Talk:Color terminology for race

message: This article is highly POV, but contains material that may be worth keeping, with the appropriate neutral perspective added. Tverbeek 14:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The bulk of the lead section seems to me to be almost off-topic, certainly not meriting being in a lead section: it has turned into a long disquisition on the negative connotations of "black", which it seems to me would better be at Black (color) and merely referenced here. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 01:30 (UTC)
:Good idea. I think I'll do that and keep this more on-topic. — Phil Welch 2 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
Alright, I've done it. I think it strengthens that article as well as this one--as well as being a better fit there (and more balanced as to the POV question of whether "black" has indisputably bad connotations), it makes this article read as less of an original essay. 142 might complain that the point isn't made strongly enough this way, but the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to make points, it's to make a Neutral Point of View. — Phil Welch 8 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
--Notquiteauden 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic lead section?

message: These portions of the article do not seem to be related to color metaphors for race in China:
*"Huang (yellow) is a common surname, but does not refer to the East Asian race as was popular in Western languages until recently. However, the Yellow Emperor was a legendary founder of China. Yellow is also identified with the "center" cardinal direction, while China is known as Zhongguo "middle country"."
*"Bai (white) means "plain" or "free of charge" in many common expressions and is not traditionally used to refer to Europeans and descendants."
—Tokek 11:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: What about the hispanic people?
_______They^ do NOT exist as a "race"!__________________________________
This, for the sake of accuracy: Hispanic means coming from Spain. As in White Western European. That is true all over the world, except USA, where the Red people of south of the border have appropriated the culture of the people who enslaved them, bred with some of them, one of the original White Western European peoples... the Spaniards! What you, probably an American, call "Hispanic" is a red race native of the Southern Americas. (Central & South America, no difference!) In fact, there is no difference between a Cherokee, an Inca, an Eskimo, a Mayan or an Aztec: they are all RED! Why? They are all NATIVE Americans! (Yes, Canada is in America, not USA, as in American continent.) Only different tribes, but one same race, the same that a White from Spain is the same race as a White from Glasgow, or a White from Greece or a White from Italy: only different ethnicities! 
To make matters worse, you Americans, call Mexicans "brown people". They are not. They are racially red! Brown people come from the Middle East and certain parts of Western Asia, which the M.E. is half in Asia and half in Africa. There are no White people in the ME no matter how much one objects: those are all brown peoples. (Of course, you will find Whites, those emigrated from [White] Europe, but I am talking of ORIGINS, of the original peoples of the Earth!) Whites in the M.E. are non-natives. The same that no White people can legitimately be called "Caucasians" (another "American" --read: USA-- fallacy) as they are neither Asian (yellow), nor from the Caucus, an area located in the Middle East, which is where Armenians, a BROWN people, come from. It's very simple. The only confusing place on the planet has to be Russia, aka USSR, because the extreme West of "Russia" is in Europe, bringing forth a White European people, and the rest of the former USSR is in Asia, so those are "yellow" race aka Asians. 
If you think this is complicated, simply look at a globe. I had a Black acquaintance who was shocked when I told her that her people were called "African-American" because they all originated from Africa. She objected to that, never having heard the concept. When she inquired about the Caribbean natives and so on, she still had never heard the concept of the continent splitting and creating those islands, which are now so far from the mother land! It baffles the mind! 
It is long time that South Americans (which is anyone south of the USA border) start reclaiming their race, all of their ethnicities, and start calling themselves "Mayan-American" or Aztec, Incan or what have you. It is time to quit the "Hispanic" and "Latina" nonsense. Be a hot Mayan or a sizzling Aztec, because a White Spaniard is what you are claiming to be, the Latin languages being those of South Western Europe (mainly French, Spanish and Italian). The Spaniards destroyed the native languages of Mexico, which were written with a bunch of Q's L's X's and T's. Look it up sometime. Why honor them by claiming to be a proud "ethnicity of those who enslaved my ancestors, the Latin-language speaking Spaniards"??? Again, mind, boggled
I hope this helps dispel the confusion of the narrowly educated, which are those who only go to school roughly between 9am and 2pm, and have 3 days off a week, (Weds, Sat, Sun, whereas other nations go to school 5 1/2 days a week) and, of course, I do mean the Americans. The lack of education of Americans, their school system is well-known all over the world. Such is your reputation.  We who spent all day in school, 8 to 6pm and Saturday mornings from 8 am to 1 pm, are, of course, much better and, above all, accurately educated. And when you write sensitive topics like this, this is where you must start: accurate education. Sadly, a lot of disinformation both on this site and the rest of the internet! Diversity is beautiful, but only if you do not try to appropriate another's culture and another's race. Otherwise, we are nothing. This is why, in my country, we say "there is no educating an American!" (meaning a USA inhabitant)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.137.210 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanics 

message: Do they deserve mention? 71.252.107.172 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hephthalites|White huns]] 

message: Because it is silly and incorrect. 
"In language, a metaphor (from the Greek: metapherin rhetorical trope) is defined as a direct comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects and mainly uses "is a" to join the first subjects."
an ex:
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players
They have their exits and their entrances; — (William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7) "
"In this example, "the world" is compared to a stage, the aim being to describe the world by taking well-known attributes from the stage."
So color metaphors for race are not metaphors becase they are based on how people look, rather than "seemingly unrelated subjects". The relationship between a white person and white as a "color" is different than the relationship between world and stage.
Talking about colors, white and black are NOT colors in physics.  So I will change the title to 
Race and "Color"
Lukas19 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Substitutions" seems even sillier. I guess you are using it as an ordinary language equivalent to metonymy, which would be technically correct. In practice in ordinary speech, the term metaphor is often used as a synonym for the much more obscure term metonym. "Color terminology" would, I suggest, be better. Paul B 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Lukas19 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "color terminology and race" proposition.--DarkTea 11:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about just color (race)?--Pharos 06:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will Change the Title

