Talk:Black people/Archive 13

message: Hetep and Respect Good Spirit, The first word in recorded history to describe Blackness is a burnt piece of wood. This Metu Neter glyph is translated as the letters km. A piece of bread is added "t" and the symbol for nation to make the Name of Classical African Civilization, Kmt (Kemet) or the land of the Black people.
See the Kemetic (Egyptian) word for Black and Black people. You can find a detailed explanation in my book "The What Makes You Black, Blook". You will find the details with the metu neter (pictographs) in the appendix.
This takes place thousands of years before the first Greek writes a book. This article should be updated to reflect the fact that the Word Black was first written by Black people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aunk (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can verify this, I would like to include it. This is why I want this to be inclusive. This is the kind of interesting information we need.--Filll 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word Black comes from Classical African Civilization 

message: Alun the "other black background" on the british census is also only for people of African ancestry.  The fact that a tiny % are from Oceania means nothing.  There are people of African ancestry who live in Oceania.  Enough with the original research.
In any event it's clear that there's a narrow definition of what it means to be black and a broad definition, just like there's a narrow definition of what a lizard is, and broad definition (anything that looks kind of like a lizard including a crocodile and a dinosaur).  Encyclopedias tend to focus on precise definitions so that's what we'd like to do with this article. There's another article for teh broad defenition of black.  Timelist 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no evidence for your assertion anywhere and yet you accuse me of original research. I am British, I know what is included in the British census. People are entitled to respond how they like. You have consistently made totally unfounded claims regarding the criteria used in the collection of information by the Office for National Statistics. Did you read the document I posted? If you did then it will be as clear as the nose on your face that you are quite wrong. Your statement has no basis in fact. It is incorrect, and however much you might want it to be correct you will still be wrong. The document clearly provides information that includes people of non-recent African descent in the "Other Black" category. Give it up. You cannot keep pushing this single POV, you appear to be very much against consensus here. I know it is difficult sometimes to see another's point of view, but it is really time for you to accept that ther POVs do actually exist. We are not disagreeing with you for fun, we are not trying to annoy you, we are not trying to offend or upset you, and I'm quite sure none of us has enjoyed disputing with you. But it must be plain to you by now, given the multiplicity of definitions and sources we have produced that your contention that Black people are exclusively of recent African origin is just one point of view, and that it is not the only point of view. We have demonstrated this to the satisfaction of wikipedia's policies. It is now you who is going against all three policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. For example there's this: For more than eight in ten (84 per cent) of those in the Other Black group, an ethnic group description was specified in the text box on the census form. The majority (63 per cent) specified a ‘Black British’ ethnic identity (Figure 4.2). A further 13 per cent were coded to a ‘Black Mixed’ group, indicating mixed ethnicity where both or all ethnicities described are from different black groups. A ‘Black British’ identity was even stronger among Other Blacks born in the UK. Three quarters (74 per cent) of the Other Black group born in the UK specified a ‘Black British’ identity. The proportion was similar for those over 16 years old (75 per cent) and those under 16 (72 per cent), most of whom will have had their ethnic identity written in by a parent. So what do we know about these "Black Other"? We know that most describe their ethnic identity as Black British, and that the vast majority were born in the UK (79%). That's all we know about them, they do not describe their descent at all, they just tell us where they were born and what their ethnic group is (Black Other and Black British mainly). We can assume they do not identify as Black Caribbean or Black African as they did not choose this option. You are claiming these people as of recent African descent, maybe a lot of them are, I don't know, but neither do you, and yet you claim to know this as a fact. How do you know this? Alun 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No offense Timelist, but can we not leave this article to be for all called black or ever called black? And have one for African people? And one for African American definitions of black which are quite restrictive? We have literally hundreds of other articles about black and african people that are more specific. I am not sure how the British census refers only to African people. Can you back that up with a direct quote?  --Filll 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look above, I suggested an restrictive definition article called "black people (US meaning)". What do you think?--Filll 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No sorry I missed it. And which Indians are you referring to? The Indigenous peoples of the Americas? Or the people of South Asia? I am not trying to convince you they are "black people". However, if they were historically called black, or if they have ever self identified as black (which some claim, and I have not verified for myself), then that is something that might deserve a sentence and a reference. Does that not sound reasonable?--Filll 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't reasonable Fill.  This article is about black people, not people who've been called black at any time in history Timelist 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alun's misunderstanding of the British census

