convince me Christmasgirl 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get it. 10 years ago IS past tense. It happened 10 YEARS ago. The way it was written suggested it happened at least just recently. 10 years is a decade! A decade ago (past tense). A long time ago. Why is there no other information ANYWHERE if he actually DID sue the US Government AND could not take advantage of the Affirmative Action available soon after he "threatenED" to sue? Jeeny 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you're incorrect. Please read Race (United States Census) Iseebias 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to clarify this on the map, adding a source which should have been on the map in the first place. Readers shouldn't be expected to navigate other parts of the page and even other wikipedia articles to find out what and where information has been taken from. If all this doesn't emphasise how unclear the map was in the first place - then I don't know what. -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Census has gone through many changes from the beginning of "America", to today. It is very complicated and confusing and needs a whole article on it's own to explain the classifications, justifications, legislation, caste systems, gender, laws affecting it, etc. It is based on complicated American history and it's many changing laws. I believe a mention should be made somewhere, somehow, but I don't know how without misleading others and without making this all about America. How does one condense 500 years of history, much involving race and politics in America, while maintaining a WPOV, and keeping the article at a reasonable length? (I deleted a bunch of stuff trying to prove a point, just to explain the US Census) This just in talk page would have been a whole article itself. Sheesh, my head hurts and I bet a number of comments where place while I was writing this and deleting a bunch of crap. lol. __Jeeny 15:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parts taken from the US Census website<ref>http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html</ref>

message: I think this heading is misleading because I don't think there is any active debate or controversy going on regarding the term. It is recognized by the UN as a Subregion. the assertion that it is racist really doesn't have much support because very often it is black africans themselves who want to be distinguished from their northern comradespage 20. What i think can be racist is the context within which the term is used, not the term itself( eg even the term "black" can be racist depending on the context). I do not see any difference between the cultural distinctions between east africa and west africa. Therefore I propose to change the heading to sub-saharan africa, and the notion that it is racist should be considered WP:FRINGE.
Secondly, how relevant is the case of Mostafa hefny. for example Naomi Campbell can make the sam e claim, stating that she is british and therefore by US law she is white. but that does not hold water because her ancestors are eventually from sub-saharan africa via jamaica. The same can be said for hefny. Somewhere in his recent family history his ancestors came from the same place all dark skinned people came from which is Sub-saharan africa. Muntuwandi 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. law would not force Naomi Cambell to be White (I don't think) because she not from the original peoples of Britain.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Hefny's case is probably different because he is claiming origins in the original peoples of Egypt-so really the debate appears to be about which "race" colonized Egypt. But feel free to change the title of the section if you feel it implies a big debate where little exists Iseebias 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iseebias, Hefny claimed, he is not "claiming" as that is old news. It makes it seem that that is the case today, it is not. This encyclopedia is supposed to be up to date, right? Doesn't mean his story is not relevant though, but it is misleading as it speaks in the present tense. Which is not true. He is no longer suing the US Government. There is NO evidence that he even did or HAD to.  Jeeny 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-saharan africa debate

message: It feels fine to know that 
*this article is getting much better 
*the article is much better than it was here, and that
*clever people are watching it, and cleaning it from missinformation. 
This is really gratifying. --Ezeu 01:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ezeu, thank you for that link. Goodness, I clicked on the link, and began reading for hours! I saw many of the same names. The hundreds of edits seconds apart. Some comments were funny, and others made my blood boil all over again. Edit wars, misinformation, all of it. lol. I see that you've been working a long time on this. You deserve a great big pat on the back. Thank you so much. Jeeny 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good on y'all 

message: There are several inaccuracies in the version April 1st
to start with this table
Post World War II". 2005. August 28, 2006.</ref> does not site who the anthropologists that are surveyed, neither does it give their rationale, it looks like just their opinion. It thus does not seem to qualify as a reputable source.
*The quotations of rushton and satel who are controversial figures, how are they relevant. do they have the authority to define who is black and where are they drawing there reasoning. 
:Maybe the article should not attempt to evaluate the scientific validity of their claims but should simply point out what people who held their "science" in high regard tried to do to black people on the basis of their claims. People can be influential without being right.P0M
* Troy Duster and ethicist Pilar Ossorio - once again the names of people who do not have articles on wikipedia is unhelpful because we do not know who they are and their credibility.
:Maybe the fact that nobody seems to have heard of them indicates that regardless of what they thought and said it did not have any appreciable impact on how 'black" people see themselves or on how "non-black" people treat them.P0M
* the sections on black vs multiracial focus heavily on multiracial side. They do not mention anything on the development of the black identity in the US but bypass black to multiracial. 
There are even some inaccuracies for instance "reverse one drop rule". This terminology is not used in academics. It is incorrect to say that in Latin America one drop makes you white. Race relations are a lot more complicated than that. For example in Brazil there are probably a dozen color categories that an Afro-brazilian may be in.
* Who is James Davis?
* Who is Jon Michael Spencer?
:I think I remember looking him up on Google. I don't recall being impressed by his importance or influence. P0M 03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "one drop" thing may not have been properly described or substantiated even for "one black drop." "One drop" is too fuzzy even for crazy laws. Laws would have to say something like, "any ancestor of X color within the previous N generations..." Has the article cited even one law defining who is black? P0M 03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies

