Talk:Black people/Archive 7

message: Fill you keep arguing that you want to see all views as long as they're cited.  That's why the Definitions of black people article was created.  Have you read it?  It shows all the different ideas people have about what being black means and every single statement in the article is cited.  The solution is to redirect this article to the Definitions of black people article.  Problem solved.  Now if any one section of that article gets too large it can branch in to seperate articles as you suggest, but for now it samples all the different perspectives in a cited and organized way__Whatdoyou 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It covers the basics in a NPOV cited way.  The debate boils down to how you define a black person. Some define a black person as someone of sub-Saharan ancestry, others define a black person as anyone with dark skin, and others define a black person as anyone whose been oppressed regardless of race or color.  All of these views are represented in the article. More references could always be added but all sides are currently represented in the Definitions of black people article and it seems a bit redundant to try to turn any single POV into an entire article and this will probably just invite original research.  We already have articles about race, genetics, racism, clourism, afrocentricism, afrophobia etc.__Whatdoyou 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's just get rid of this article since it's just a POV essay and replace it with the Definitions of black people article.  This article is uncited POV garbage. We don't need it when we have another article that makes the same points in NPOV way.__Whatdoyou 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reluctant to look at it, but Definitions of black people is actually a reasonable, well cited article.   This article, black people has some interesting points, but is largely an uncited, agenda-pushing essay.   The clearest route to cleaning it up would be to replace it with definitions of black people and add unbiased, cited content gradually.   CarlosRodriguez 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Fill -- I'd resist dividing editors into different camps with different "points of view".  Editing from a non-neutral POV is not allowed here, nor is insertion of huge blocks of text without citations.   CarlosRodriguez 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No EVERYTHING must be cited especially when the subject is as controversial as this one is.  This is an encyclopedia not a personal web page.  Any uncited content does not belong in wikipedia.  That's why the uncited POV essay that is this article needs to replaced by Definitions of black people right away.__Whatdoyou 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing to do is go silent.  It only serves the agenda-driven Afrocentrist/Black supremacist/lunatic fringe to continue these pointless arguments.  Make a statement and Zaph rails his head off for a couple of hours and the article stays locked to the current version.   Let's quiet down and when the article is unlocked the uncited nonsense can be removed.  CarlosRodriguez 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well if something is not done, this article and associated articles will sink of their own weight because of confusion and rancor. If someone writes a subsection or associated article and is unable or unwilling to find quality references for it, then no problem: it goes in the ash heap.--Filll 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, that's the way wikipedia works.  All we can do is make it clear to Zaph and Deeceevoice on what should be here, and the "emotion" they put in is unwelcome.   CarlosRodriguez 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That attitude of yours is the sole source of all the problems in this article. You believe that YOU make it clear to us on what YOU think should be here. And until you, being a non-black person, start to research black reputable sources on what black people believe is or is not black, you will be reminded again and again of how ignorant and stupid you sound. "make it clear" "what should be here". Why not just say "It's up to us to tell the black people what we decide how they should be." because that is very clearly how you sound at this point. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is a solution

message: Let's start from something basic.
The integrity of a POV is maintained by how the language is used to present it. When I saw "Who is black" changed to "definitions of black people". I (and every black person I spoke with) took offense to the arrogant conceited nature of the Wikipedians that changed that name.  Why is Who is a Jew not called "Definitions of Jewish people"? Why does the principle for one, not apply to the other? Both are humans, both are groups, both deserve equal respect. (This little point is actually a critical foundation of the example of why Black people and white people in this discussion are at odds). Explain, whoever you are, why you feel "definitions" is more appropriate than "who is" for the title of the articleDefinitions of black people? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's sarcasm on your part. Why is black people such a topic that this kind of indignation and exasperation so acceptable? Let us handle this difficult issue responsibly! Why not consider that maybe your intractability is the cause of your own burnout! Is it going to kill you if you acknowledge that black people inhabited Asia without the use of iron shackles? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me try to give you a response since you seem to want one. I do not know who changed "What is a black person" to "Definitions of black people" or why. I think it is probably better to stay with the precedent set by the other articles on Jews or white people, but this is not critical. Also, I will certainly acknowledge that there are people around the world in Oceania, in Australia, in Asia and other places that have either called themselves black and/or have had other people call them black, either now or currently. And I will also point out that some people very vehemently disagree with this position for a variety of reasons. So, as I have said over and over and over, I would like this article or family of articles to represent both views, complete with references. I think that it cannot be settled by arguing. And it is pointless. I think that the fact that there is disagreement and controversy should be noted and documented in the articles.--Filll 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok where is the answer to my question? --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets start from the bottom. 