message: No offense, but I think that the introductory paragraph is again migrating towards a bit of bias and also some inaccessible English. Here is my suggested replacement:
This article is about the different definitions of the phrase "black people". To see the article about the African American use of this phrase, see Black people (US meaning).
Black people is a term that usually refers to various dark-skinned people.This phrase "black people" is not a particularly accurate description, since no humans have black skin. "Black people" are also known as blacks. There is no universally agreed-upon definition for who is "black". "Black" can be a racial, ethnic, societal or cultural classification. A variety of racial, socio-political, lexical, and biological factors can influence the definition of a "black person". Some argue that the term should be reserved exclusively for dark-skinned people of recent African ancestry in certain parts of the world.In particular, some African Americans favor this definition, although it is not universally accepted, even among African Americans. However, some argue that this definition is inaccurate since it excludes Negritos and Australoids and other dominantly dark-skinned groups. 
That is not perfect, but at least it is a proposal to argue over. I would then suggest that another article discussing the African American point of view be produced. It would have to feature both the restrictive view and have links to more general views. However, there are already hundreds of articles written from the more general viewpoint on Wikipedia, so this should not be hard to flesh it out properly so as not to claim that ALL African Americans support a definition of 
*recent African ancestry from subSaharan West Africa with dark skin and those who live in subSaharan West Africa with dark skin.
which many seem to want to push for. --Filll 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I will remove the mention of Negritos and Australoids from the lead para. Is that good enough for yous? --Ezeu 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok I edited it slightly to include Negritos and Austaloids. I also improved the English a bit. I favor shorter cleaner expository sentences.--Filll 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Wobble/Alun. Which is why I said SOME people claim this. Obviously not everyone does. I also have a problem with exclusive, so I am trying to add enough qualifiers to describe the situation accurately. It is true that SOME people want to define it this way. But not everyone does. And I do not believe that what I have suggested claims that African descent=Black, but if it does I should change it. I have given many many counterexamples here that demonstrate African Descent is NOT the same as black. And not just Aborigines. Many many other counterexamples exist.--Filll 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it said that Black people usually refers to people of recent African origin. I changed it and got told I was just being stubborn, see the edit history of the page. I think it should say that some people think it is only people of recent African descent and some people think it is people anywhere in the world with a very dark skin colour. I'd be happy with that. There's no bias there is there? To call one usage "usual" imediately brings in a bias. That's what I am specifically against. But apparently that's just stubborn, not neutral at all. Alun 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How is it being stubborn? This is something we have been over again and again. I thought we were slowly coming to a consensus, and now you want to go back to saying that Black is recent African origin and recent African origin is Black, "usually". What I don't understand is how you think this is at all significantly different from what Timelist is saying, because as far as I can see you are now agreeing with him. I do not support a bias in favour of any given POV. Alun 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is something I  am missing. Who is being stubborn?--Filll 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alun, you are being contradictory: you are saying that black does not only refer to those of African origin, yet you are also sying that black is "exclusive" to African people. What do you mean? Do you know what exclusive means? --Ezeu 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read what I wrote? I said some people think that Black people are exclusively of recent African origin or mixed recent African origin. This is one POV, it is not the POV I hold, but I accept that this is something a lot of people believe. What is wrong about this? Some people do think that Black people can only (exclusively) be of recent African origin or mixed recent African origin. That's what I said. In the article I said that in some parts of the world this is believed. Look at the edit. Alun 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't have called you stubborn, I misunderstood your edit. --Ezeu 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraph

message: Someone just included the phrase
: People from Asian countries such as India, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia etc should not be recognised as black, but instead Hispanics.
which I think is pretty funny.--Filll 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comical vandalism