message: The interwikilink to :de:Schwarzafrikaner is factually wrong, the concept described there is a different one. Please remove it. --84.137.43.107 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong interwiki 

message: Racism is a crime without bail in Brazil. There is no such thing as "upward mobility and education results in reclassification of individuals into lighter skinned categories" because, in this country, each person classifies their own color in the census. What classification are you talking about? This information is false, besides being offensive to anyone who actually LIVES in this country, understands its legislation and is not taking their information from jingoist american books. CuriousDog 13:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race in Brazil 

message: Something that American and European scholars who come to Brazil fail to notice is that there are very little, if any, 100% white people in our country. Those actors that we see in TV and who may seem white to an American or European scholar have most probably either indigenous or african ascendents whose traces though not perceivable in their skin or face are easily detected in their genes. A genetic study of Dayane dos Santos, a famous Brazilan olympic athlete, revealed that she is 39,7% African, 40,8% European and 19,6% Indigenous. Although  her skin color is black, it could as well be white and in this case she would be said to be white. That´s what differs the question of race in Brazil and in the USA. Renato Costa 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am From Brazil 

message: How in the fuck does chocolate faces redirect to this article! How dare you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.211.221 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been deleted. --Ezeu 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chocolate faces! 

message: Slave traders never had any "fear of uprisings" by the people whom they used as their merchandise called "black ivory" by certain people.  Velocicaptor 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{(POV)}}</nowiki>

message: Hundreds of slave ships sailed across the North Atlantic Ocean after 1807, especially in the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s.  The slave trade did not "end in 1807" (see the article).  That statement is an example of some flagrant propaganda.  Velocicaptor 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blockade of Africa states that the USS Constitution seized a suspected slave ship in 1853.  It is a misleading statement to claim that the slave trade ended "in 1807."  Newly-designed, faster sailing ships were built.  Hundred of ships ferried slaves across the North Atlantic Ocean from 1820 to circa 1860 when slave-trading was at its busiest in places such as Baltimore, New Orleans, and Wheeling.  Velocicaptor 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trading of slaves continued until circa 1860

message: As someone about as white as the day is long, I don't understand this phenomenon. If it doesn't get its own article, shouldn't it be in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashy? 

message: there is no need to have a category of mixed ancestry because it is too ambiguous. where will one draw the line to say who is mixed and who is not. The category should be possibly even deleted.Muntuwandi 13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but only to a point. Because there ARE many of mixed race who consider themselves black. I'm not saying that's a good argument, but it is the truth as I know it. - Jeeny Talk 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding blacks to a category of mixed race ancestry serves no purpose. In which case we would have to add whites, Native Americans and Asians, groups with which blacks have been mixing with. By doing so we make up the whole world. Frankly this category is a waste of time and unnecessary distraction. I will assume good faith but it seems like a candidate for possible troll like| intentions.Muntuwandi 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixed ancestry category

message: I think the article would be better entitled 'Capoid and/or Congoid because it's speaks of characteristics associated with a more monolithic group/stock of people as opposed to a group classified under social racial implications. Furthermore, Blacks of the world are more aesthetically diverse than what the article indicates. It feeds into stereotypes. Relir 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Capoids and Congoids is not the same as black people.  This article is about black people.----DarkTea 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the Congoid article has been redirected to this one. The Capoid still exists. Both groups are from which Black people, Black culture, and Black identity evolved. Since this is the case, there should be distinction made between Congoid and Black people. Also, this article stereotypes Blacks as all having dark skin and certain features when in fact, Black people encompass every aesthetic under the sun. Also, there are different aspects of Black people: social, cultural, and, genetic and geographic. There is a non African Diaspora aspect of Black identity that is  not covered in the article, yet this aspect has the same social roots. This article needs to be expanded and broken up into, at least, two separate articles. Relir 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Firstly, there's already an African diaspora article. Secondly, this article does cover a very wide world view. I'd hardly say that it primarily covers the united states. Based on that, I feel it's appropriate to pull your globalize tag. That's not saying that this article doesn't need expansion. It does. But I have to wonder if you've been looking at an older version of the article. CJ 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Article Name

message: there is a dispute on whether Admixture testing can work on Native Americans since they share common haplogroups with Asian populations at Talk:Race_and_genetics#Admixture_studies_in_latin_america
Muntuwandi 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments

message: There use to be a section which discussed issues with the term black, it had a quote by Diop etc. Can someone put it back because as a reader i would like to get immediately to all opposition.--RastaRule 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the section which blasted the term BLack?