message: Let us black people tell you what it means to be black. No longer is the black side of this defensive. I spent enormous amounts of time giving the Eurocentricists all the leverage they are going to get. 
1. Black identity is not based on the conclusions of non-black intellectuals. That means that, like Jews and like other cosmopolitian groups with a long and complicated history, black people are not defined in the context of White or non-black scientists, anthropologitsts. No, instead, those scientists must do what scientists do. They must investigate the subject matter themselves. That means they must ask the members of the all-inclusive identity. Of course that means that only reputable sources are justifiable in the Wiki-context. However, that does not give the white contributors or moderators carte-blanche to unilaterally reject any second or third tier reference that does not agree with their already forumlated opinions. (The catch-22 ends here). The legacy of whites making the deciding factor on defining black people ended years ago. 
The next few points I am going to take the "nots" and further down I will put in the affirmatives in order to remove any loopholes. 
2. Black identity is not limited to a geographical origin. This is important to understand, because if you put a geographical limitation, you create a contradiction. The contradiction is as follows: Geographical origins are thrown out the window for the descendants of slavery, although not for independant groups. (I.E. the Siddi of India would be considered black, but not the Dalits.) 
3. Black does not Equal African. Africans are one aspect of Black people, and the most significant and the core component, but not the exclusive aspect. This is a misunderstanding specifically by Americans. A misunderstanding that is even carrying down to Latin America and the Caribbean. 
4. Colonialism and Racism must be included in this article (on BOTH sides). Racism and Colonialism played a role in defining Black people as "Africans" and played a role in encouraging people outside of Africa including among the direct African diaspora in Latin America to renounce their black idenity. 
5. Black power, pride, Afrocentrism must be included in this artilce (on BOTH sides). These positiosn are legitimate although not integral. They played the most recent role in reviewing the Black identity across the world.
6. Black Identity is not based on skull shapes. Skull shapes only point to a belief in the inherent intellectual differences in "races". The shape of the skull implies a shape of the brain, which has been used time and time again to indicate the intellectual focus or charisma of differing people.
7. DNA never played a role in determining who is and who is not black. Visual cues did. Visual cues is not DNA. We cannot force "DNA" into the historical aspect of the conversation when DNA was never used as a litmus test. 
Black people are so far clearly people of Equatorial Africa, people whose DNA diverges wildly across the human spectrum, people who are not necessarily dark, people who inherently recognize and hold up the darkest skinned heritage as a meaningful part of their history, a people who share social and cultural peculiarities (some of which have not been articulated in the article), people who have shared a social stigma because of racism, people who are not necessarily historically related to each other, people who are for the most part indistinguisable in appearance and can be easily mistaken for each other in different social contexts. Black "African-Americans" defy all of the assumptions made in defining old-world black people, in that their skull shapes, skin tone, features, and other considerations fall outside the definitions whites impose on us. So an black American is still black while still surely can have a caucasoid skull, light skin, a nose and features that would classify him as "not black" if he were Ethiopian, or East Indian. (I will call this the African-American Paradox, or the AAP for short) This proves more than anything, that Blackness is more of a social group and not a race or a biological entity. In fact, the Eurocentric adherence in classifying mixed black US citizen Americans (particularly the descendants of slaves) as unquestionably black (regardless of their features) is a prime example of the bottom line acknowledgement of the diversity of the black race. There is no scientific basis to exclude African-Americans from the "rules" that the white amateur ethnographers here in Wikipedia insist on. 
Black People are people who may or may not choose to recognize this identity (it's more volunatary like Jewishness).
Black identity has been historically found in cultures historically unrelated or loosely related to Equatorial Africans. Kushites, Egyptians, various groups in India mentioned numerous times in here, Aeta, Melanesians, Aboriginals, Andemese, Sentinelese, Taiwanese aboriginals, etc. We cannot dismiss that when the historical context clearly indicates their presence and their identity as black (in their local or regional dialect). 
I post this on my user page. Any sensible reasons to disagree post in my user page. Requests for references will be honored and respected. Mutual respect requested where references are used appropriately. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now we move on to another level. 