message: It's amazing how much hatred there is for peoples of rescent sub-Saharan African ancestry on wikipedia.  It seems we're the only ethnicity on earth that's being denied the right to an article about ourselves using our own ethnic termonlogy despite the fact that this termonology is officially recognized by numerous governments.  
So we have editors like Wobble and Fill who want to create a ridiculous article listing all the people in history who have ever been called black by anyone ever regardless of whether the term was used in an ethnic context or not.  As a result these editors are transforming the article into an incoherent mess and disrespecting peoples of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry in the process. Timelist 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said many times before, this is the race card being played. Why do you ignore the mediation case? Do we have to go for RfC or will you be cooperative? You know I have bent over backwards to try to accommodate you and so have many many others. Now it looks like you are just one person with about 10 sockpuppets. I do not like wasting everyones time with this ludicrous issue. Take your own article and leave everyone else alone. --Filll 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you take your own article and leave people of recent Sub-Saharan African ancestry alone?  The article you are trying to create is idiotic.  A long list of everyone who has ever been called black?  That's gibberish.  Peoples of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry are a very legitimate ethnic group and we go by the name black and we are as entitled to our own article as any other ethnic group.  Why can't you show us that basic respect?  Please do not accuse editors who disagree with you of playing the race card.  Timelist 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Halaqah I'm not suggesting that all Africans call themselves black.  But many people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry use the term Black to describe our unique ethnicity and rather than write an article about that, many people want to merge all these unrelated definitions of black people (Black Irish, negritoes) into one article, when the far more interestinng article is about Black as an ethnic label.  Essentially we're bing told "NO! EVERY OTHER ETHNICITY GETS TO HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THEMSELVES USING THEIR OWN ETHNIC TERMONOLOGY, BUT NOT YOU GUYS!"  Timelist 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Timelist, Black people are not an ethnic group. There are hundreds of ethnic groups in sub Saharan Africa, to lump them all together as a single ethnic group is extremely offensive to them. These different ethnic groups do exist, have you not heared about Rwanda and the genocide there? Do you seriously think that Black people of recent African descent form a single ethnic group? African Americans are a different ethnic group to West Indians who are different again to all African groups. You are also being unfair, you want to repeat the African diaspora article as a "Black people" article. The only reason I can think of for doing this is that you cannot accept any other POV than your own. I am really angry about this. There are Black people who are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin all over the world. This is not just about people with recent African descent, this is about Black people. Your criteria for defining Black people are narrow and not representative of the consensus here. Many people here have tried hard to accomodate your POV, have accepted that we should include it in the article. But this does not seem to be enough for you, it's your own personal definition or nothing at all. Well this is an encyclopaedia, it is not the world according to Timelist. I really see very little option here other than to refer this to an investigation for disruptive editing. Alun 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry, only ethnicity not allowed their own termnology,

message: Suspected Sockpuppets of Editingoprah:
* User:64.230.72.185
* User:Aquadaqua
* User:Cardriver
* User:Kittykash
* User:Kobrakid
* User:Timelist
* User:Vexel  
* User:Liketoread
* User:Whatdoyou
Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah.M This is one person who has been harassing other users here for months and months and ignoring mediation attempts. We have a problem.--Filll 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a sock puppet of Editingoprah. We're classmates and freely admit this on our talk pages. Full disclosure.  Why are you trying to marginalize all the African American users?  Timelist 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not become immediately magically cooperative, it is all over. Sorry. I have had enough.--Filll 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of Problem

message: That perhaps 90% of the trouble at this page is the cause of one user with multiple accounts harassing others and engaging in disruptive behavior. I think the time has come to come to grips with this. All efforts for at least 6 months have gone nowhere. Many editors have given up in disgust. Tons of material was flushed down the toilet. All so one editor can rant and rave and threaten and throw tantrums and charge others with racism. This is too much. Even when I tried to get them to create a separate page with their own agenda, they wanted this one instead. And were not at all constructive. It is not as though black and African people and African Americans have no pages. There are literally hundreds. And this person does not want to contribute but just fight others and waste time and energy and be destructive. And their edits are usually stilted awful English.  I am not even convinced any more that this person is truely African American or a person of color, but an outside agitator trying to cause trouble and damage to the article. This person is working at cross purposes to people of color, and might even be like the falangists, just trying to cause disruption to keep these articles from being written.--Filll 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will note that we have here at least 5 other editors, including myself, who believe that the right course of action is to consider corrective action to stop this, and stop it now.--Filll 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am starting to realize