message: Rather astonishing how few non-white authors are expressed on this page.  Perhaps this holds for Wikipedia as a whole?  I added reference to Fanon, Hughes, Angelou as a starter.  Clearly this deserves more space in this article.  Also surprising to see D'Souza referenced as a NPOV authority on race.  BipDeBop 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment looks rather racist to me!  ;) Note that WP:NPOV means showing proportionately the various viewpoints, rather that one idealised "neutral" viewpoint. .. dave souza, talk 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Caucasian Views 

message: "... they are tones." I think this is just one of those things people say because it sounds clever. It's true that in some obscure fields white/black/grey are regarded as not being colors, but in most fields they are called colors. This thing about them being "tones, not colors" is pointed out all over the place, when it in fact just an irrelevant obscurity and does not apply to common use. It's like that little fact about the Great Wall of China being the only man-made object visible from space. (It's only visible from space if you look through a telescope, in which case it's not the only man-made object visible from space. Another annoying little fact which isn't really true, but it sounds clever so people keep spreading it.)
:Well if one really wants to get technical black isn't a color as black objects simply do not reflect light (although outside of a black hole nothing i know of has 100% lack of reflection). Ciobanica (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Black is not a color like zero is not a number.  Pfft.  —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Numbers are simply symbols and abstract, so they're hardly the same as the lack of light being reflected to you eye. Ciobanica (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black and white are not colors..." 

message: "sepia would be a more accurate name for the average skin color of so-called “black” Congoids, (there is a magazine for African-Americans called Sepia, which was started in 1947)"
OK, quick question, from what i noticed most black people from Africa have a darker skin tone then those from North America (i do admit to limited experience though). Would sepia really apply to black people of non mixed heritage? Ciobanica (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sepia 

message: The sentence:
:"This term includes the ethnic Sudanese to the ethnic Zulus in South Africans, the African Enemies"
is very suspect. I dug into the history and found that this addition was made by 165.228.99.131. This user made a number of consecutive changes (you can
find them all by following the diffs starting at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Color_terminology_for_race&diff=prev&oldid=223671234), all of which seem suspect. For
example, the user changed
:"*East: Green or Blue (青 "qīng" corresponds to green or blue) "
to
:"*North-East: Green or Yellow (青 "qīng" or "jing" corresponds to green or Yellow)".
A quick check in a number of English-Chinese dictionaries shows that this is false. 青 means blue or green.
This user has been guilty of introducing dubious information into other articles (check the user talk page).
I propose that we revert all of this user's changes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynand.winterbach (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting possible vandalism by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:165.228.99.131 165.228.99.131] 

message: "Among the natives of North America, stylised medicine wheels are typically depicted with four colors associated with not only cardinal direction, but also with color of race"
This sounds dubious to me. Cite your source please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.71.2 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America 

message: : Sometimes, Belarus and Belarusians have been referred to (in Western languages, not Russian) as "White Russia" and "White Russians", which can be misleading; see those articles for discussion in more depth.
This language is misleading, in implying that bel– does not mean 'white'.  It ought to say somehow that what "can be misleading" is the equation of Rus with Russia. —Tamfang (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belarus 

message: This section implies that Blumenbach hypothesized there were five categories of people: white, yellow, brown, black, and "cinnamon-brown or flame colored".  However, the Blumenbach article lists the latter as 'red', and I find it unlikely he would have used such a phrase when his other descriptors were simple colour words.  A bit of quick research shows that Blumenbach himself preferred the following categorization: Caucasian, Mongolian, Malayan, Negroid, and American.  Blumenbach said "that colour ... [is] an adventitious and easily changeable thing, and can never constitute a diversity of species." http://books.google.ca/books?id=u9QKAAAAIAAJ&dq=Johann+Friedrich+Blumenbach&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=jKIJSoHrKKW-NM76jN4L&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA113,M1 I think this entire section ought to be re-written so as to be less misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.228.104 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blumenbach 

message: 16 times "some" or "sometimes" are used in this article. Some would call this the use of weasel words. For instance - Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), one of the founders of what some call scientific racism theories, came up with the five color typology for humans - would be greatly improved by either saying who makes the claim he founded scientific racism or better yet taking out the clause.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: This image is confusing, I have never seen anyone with green skin.
please change the color scheme to something more useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.63.219 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: IMAGE

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Color terminology for race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831085310/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Color terminology for race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527081415/http://www.stcl.edu/faculty_pages/faculty_folders/steiner/aal/whiteness.ppt to http://www.stcl.edu/faculty_pages/faculty_folders/steiner/aal/whiteness.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213919/http://www.codesria.org/Links/Publications/bulletin1_04/keita.pdf to http://www.codesria.org/Links/Publications/bulletin1_04/keita.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020105628/http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413052122/http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320 to http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=51320
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Stoddard's 1920s map is clearly relevant to the topic, but it is misleading to place it at the top.
Stoddard's work clearly has an ideological, racialist bias. 
This is evident from the fact that his "white" race is much more restricted, corresponding to the emergence of 20th-century "white supremacy". His "brown" race is in fact part of what everyone since Blumenbach included in "white". 
By all means include Stoddard under "early 20th century" or something, but don't use his map as representative of physical anthropology, it's just a single 1920s author with an idiosyncratic concept of "white vs. brown" that never became mainstream. --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Map