message: IN the article Who is a jew
*"Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: ?מיהו יהודי) is a religious, social and political debate on the exact definition of which persons can be considered Jewish. The Hebrew phrase Mihu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?") came into widespread use when several high profile legal cases in Israel grappled with this subject after the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. As Judaism shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnical approach to identity is used. Throughout the years jews have been characterized in many different lights.
In the article Who is black
*This article presents the competing definitions of black people, based on a racial, socio-political, lexical, biological, and other viewpoints. 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.[1] Gradually the "yellow" and "red" races got lumped together yielding just three races commonly known as mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid[2]. The last term is derived from Negro which is a Spanish adjective for black.[3] 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)[4].
:Notice the respect given to the Jewish perspective, and the lack thereof given to the Black perspective. No, despite the fact that black people are found in the bible, in ancient dialogue, in historical contexts predating the 18th century, instead, the contributor wants the reader to think that Carolus Linneaus concocted the black race from his imagination, or that blackness is only relevant when it's a metaphor for race (otherwise it's irrelevant to some white people, and therefore irrelevant in reality). Carolus created us black people and not only that, but we must follow along Carolus' imaginations and his postulations as to how we are defined. I'll keep bringing this up until this lie is abandoned by Wikipedia. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark skin was obviously noticed throughout history, but the concept of race did not exist before several hundred years ago and so Black as an ethnic idenity did not exist. And the reason the article is not called "Who is Black" like the "Who is Jewish" article, is because this article is better than the "who is Jewish" article because it provides a list of cited and varied definitions from people of different races (plus extensive criticism), and thus can have an encyclopedic title.  "Who is Black?" is a question, not a title for an encyclopedia artice. "Who is Jewish" should also be changed.__Whatdoyou 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then change the Jewish article. Use your assumptions that are false and apply them there. This issue is not about race, and in addition the concept of race existed as far back as the pyramids. The concept of race is not uniform, and our present day reliance on some DNA, or skulls to DEFINE it does not mean it was conceived from that. But more importantly, you believe the Jewish article is titled incorrectly? Then change the title to [{Definitions of a Jew]] without hesitation, with the same passion you do here. Do it now. Do not make excuses, do not be a cowardly punk. Do not be a chump. CHANGE IT NOW! In fact, I will copy your comments here, and put them THERE. Let the contributors there respond to you through me, and we will see how much integrity you truly have. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I just changed the title to something more encyclopedic.  I didn't call it definitions because they don't have definitions in their article.__Whatdoyou 16:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, if you do not do it yourself, I will change the title and cite you as the reason, copying your own words into the talk page of the Jewish article. And I will cross post between these two articles, having you debate them whether you like it or not. You have 24 hours. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not good enough, you changed it to "Controversies about Jews", change it to "Definitions of Jews". Do not be a coward. "You had no problems with "Definitions" of Blacks. Have no problem with "Definitions of Jews". --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yawn.__Whatdoyou 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How about you get off the bus and leave your slave ass behind? You call me a slave, I call you a slave. Whatever. In the end, you only talk about "not" using a word, not using a name. YOu offer nothing. I am not going to resort to "just using African" when your ultimate goal is to use that to sever any references to black people outside of Africa in this article. (Yes, you forgot what the article is called didn't you). You want to prove that "black" is a bad old slave word? Then go and do that on your own. Why don't you show some consistency and go into the African-American article and remove all references to "Black" and replace it with whatever you want. You don't like "Equatorial" (probably because it shows a relationship to people outside of Africa". in fact, I think, behind your fake pro-black facade, you just want to isolate Black people from the rest of humanity, typical white racist goal. Show some integrity before you come in here trying to sow seeds of chaos. I can see right through it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds a little better, but the "people" is important. I don't want any omission of the human aspect of the black identity. Notice by the way that the Jewish article reverted back to the "Who is". --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare the respect and the lack thereof 

message: Equatorial Africans what is this Equatorial Africans, i meant to ask but i said let me keep quite. Equatorial Africans. Is Ethiopia Equatorial what about Mali? Do u know how cold that place is? Is South Africa "Equatorial" SA just as far from the eq than Algeria. Like Sub (below) Sahara (a desert belt) Africa, makes no sense. but we buy anything they sell us--Halaqah 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equitorial African

message: Listen i am not happy with that Ethiopia thing, how many times do i have to say this. Is anyone supporting me on this? They take this study and broadcast it like it was established fact or the common opinion on Ethiopian people. It causes a serious distortion. Tell that to an Ethiopian they never heard of this stuff. Anyway you going to enjoy this West african type we should add this in (joke) see the section on black people and sports.--Halaqah 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: West african type