message: Timelist, Black people are not an ethnic group.
Then why are they an ethnic origin category on the U.S. census?
:I don't know, but Black people are no more an ethnic group than White people. I was at that article as well for a while. I am not "ethnically White". I am ethnically Welsh and I am ethnically British. When I stste my ethnicity it tells you something about me. You know where I come from, you know the culture of the place, you know what languages I speak, you might expect me to follow Rugby Union. You would know that I am partial to Leeks and Daffodils. You might guess that the car sticker I have is of Y Ddraig Goch. You would expect that I probably support England in football and Cricket, but not in Rugby. There are a miriad of things that my ethnicity tells you about me. The fact that I'm "White" tells you very little. I have ethnically British friends that are not "White", I have far more in common with them than I do with people in Finland, where I live, because I do not share an ethnic identity with Finnish people, but I do with other British people, even if they are not White. Ethnicity has nothing to do with the colour of a person's skin. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that it wasn't. I wouldn't have Black people or a White people articles personally, I find them both offensive. I find this article White British particularly pointless and offensive, because no one identifies as "White British", it's not an ethnic group, it's a census classification, British people are British people, whether they are White or not. If we have to have one, then it should reflect a world view, and not just your view. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not think this is correct. There certainly are ethnic groups within ethnic groups. I am both Welsh and British. I may even identify as European on an ethnic level (just as someone might identify as African). I never identify as ethnically "White", because I don't think such a thing exists. There are people that are considered White who do not live or derive from Europe. This was a big source of disagreement on the White people page. Myself and several editors were trying to stop some editors asserting that only Europeans can count as White. We appear to be having a similar problem here. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You certainly do have a problem with other POVs. We have all been prepaerd to compromise and include both your POV and our POV. You have consistently implied that we are racists for doing this. No one has called you a racist for insisting that the only Black people in the world are the ones that you decide are Black. Your ethnic group does have an entry. Are you claiming that you are not African American? Are you claiming that all people of recent African descent agree with you and identify as a single ethnic group that is called Black? I do not think you have the right to claim to be speaking for all people of recent African descent. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: RE "We're recognized as Black by the U.S. census and we'd like an article reflecting this fact", see African American. --Ezeu 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't, it makes me angry when people want to promote their personal opinion on wikipedia as if it is a universal truth. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about those of us who aren't American, but still would like to maintain ties with our African heritage.  I don't understand why you wont let us have an article just like every other ethnic group? We call ourselves black and so does most of the world.  Just because the term is also used by non-African dark skinned people too does not mean we should be denied a right to an article?  Why the resistance?Timelist 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who isn't letting you have an article? There are many many articles on wikipedia about the exact thing you keep claiming doesn't exist. What about African diaspora, what about British African-Caribbean community, what about Black British. I think Filll earlier produced a very long list of articles about this subject that you claim is absent from wikipedia. Alun 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Editingoprah and I freely admit we're friends and are in the same class. We're not the ones who post here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's you Fill. Timelist 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ezeu we're not trying to monopolize the term.  But the reality is that a very notable and very legitimate and very officially recognized use of the term black is to describe recent sub-Saharan African ethnicity.  I would like an article discussing black in this sense without confusing the issue with people who are black by other definitions.  Timelist 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't do this because it breaches the WP:NPOV policy. You have been told this many times. Besides which you claim in one sentence that you don't want to monopolise the term, while a couple of sentences later you say that you do want to monopolise it. Alun 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be glad to start a procedure to see what happens. Timelist, you have caused enough trouble. I think that the sockpuppetry issue alone is bad enough. I see too much of a pattern in multiple users espousing the same radical views. You do not want to compromise. There are several hundred African American pages. There are many pan african pages as well. You could write your own but you refuse. You do not actually write anything you just disrupt. You drive other editors away so this topic suffers. You are anti-black. It is over.--Filll 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually 90% of this article in its current state was written by me. It used to be called Definitions of black people and I wrote that article.  You on the other hand Fill just clog volumes and volumes of space on the talk page saying the same thing over and over again. You drive other users away with personal attacks and by simply wasting bandwidth You accuse African Americans of playing the race card and have made many generalizations about the African AMericans in your home city Timelist 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that is an admission of sockpuppetry. Because we do have a history log here. And I do recall Deeceevoice contributing a lot but disagreeing with you. But we do have records. I only came here because there was a call for editors to come and help stop the fighting. Which I have tried to do, and many others have recognized me for it. This article is renowned for fighting and being locked. And it seems like Timelist and associates sockpuppets have caused most of the fighting. I have tried to discourage the white supremacists it is true. However, if one checks the records, as long as they are productive, I think even they have a right to contribute. And I have supported their right to contribute as is a clear matter of public record. And yes I have talked about people I know because that forms my frame of reference. Many others do here as well. I will also note that bandwidth is cheap, but we should be writing articles. Which I now realize you are declining to do. A person really interested in contributing would write an article and call it black people (US meaning) or black people (American ethnic group) or add to the African American page or accept a disambiguation page at this address. But you do not. You prefer to fight. So be it. It is now clear. If you were serious, you would be writing not fighting. --Filll 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Where in NPOV does it say that words with more than one meaning can't have more than one article?  Disambiguation pages were created for this very reason Alun. Timelist 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Content forking. Alun 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't apply.  The term black used in one culture and one language has nothing to do with how its used in another culture and language. Its a separate topic Timelist 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think anyone would agree that it doesn't apply. Why do you think that it doesn't apply? We don't have different articles for different usages of the same phrase, we include all points of view in the same article. So of coures it applies. You keep doing this, you keep trying to interpret things in a way that suits you, rather than in the correct way. Here's a little advice from someone who's been arround for a while. If you break a rule it's not an excuse to claim that the rule doesn't apply to you because you choose to interpret it that way. This applies here, just like the census data don't interpret Black people as only of recent African origin. And now I've had a look at the old mediation I can see tha the mediator was in agreement that neither the US nor the UK census criteria excluded people of non recent African descent from the definition of Black. Alun 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will say that when I read the previous Mediation, I all of a suddent realized what was going on here. It is very discouraging to see this. We will get a lot more done by cooperating with each other. --Filll 19:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And this has been true for at least 6 months from the records and mediation etc.--Filll 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will support User:Halaqah, Alun and User:Halaqah and User:Ezeu and Paul B and probably a few others if it comes to this. You cannot win this. I am sure we could get a good 10 more people as well to back this up.--Filll 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Alun