message: A while back I removed :Image:Sadat5.jpg, with caption "The mother of Anwar Sadat, Egypt's third President, was Sudanese" from the page .  Considering that the caption was about his mother but the picture was of him, I didn't see anything particularly illustrative about the image and removed it.  While I was later reverted by someone probably wikistalking me , I still don't think the picture is adding anything to the article so I am going to remove it again.
I'm placing this note on the talk page just to open a space for discussion in case anybody cares, but again, I don't see any real reason this removal should be controversial.  Just giving you all a heads up.  Thanks.  The Behnam 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the issue is that some think that sadat was black, at least partly, and in this particular picture he does appear to have sub-saharan ancestry. I've seen others where he does no seem so sub-saharan. The issue is on the black identity since sadat apparently was unhappy that a dark skinned man portrayed him in a movie. It is an interesting piece of information. However I do not know whether it is representative of issues facing blacks in the middle east. Muntuwandi 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadat picture 

message: I have a problem with the term 'Anglo' being used as it is quite misunderstood and misused in alot of contexts, if it weren't for popular belief the term probably would not be used in this article. Would it be ok to remove the word from the article ? Gazh 08:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil : Race Relations : White Media 

message: Vmrgrsergrthere is a procedure that must be fulfilled if an image is to be used on wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Image use policy.Muntuwandi 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: He looks like N!xau.  Can anyone confirm whether it's him?  It would certainly be better to identify the person by name if known. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not him. The person who took the photo mentions the film in the flickr page, but says nothing about N!xau. IMO it does not even look like him. --Ezeu 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: San Man

message: I think it would be better if the first image in the article, :Image:Afro diversity.jpg, identified the four people by their ethnicity, as opposed to country of origin, because ethnicities stretch across national boundaries. I know the woman at bottom right is Masai, but the others I can't identify. Can someone help with this? Picaroon (Talk) 02:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: There are some unsourced statements about South and Southeast Asians being included in the category by "some people". No references are cited, but User:Yom says it was the definition "agreed upon" on the talk page. I should perhaps be reminding everyone that wikipedia is not a place for "agreeing upon" definitions. Only content that can be cited from notable sources is added to wikipedia.  If there are sufficient number of  notable sources with this definition, we can definitely put it here, but otherwise it would be removed as Original research. As of now, not even a single source is cited, even of dubious notability. The "source" cited clearly restricts the term to "Africa, Oceania, and Australia." If there are certain tribes that have been included in the category by anthropologists, this information has to be sourced.  deeptrivia (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South and Southeast Asians 

message: This article is reckless in the use of vagues terms, such as the title, and presenting it as a qualifiable or quantifiable fact. It is a term of self identification (a belief) or an instrument of oppression, these are the only things for which there is a high degree of verifiability through extensive references.  It should not become another garden for 'fringe research' that cites nothing later than Linnaeus, a man who gave a taxon to mythical creatures. At best the article is a hodge podge of factoids, at worst it is another platform for bigotry. The term and article is flawed and hopelessly subjective, it needs to be given a sound defintion to expand on, for goodness sake, the first line puts the page title as Black. I suppose it is assumed that the reader will 'know who we mean'.   Fred ☻  14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation 

message: This was one of the earlier articles I ever tried to help with. I gave up in disgust after a while. Many others have given up as well, I notice. The difficulty is that a certain cabal of editors feel that they WP:OWN this article, and use the "race card" to do so. This is particularly funny since none of us knows for sure what "race" any of the rest of us are. What I find disturbing is:
*the article still is an awful mess with lots of OR and narrow viewpoints
*the writing is poor
*most real science has been driven out of the article, and people who could provide a scentific perspective on this issue have been discouraged from contributing.
*a huge amount of effort is expended in worthless ways here
The term "black people" is interesting, because it means different things to different people, at different times, and in different places. And what is even stranger is that there is no such thing as a "black person", strictly speaking. And there are lots of examples where the shade of the skin is uncorrelated with the classification as "black". However, as long as this topic is so fraught with political and racial tensions, this article will continue to be essentially worthless, while a small group proudly struts around protecting their "prize".--Filll 15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad mess