message: Zaph has been blocked indefinitely for misbehavior.   I have questions about the legitimacy of this block, but it is great he is gone.  He has threatened to return with a completely different writing style, but if he does, I don't think that'll be a problem.  Now we can make some progress on this article!
I do believe that he raised some serious issues about the Jewish articles, unfortunately there is an agenda-pushing mafia of editors that makes improving those articles near impossible.
I cant believe they banned him!!! It is funny like or hate there is right and wrong. I bet had he been pushing some other agenda and happen to be of another race, he would still be here. The militancy is only allowed from one end of the race game. And i have noticed that some areas in Wikipedia are off limits to de African (i say no more) i got burnt going into these strange places. Truth is what they allow you to say, go beyond their limits and you are in a world of hurt. Zaph has been slaughtered a reminder for us to know our place, And dont believe the hype about democracy, If Ur African freedom has its limits.---Halaqah 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know about all that. But you have to admit he was not being as cooperative as he could have been. I think he had some good points, but you have to cooperate with others, rather than try to convince them. This is not a debating society. It is an encyclopedia, and for an encyclopedia I think the goals are a bit different. The fighting and nastiness were a bit tedious and counterproductive. If there is no agreement on a subject (and I would claim there was evidence for disagreement here), then the article should reflect that fact so readers can understand the issues. Why try to stamp out the disagreements and confusion that exist? This is not the place for that, even if it were possible (which seems unlikely)--Filll 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was totally uncooperative.  He promised to revert and edit under other names indefinitely.   He also filled up talk pages with unending nonsense.  But if he agreed to quiet down a little I would sign onto a petition to let him return.  (I'd do this for just about anybody if you guys ever find yourself in trouble)  CarlosRodriguez 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did.  He contributed nothing encyclopedic. And he drove many of the best editors away.  It's a shame he wasn't banned long ago.  I think many of the admins were afraid to block someone claiming to be black for fear they would look racist. He played the race card almost every time he posted and it worked for a long time, buit eventually someone got tired of his constant personal attacks. Gottoupload 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Celebrate "Good Times"
 ZAPH is GONE

message: But all I will do is revert it back. If you have an editin issue state it. Don't just delete whole paragraphs.--Salsassin 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trolls can try to revert all they want

message: Some of the previous versions had some nice pictures that might fit in there. I like that picture of the saint's statue in the German church and the photo of the Egyptian statue showing one black figure and one white figure. Is there any place for those in this article or on an associated page? Also, it would be nice to have a link to that NPR program page with the race quiz that shows how difficult it is to classify people according to race in some cases.--Filll 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPR thing sounds interesting, but it sounds better suited to a general discussion of race, rather than an article on "black people," because blackness isn't strictly about race.  Never was.deeceevoice 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kobrakid 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "white and civilized." undre warren hardings picture... rewording perhaps in order? Cannibalicious! 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? There's no such thing as black caucasoids. If you are caucasoid then by DEFINITION you are NOT black. Gottoupload 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? Well as far as I know, there is one race of humans on earth at the moment: homo sapiens sapiens, of which we are all members. However, historically the word race was used very differently. And there is copious documentation for that. So please, lets try to write an encyclopedia, not a political diatribe.--Filll 22:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with gottoupload. Even though I think the concept of race is a load of nonsense, that does not mean that it has not had a HUGE influence on the events of the last few hundred years. A person who wants to know what "black people" means will want to know that to understand history and the way the world is and various attitudes. You can try to ignore it, but it is the truth. There are many people who live in places where NO black people exist, or very few. Or no white people. Or no black OR white people. And for someone in a situation like that, they will want to understand what all the fuss is about. If you do not write an honest article that includes ALL points of view, they will get a very limited picture of the world and its history. So that is why I constantly plead to have a broad broad article with many different viewpoints represented, and contrary views, and evidence of disagreement, and inconsistency, and hypocrisy and sheer stupidity (all with references of course). Why? Because THAT is the way humans are and have been for centuries.--Filll 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm begging you to do some reading and not from Afrocentric sources. Read Professor Frank M. Snowden Jr., a very well respected black professor at Howard university who did the most extensive survey of what it meant to be black in the ancient world. He says terms "Kushite", "Nubian", and "Ethiopian" were the closest think the ancient world had to terms like "colored", "black", or "Negro", so obviously long before science formally recognized race, blacks were equated with Africans. Gottoupload 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And the article extensively documents the broader context its been applied.  Read the alternative view points section. The article is excellent and well balanced and I'd hate to see it ruined over such minor disagreements. Gottoupload 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I like the gallery

message: I think it is good but needs to be cleaned up. I spotted little spelling errors like "east Indian" etc. Also the references need to be done better, references should have viewable details, no one should have to click on them to find out where they go. I think in the interest of diversity a diverse image of "black" people should be used and not only the image currently up there, it is not rep of the topic. Pick a diverse range of people it would really help the actual material than the old "image" of blackness---Halaqah 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up needed