message: Yes. See Wikipedia:Content forking.POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion. Alun 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about distinct definitions of a term. One based on appearance (dark skin) the other based on ethnicity.  These are separate topics and need to be separate articles. Timelist 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case they should both be here, as per the neutral point of view policy. I remind you that wikipedia is not a dictionary, dictionaries deal with defining words, encyclopaedias do not. Alun 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also remind you that User:Halaqah has already stated that he will RfD any article created for this purpose, and I will support this. Alun 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is, even when you were offered this option before, you rejected it. And if you wanted to do it, you would just do it, Just write it. Dont ask. Do it. And then try to defend it from forking charges. If you write it properly you have some chance I think. So write it. Dont fight. Write.--Filll 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like good advice Timelist 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So does anyone object to a separate article [[Black people (ethnicity)]]

message: The discussion page is very large so much that it is easy to lose track of what the various propositions are. And also who supports what. here are a few things I have picked out.
* keep article as it is 
* Black vs black
* Black(ethinicity) vs skin color
* Black(generic) vs ethnicity
* Black(recent African descent)
* rename article without the use of the term "black".
* delete the article altogether.Muntuwandi 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unfortunate. We have to archive a lot of this. It is difficult for new editors visiting the page to understand what is going on.--Filll 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy. Delete. This article is rather embarrassing. All of the content is handled better elsewhere. See Race and its related pages, African American, Negro, Indigenous Australians, Recent single-origin hypothesis. Let me know when the AfD goes up. Jd2718 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This and Black people (ethnicity) should be deleted. While I think there are good grounds for deleting the latter article as a POV fork (and I'll AfD it tomorrow), I don't think there are grounds for deleting this. I would turn it into a disambig page, I suggest redirecting it to Black people (disambiguation). What do you think? Alun 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see myself ignoring history because the reality is language is fluid.  Just because black has one meaning in one language at one point in time doesn't mean the term can't evolve in other languages and time periods to have completely different meanings.  And I do have a very global perspective in that I feel kinship with peoples of African ancestry from all over the world.  Hence I find terms like African-American too limiting. Timelist 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine. But for an encyclopedia to be useful to readers, it has to address historical material, obselete meanings, meanings in other countries, contradictory meanings, disagreements, contrary opinions etc. Otherwise, it is not particularly useful to people.--Filll 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point Fill! An effort will be made to direct readers to any and all alternative meanings when they are already adressed in wikipedia.  If they're not already adressed in other articles, the ethnicity article can discuss them Timelist 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't. It's a POV fork, pure and simple. Anyone can see that. The history here proves it. When it became obvious that Timelist was editing against consensus s/he decided to go off and create another article about a thing that does not exist, but that Timelist would like to exist. The name is bad, the article is worse. It seems to be from a single POV and mainly personal opinion, one whole section has a single cite, I don't think we can cite material by saying This section was adapted from Chapter 3 of Frank W. Sweet, Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule (Palm Coast FL: Backintyme, 2005) can we? We cite facts, not whole chunks of material. If this section is entirely from a single source, then how can it be neutral? This is clearly a POV fork, and it is clearly Timelist's "personal" vanity article. It's nothing more than opinion. Alun 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to remember that this is the first rough draft of such an article. Since Timelist wrote it, of course it is from his personal viewpoint. This will probably evolve if he allows it to evolve to be more neutral. I encouraged him to do it, because I think that he does have a point about blacks having a somewhat different meaning in the US, and ethnicity being somewhat different than race or other criteria that black is used as. Everytime you turn around, you see things labelled as black in the US, even though in principle it should have been long since replaced by African American. It is in government documents and government committee titles. So he has a point. However, I think that the main article, this one, should be reserved for the broadest possible interpretation.--Filll 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Fill has been suggesting that the black people article should be divided into a family of articles for quite some time now.  He was right all along and I should have listened sooner.  My article might not be the greatest but its brand new and I've had help from no one. Give it time!  It's not based on opinion or POV but on black as an ethnic classification as per the U.S. census.  There's already an article on Black as a skin color identity.  What's wrong with an article on black as an ethnic identity since this is how I've always understood the term to be used. Timelist 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have indeed been suggesting something like this for about 4 months. And I was shot down every time. I think if we give it a try, we might be able to make a case for it. It is new, so it needs other input besides just Timelist's. So it will change. It is just a rough draft now.--Filll 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And Alun, can you please stop saying that African origin ethnicity does not exist.  I know your not from North America, but here people of African ancestry call ourselves "brother" and "sister" and feel an enormous degree of kinship.  Please show us enough respect to acknowledge the fact that peoples of recent sub-Saharan African descent are a legitimate ethnic group and deserve the same amount of respect as any other legitimate ethnic group. Fill and Ezeu have no propblem with us having an article.  You shouldn't either. Timelist 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fill is 100% correct.  And to add to Fill's great points I would say that growing up, I only ever heard the term black being used exclusively to describe those of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry, but when I got to wikipeda, I found that my reality was not adequately reflected.  So I think the ethnicity article fills a void.  It's great to have the Australian aboriginal perspective on what it means to be black, but does it have to come at the expense of mine.  Fill is right. There's room for more than 1 article. Timelist 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let us not lose track

message: I just remembered Timelist said everyone has a page about them, but there is African people (although i am frighten to look) and African American so that is an ethnic group, so am i missing something?--Halaqah 10:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we have an African American page. And we have an African people page. And this is the black people page. And timelist has been working on the black people (ethnicity) page. And all are different, or at least are intended to be. All are works in progress:
*African people is just a start and does not yet include the diversity of all the people in Africa. It needs a lot of work, but it is a start. It will cover all the people who live in Africa, obviously. Very important since this is one of the 7 continents (6 continents with native populations). 
*This page, the "black people" page, (which might get renamed to something like "Who is black?" or some other similar name) will describe all people who call themselves black or who have been called black.
*African American exists and describes the group known as African American. It is one of a huge collection of pages on this topic.  
* The new black people (ethnicity) page, which might also get renamed, is about the ethnic and/or social identity that is called black by African Americans and other Americans. It has little or nothing to do with skin color, since many of the people who are called black in the US look essentially white and might be only 1/128 or 1/256 or less of African ancestry. Many African Americans and Americans (apparently including the American government census definitions) do not include Australian Aborigines and other nonrecent African ancestry people as black. This category includes many but not African peoples that African Americans look to as their kin. This category also includes many other groups with recent African ancestry around the world. Black is really important in the US even though in principle it should be replaced by African American as a term. There is a Black History Month every year that is widely publicized. There is a Congressional Black Caucus that is an important government group. Laws use the phrase black. The phrase black is part of the public discourse. It is in the media. Organizations put black in their titles. Black continues to live on. Black carries immense significance because it was the term used during the Civil Rights  Movement in the US. Is this clearer?--Filll 10:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Africans might not use it. It might carry various stigmas in various communities. But black has historical interest. Black has regional interest. And black is still extremely important in the USA. And so that has to be recognized, because the US has a relatively important position given its wealth and power at the moment.--Filll 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: But we have African American