message: It would be nice if the huge amount of new content now at the top/start of the article had references instead of being just a sermon from a soapbox.--Filll 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article developed rather quickly into absolute garbage.   Look at the huge section about Ethiopia right at the beginning....would anyone (other than perhaps Zaph) consider this a good organization?   We have higher standards here than on Afrocentrist blogs.  Learn to write!  CarlosRodriguez 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Ethiopian section discusses blacks in ancient times.  It discusses the only reliable source about blacks in antiquity and they were known at Ethiopians. Start at the beginning. Gottoupload 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: It's so well cited, so interesting, so well balanced, telling the complete story of black people in chronological order, shows so many different perspectives from racist theories of the 19th century to Afrocentric scholars of the 21 century to respected black scholars from Howard university, to a ton of diverse definitions of black people, to a fascinating photo gallary that applies those definitions to famous people. This article is so perfect the way it is I just don't want anyone to touch it. Gottoupload 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I touched it.  The references appeared like: 1, 2, and I changed them so a reader can at least have a clue what sort of site he is being sent to.  There were also problems with whether " marks should include the [1] (cite which sends the reader to the reference list) or the " not include the [1] and just include the quote which the cite is to.  Wikipedia:Footnotes (shortcut WP:FN) tells how to do this and WP:CITE can also be helpful.  I went through it and (hopefully) improved it.  I should also point out that several of the links are dead links and should point out that several links point to personal opinion on personal websites (a no-no according to WP:RS). Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 08:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is excellent

message: It is riddled with POV.  The black editors have been effectively driven off, blocked for clearly intemperate remarks (Zaph), or locked out of participation by repeated tag-team edit warring -- block reverts of new material with lame excuses that wouldn't hold up if applied equally to other (read "non-black") editors.  These automatic reverts include reinsertion of blatantly erroneous material, misspellings, problems with syntax and capitalization.  deeceevoice 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand, so you can fix the grammar issues. After that what is the problem? I see a very general POV, rnt both sides sorted? You should explain what you see as wrong.--Halaqah 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That his edits  were reverted  had nothing to do with racism. It had everything to do with striving for accuracy. And he violated the 3RR rule. SecurID 12:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you say "there's so much material" one more time I'm gona start screaming.  There are so many OPINIONS but there is very little encyclopedic material.  In fact normal encyclopedias don't even have articles on "black people". They have articles on "negroids" which many would say is the same thing, but not black people per se. The only reliables sources on black people in the ancient world are covered in the Ethiopia section and it essentially all comes from one black professor who is known as the leading authority on how blacks were defined in the ancient world.  There's also a few religous scriptures that no one can agree on the interpretation of.  After that it's just a matter of how the black race was defined in the enlightenment and various racialist and afrocentric theories that followed. Timelist 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess we might have a difference of opinion. However, I would say that is a lot of stuff, if it is properly developed. I would want to see 
* historical backgrounds of groups called black by neighbors in asia, africa, europe, the americas
* groups that call themselves black historically
* age of enlightenment racial theories 
* DNA studies
* melanin "science" 
* black movements in the US
* afrocentrist and black consciousness movements
* religious scriptures
* different definitions
* trivia
* controversies 
And in my book, that adds up to a LOT of stuff. I am not sure how easy it would be to do with good references etc...--Filll 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of those topics are already summarized in this article.  If any one section gets too long it can always branch out into its own main article where the specific topic is covered in more depth, but that would require a lot more references.  Timelist 02:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I completely agree.--Filll 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''This article is nothing of the sort (excellent); it's racism at work'''

message: I have noticed the topic has one single woman representing the "black" topic. I have put another diverse image up there, it has been removed--AGAIN. The article reflects diversity, take an alien vantage point on it. 1st thing show the diversity at the top. Why have that image, is she the symbol of "blackness" or an "average" black person?--Halaqah 12:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an large image of a group of Ethiopians at the top since Ethiopians are the first section and we have an Ethiopian in the gallary too, and  having 2 images of Ethiopians right at the top would be too much.  I understand that a single West African woman can not represent all of black people, however the solution is not to add yet another Ethiopian or to cluter the intro with too many photos.  I think the best thing would be to replace the West African image with a single image of a group of different kinds of black people all standing together.  The problem is most images of many black people standing together usually only include the same type of black people. In the Irish people article they have a collage as their opening photo to show the different types.  I'm sure similar collages exist for black people, but finding them may take time. Timelist 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please put back the Ethiopian picture

message: Should this perhaps be in the newly created :Category:Words referring to ethnic groups rather than :Category:Ethnic groups? It seems to be about the term, not about an ethnic group as such. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been the problem from the get-go.  Black has several meanings. An ethnic meaning which refers to people of African ancestry, a descriptive meaning (any dark skinned person), and a political meaning (not used as frequently today) which is as a term that all non-whites used to united against racism.  People could never agree on which definition this article should focus on so instead it focues on the history of how the term was used. Timelist 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category question 

message: The concept of black identity has been traced to the ancient Greeks and Romans who labelled dark skinned peoples from North East Africa as "Kushite", "Nubian", and "Ethiopian" and to early biblical writings equating blackness with servitude.
Black identity and people being called black is two different things. It can only be called a BLACK IDENTITY if the people self-use these terms. that what "black identity" means. Today "black identity" exist but no African identified with this term during Greeks and Romans. The Bible equating blackness with servitude is very loaded because the Bible also Equates Ethiopia with greatness. So back to why i have issues with "black" in the first place. The Bible is talking about "black" or "African people" when you put it there is seems to refer to African people.--Halaqah 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: issue with wording

message: The term "black" was soon replaced by "negro" but by the 1970s African-Americans reclaimed the term "black" as did segments of other non-white populations who shared in their struggle with racism.  By the end of the 20th century,  advances in modern genetics suggested that Africa was the birth place of modern humans,  causing many people to declare that blacks are the original race.
It doesnt below in an intro, it is a Pan-Americanism, it gives central focus to an American experience. It belongs in the relevant section. Also the intro should be concise. And it should be like the article--universal.--Halaqah 10:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But African-Americans have popularized the term black in the modern world and deserve credit for this.  I agree the intro should be concise but it should also give an overview of the article that follows and the main stages in the history of black identity are the ancient world where Ethiopians and the Bible defined blacks,  followed by the enlightenmnet which came up with the concept of a black race, followed by African Americans and other people of colour reclaiming the term in the 1970s, followed by modern science hinting that blacks are the original race.  These are all major developments, major chapters in the article, and thus give the reader a good overview. Timelist 14:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But the references say that Ethiopians are the historical background so it must be focused on them if we want to correctly record history.  According to Snowden's book,  the reason that blacks had a good reputation in the ancient world was because the only blacks the ancient world knew were the highly cultured Ethiopians.  It wasn't until other parts of Africa were discovered did the reputation of black people decrease. Timelist 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So one might infer that "white" should be replaced with "White". I am very uncomfortable with using "White" as a term, and I am not quite sure why. It sort of smacks of elitism. But I am just confused in general so I will go along with whatever you feel strongly about. I think the afrocentrists (who were so angry and strident before; where are they now?) should develop their views in a separate article that could be linked here. Even though I have my doubts about some of what they say, I think they should explain their platform extensively someplace so people can understand it. --Filll 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Zaph and Deeceevoice weren't afrocentricists.  Just the opposite. They appeared to be aphrophobic since they felt that equating blackness with their African ancestry was an insult to black people, and thus prefered to self-identify with dark skinned people of non-African ancestry who do not share their racial or ethnic group.  What an incult to the African race that some of their own people would rather self-identify with other ethnicities since they don't take any pride in their African ancestry.  Such Afrophobic racism will not be missed. And as much as I like the image that Halagah created, I was a bit disturbed to see so many borderline black people in it (i.e. those who have so much Caucasoid or proto-Caucasoid ancestry, that they might actually be more caucasoid than negroid).  I hope it was because he was just trying to show diversity.  I would hate to think that's there are any black people left here who are ashamed of the hard-core pure negroids.  Gottoupload 23:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I don't want to get into an off-topic debate, but Amharas are most certainly NOT pure African (they have SUBSTANTIAL West Asian ancestry, at least 40% and much more for those living in Northern Ethiopia), and even much of the part of them that is indigenous to Africa, is classified as non-African by genetecists.  It's very common to hear geneticists call Ethiopians the only non-African race that never left Africa. Gottoupload 00:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Most AA are over 80% African genetically. But yes, let's move on. Gottoupload 01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I wasn't going to get into this discussion but you raise some interesting questions:  "non-African that never left Africa" is just a provocative of way of claiming that some segments of the population that stayed in Africa (i.e. elongated Africans) are genetically part of the population that branched out of Africa and into the middle East to become caucasoid.  In other words, some believe that based on genes and skulls, elongated Africans should be grouped with caucasoids who define the Middle East and Europe, instead of the negroid populations that define sub-Saharan Africa.  Hence, the argument goes, they are Africans who are out of place in Africa, and really belong with the non-Africans.  Similarly, Afrocentricists argue that Australoids are really Africoid, and so even though they're part of the population that left Africa, based on physical appearance, they should be grouped with Africans.  Timelist 05:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well there's a certain way MOST Africans look and there's a certain way MOST Arabs/Europeans look.  Some people have argued that elongated Africans look more like most Arabs/Europeans and so should be racially classified with them.  Others argue that they look more like other Africans, and should be grouped with Africans.  In any biological classification system there's going to be grey areas and ambiguity. Race is no exception. Timelist 05:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I have cut this