message: I've been reading through it, and I think quotes from Mr.Coon or the Nation of Islam are unnesscesarry. This article is suppose to be about the black "race", and how it's defined UNIVERSALLY, not how it's defined by racist mentallities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bélancourt (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do apologize for this, but you have to cut us some slack. This article is a work in progress and it is not meant to be racist. We have been mired in edit wars for a few months. I do think if we can start all pulling in the same direction instead of working at cross purposes, it will get much better. It is a bit embarassing I admit.--Filll 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article really need quotes from racists to be complete?? 

message: Take a look at these Americans:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# x
# 
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Which of these famous Americans, some of whom you might recognize, would you  think is black? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just tell me which of the people in which of the pictures is a black person, without looking at the names.--Filll 05:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly this is a biased sample, both as regards gender and as regards pulchritude. ;-) P0M 05:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They are all either white or mulattos, and all of them would be called wazungu where I come from.  --Ezeu 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never knew Ryan Giggs had African ancestry untill I recently read his wikipedia article. For all you North Americans he's a Welsh football player who plays for Manchester United. Ryan Giggs. Alun 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For my friends who are so sure they know what a "black person" is in the USA

message: My feeling is that our list of lexical definitions is not particularly scholarly. I use things like dictionary.com and yourdictionary.com, but I think they are somewhat lacking as scholarly sources. I have no problem with listing dictionary definitions, but lets try to have more scholarly references. I would suggest the list of dictionaries at a place like http://onelook.com is a good place to start.--Filll 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to report on what dictionaries report to be the history of the usage of certain words, then "canonical" sources like the OED and Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language" would be my preference. P0M 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary definitions

message: Would a admin please remove the phrase, (Black people#The role of Ethiopians in defining ancient black identity) since this discriminates against Christians. Its intresting, everyone is against discrimination, but it seems, that they all turn a blind eye to religious discrimination. 86.206.11.179 13:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: Black people is a phrase that normally is used to describe dark-skinned people.[1]
# This phrase "black people" is not a particularly accurate description, since no humans have black skin.
This statement was deleted as unsourced. I think we can find sources for it if necessary. Is this necessary? Is this not wanted?--Filll 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: Over-arching articles need to be in place before we can do a good job of this article. One of the over-arching articles should pertain to the evolutionary/genetic history of Homo sapiens sapiens. Is there currently a strong article on that subject?  A second over-arching article should pertain to social construction. Do we have that article?  How about articles on Language, on culture, and on ethnicity?
Assuming that all the above articles are in place or could be brought to completion, then we can look at the black peoples of the world.  The article on African peoples limits its story to the evolution of humans within the geographical confines of Africa, with a little attention being given to any back-flow of genetic change from areas outside of Africa. The article on Black peoples should then tell the story of how the people that trace their genetic heritage largely to early African sources have gone beyond the geographical confines of Africa. 
There have been two main ways that people have left Africa, one was in a series of two migrations fairly near to the dawn of human history.  One of the unexpected results of recent genetic research has been that the first migratory wave moved along the ocean edge and ended up in Australia. The people who stayed in the tropics presumably never lost their dark-skin adaptation.  The second wave moved farther north and skin color adaptations occurred, making these people other than "black people."  
The second main way that people have left Africa has been the slave trade, so we may need to check for adequate canopy articles on slavery, etc.
:This is the kind of thinking that we need. We cannot be haphazard here. We need to have an organized plan and we need to think very carefully about how to put some structure to this huge subject area. If one looks at the African American articles, it is clear how complex even that restricted part of the subject is. Our situation here is quite a bit more complicated than what those on the African American articles grappled with.--Filll 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a look at Social construction. As one of the articles that forms a canopy over this one, we should be sure it is in good shape.  I added some requests for citations, and I changed the stuff on gender identity and gender role because they are such clear cases of social construction and how it can get people in trouble if they assume they can construct anything they want on the basis of a partial account of the facts. Some things in the article seem to me to be likely to be correct, but I'm not sure how to improve the writing, which seems rather unclear. It may be clear and I may be in ignorance on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canopy and sub-canopies 