message: You see the Jewish page has a big side board with all related articles, i think it would be a good idea to do something like that. So the culture the music can all come together. just like for African-American. Or has it been done already?--Halaqah 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A GOOD IDEA

message: I'm starting the process of trying to clean the citations of this article, most of which are currently nothing more than blind URLs. So far, I've found one very weak citation. Several statements (such as "some scientists argue that Ethiopians resemble Caucasoids more than Negroids" are cited to http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/ethiopians.html. Racial Reality is a personal web site. It points to some interesting materials, and we would do well to follow up to its sources and cite them, but at least some of what it contains is quite outdated. For example, the photos of Ethiopians described on this page as "Racial Types" are from Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe. Coon's views were pretty discredited by the end of his own lifetime, let alone now. Much of what the page contains looks good, and worth following up, but that follow-up really should happen, rather than citing someone's personal website. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Carleton Coon was discredited is not relevant. He played a major role in how a lot of people viewed black people so he's of historical interest.  This article cites all kinds of opinions about who is black including by fringe Afrocentrists, and there are no right or wrong answers, just different ways black people have been defined, percieved, and socially constructed. Timelist 06:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Every statement in the article is silly to someone or has caused disagreement with someone.  Let's just show all sides and not censor anything.  Plus there is criticism that directly follows those statements that will make less sense if those statements are gone. You've raised this issue ten times now and I'm really getting tired of you saying something should be removed just because you find it silly and offensive.  You're starting to remind me of the person who keeps trying to censor Snowden's controversial view that the ancient Egyptians were Eththiopians. Again, everything in this article will be offensive to someone since race is a very sensetive topic. Timelist 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we should be too picky about references, because if we only cite mainstream sources, the article will simply reflect the dominant culture from which blacks have been excluded. Timelist 20:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is paramount that we use references from notable sources. Not only will that save us from the petty bickering that results from citing obscure sources, but it is also Wikipedia policy to cite reliable published sources.--Ezeu 21:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not as if there is not an extensive literature on race by Blacks, arguably extending clear back to slave narratives, but well established by a century ago (consider W.E.B. Dubois), and including Malcolm X and bell hooks (and the Afrocentrists. I could list a dozen more, but, Timelist, there is no excuse for saying that the only place to get a black point of view on the matter is someone's personal web page or blog. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: It seems most of you like the image i flung together, it came from images i could find on wikipedia, so i assumed it would be "legal" however Mr Strotha seems to follow all of my additions around (because i had to put him in his place once) suggesting them for deletion. I cannot see how grouping images together could violate wikipedia policy. And i think this image is a suit all solution,--Halaqah 11:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most image licenses prohibit copying and modification the way you did. This is especially the case with fair use images. To create a "legal" composite of images, check the images at Wikimedia Commons, as most of them are free for modification and distribution - but make sure to note in the description which images (and the link to them) you have used to make your composite. There are enough images of black people at Commons, so there is no need to use fair use images. You may find some at commons:Category:Africans, commons:Category:African Americans & commons:Category:People by country. If you absolutely must use the images in the current composite, post the links to the images you have used, so that we can create a table-based composite instead. --Ezeu 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice image up for deletion

message: Timelist, references need to be formatted properly. What do you have against that? Looks like you are itching for a revert war when you cannot even allow normal cleanups and regular page formatting. --Ezeu 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first time you had done it you left ugly red gibberish all over the article and appeared to have removed info that was sourced.  The second time you did, things look much better, and the reference section now looks excellent.  I'm bit worried that people will mercilessly remove statements that you've requested better references for before I have a chance to find better references, as I expect to be quite busy this week. Timelist 17:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a tag error that caused some ugly page rendering. I apologise for that. The references that I removed (and tagged as "citation needed") were unverifiable because the linked websites were broken. If someone removes those statements, you could always re-insert them when you find the apporpriate sources. No loss. --Ezeu 18:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This section was removed:
nterpreting such findings, in 1993, black nationalists stated "white people are genetic mutations of black people. Only black women can claim all the genetic material necassary to create other races". Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam echoes such themes: "The original man, Allah, is none other than the black man. The black man is the first and last, marker and owner of the universe. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people."  	 
However J. Phillipe Rushton of the university of Western Ontario argues that because blacks were indeed the first race to branch off the human evolutionary tree, they are primarily superior in primitive traits like size of genitalia, salience of muscles and buttox, and reproductive output, but lag behind when it comes to more evolved traits like brain size and social organization, especially when compared to orientals, who Rushton believes evolved most recently in a challenging ice age environment. "One theoretical possibility," said Rushton, "is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others."Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society (p. 163), Stoddart Publishing () 	 
 		 
While Rushton's views are extremely controversial, Afrocentric scholars, black supremacists, racialist scholars, and mainstream scientists all increasingly agree that modern humans come from Africa. Nathan Hare suggests the following anthem: 	 
 		 
"I, the Black Man, am the original man, the first man to walk this vast and imponderable earth. I, the black man, am an Africa, the exotic, single, quintesence of a universal blackness...the first truly human being the world has ever known."
I do not understand why this is "racist". It is controversial, yes, but is it racist?--Filll 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that black people have some right to be the "owner of the universe" is as racist as saying that white people have a right to be "owner of the universe". However, the main problem with this passage is the way it jumbles up idological assertions with science, as though "mainstream scientists" would support nonsensical statements like the claim that "the black man" is "the first truly human being the world have ever known". The earliest human beings are no more related to modern black populations than to any other population. To claim that they are is to self-destructively assert that modern black people have not moved on in any way from our earliest ancestors. That's exactly what Victorian racists said. Paul B 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the Victorian racists say that? I though the idea originated with Rushton.  Prior to Rushton and the African Eve hypothesis the racialist thinking by Coon was that whites were the first to become human and thus were superior.  Anyway, mainstream science believes that modern humans evolved in Africa nd thus black are arguabley more similar to the first modern humans.  Folks like Rushton interpret this to mean that blacks are genetically primitive but black supremacists use it to argue that blacks are superior.  Let's jsut show all sides and not censor anything. Makes for a far better article. Timelist 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What on earth? Who said ANYTHING about humanoid apes? That is a ludicrous statement, I am sorry. I could come down on you like a ton of bricks, but in the interests of comity, I will hold back. I will note that you are very sadly mistaken. Our human ancestors 60,000 years ago and 200,000 years ago, which were two of the prominent genetic bottlenecks that I recall, were NOT humanoid apes. Do you honestly think they were? When in your opinion did the homo sapiens sapiens species emerge?  Please try to educate yourself a little so you can make positive contributions to this effort. So you think that having dark skin is a bad thing? If that is true that even noticing or mentioning that one human has darker skin than another, then this article and many others like it should be deleted in the interests of being color blind and nonracist. So I guess you want to suggest that the ancestors of all humans had white skin, even though they came from Africa, and to say otherwise is racist? Let's put it to a vote and discussion and see if everyone else here agrees with you. If most people agree that noticing that one person has darker skin than another is racist, then I propose that this article be deleted and I will look for others to suggest for deletion as well. This is why this article had such trouble getting written. It is very easy to play the race card and charge others with racism.--Filll 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might note that ALL humans are primates. ALL humans are animals. ALL humans are evolved from other primates, as near as we can determine. Evolution uses the processes of natural selection and   mutation to create new species, over a long enough period of time. If humans were created by evolution, then we are the result of mutations and natural selection that occured in our forebearers. Genetic differences among humans is about 0.1% at most, but the genetic difference between any human and our nearest primate relatives is about 2%. Look at a chimpanzee and a black man and a white man. Use your eyes. Do the men not look more similar to each other than to the chimp? There might be some minor characteristics in which either the black man or the white man might be closer to the chimp. The white man might have more hair like the chimp and the white man's hair might be straight like the chimp. The black man might have a skin color closer to that of the chimp. The white man might have a posture more like the chimp and musculature more like the chimp. Maybe the black man has eye color more like the chimp. Does this mean that the black man is closer to the chimp? Does this mean that the white man is closer to the chimp? Of course not. These are superficial differences which are pretty meaningless. You might just as well say that the white man is closer to a white koi fish and the black man is closer to a black koi fish. That is silly and a completely useless viewpoint.--Filll 14:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ezeu disdn't say black people were closer to apes, but including a quotation that equates modern black people with the earliest human beings does imply that. In reply to an earlier point, early anthropologists did assume that the earliest humans were white, but it was very common by the mid 19th century to argue that black people were closer, by anthropometric measures, to apes. That then developed into the theory that they were stuck at some earlier stage of evolution. By the way, chimps actually have white skin - or most of them do, there are black skinned varieties. It's just that it's covered in black hair so you can't see that they're whities. Paul B 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Paul Afrocentricists don't see it that way.  They see blacks as the first MODERN humans, not as the LAST primitive humans.  The whole point of the African Eve hypothesis was to show that all modern humans shared a common ancestress who was so recent that all races are modern humans, and blacks are the first of these recent modern humans.  Only Rushton uses the theory to imply that blacks are the primitive race and Orientals are an advanced race.  Most racialist theories were demolished by the Out of Africa model because it showed that contrary to what Coon thought, humans became fully modern very recently in Africa, and only after becoming fully modern did we divide into different races. Timelist 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this racist?