message: I must ask that the stuff about Ethiopians being from some strange cluster me moved or deleted, it confuses the discussion, it is an off topic, it is also an exotic view which is nowhere in mainstream thinking. We need to streamline this topic not explore every exotic discussion around blackness. The material discussing who is black (in different parts of the world) is far more critical than an extensive "abstract" study of what race Ethiopian people belong to based on some mad scientist.--Halaqah 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get rid of it. It was initially written to suggest that there is a notable dispute over the "race" of Ethiopians. If I am not mistaken, that section expanded significantly after this AfD. There is no need to go into particular detail about Ethiopians unless one is trying to prove a certain POV. --Ezeu 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we get rid of the ethiopia "theory"

message: I have been looking at ways to better this article, but it is so unredeemably flawed that a complete rewrite is warranted. Browsing back to previous versions of this article I find well-written, well-sourced and NPOV material. I suggest we gather our efforts to rewrite the article, using new material as well as by recycling information that is available in the article's edit history. So as not to cause another needless edit war, I have created a draft at Black people/rewrite draft which we can build on. In the draft I have removed blatant POV, but go ahead and remove even more at will. Please explain your edits and abide by consensus. The consensus is that not only Africans are black. Any disruptive edit warring, or attempts to sideline obvious consensus will be considered disruptive behaviour. Disruptive editors will be blocked. --Ezeu 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was not a very good idea as we'll just end up with two articles to squabble over. --Ezeu 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ive restored it. --Ezeu 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting this artice 

message: It's a great picture, but I don't think it fits perfectly to represent an average black person due to the obvious culture that's also visible in the picture. It isn't shared by every black person on Earth. His cloths and hair (his culture) stands out far more than his race (or skin tone). It would fit more in an article about African lifestyles or something similar to that, but not in such a broad article representing a whole race. Would it be too much to ask for or to provide a better picture that grabs a viewer's focus more on the person's physical appearance rather than his or her cloths or hair style?
I know there are other different pictures, but this one being on top makes it the "main" picture, and  I am debating that it should not be. A good one would be a black woman with natural hair wearing no cloths (image cropped to her shoulders...) or any Black person wearing universal cloths like a regular shirt and pants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.81.0 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  black Kenyan man picture 

message: Why has this article not been listed for deletion yet? Someone proposed that there be a Black People disambiguation page, and that made a lot of sense. This is not an article about a group of people; it is a mishmash about different groups of people, that some of our editors have tossed together. It is unfortunate, and it is embarassing. Almost all of the content already exists in better articles. 
Short of deletion, I could see a short "Who Is Black?" article serving as a disambiguation page. Jd2718 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate? 

message: Take a look at the refernces, ref 9 ref 32 what is going on? can this be cleaned up and some standard proper referencing format be used for the entire article so it stands up as a pro job?
:A pro job? have you looked at the talk page and the article? People are just exhausted and disgusted from all the fighting. Forget formatting; we have been fighting for months and months and months over content. Now everyone is just burned out.--Filll 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Past a certain point, it is hard to care any more. There are many other articles here that need work, where contributions are welcomed. Maybe people just need to give this one a rest.--Filll 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad references

message: I've been busy with finals and stomach flu, but I haven't lost interest in this article. What does everyone think about the article on Social construction?  Is it an adequate canopy article for this one? Or are there things that need to be added to it so that it will provide an adequate understanding for the background of this article? P0M 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed feedback

message: The gallery includes the following phrases:
* are referred to as black
* is ... arguably black
* are arguably black
* Many scholars [uncited] believe that ... were black 
* making him the first "black president" by some definitions.
"This article is about the different definitions of the term "black people"."  If this is true, these sorts of weasel words cut against the very thing that this article purports to be about. I am deleting the gallery. Jd2718 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove it all together. As it is now it far from represents a global perspective of Black. --Ezeu 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery Problems 

message: I will assume that if there are holes in any of the canopies I refer to below then editors will come forth to comment on them, and, hopefully, will patch them in appropriate ways.
One of the reasons for controversy and challenges to the neutrality of this article, implicitly mentioned in the article already, is that "Black people" is a social construct.  I cannot think off hand of another category that would seem to have a "label" built right into the "product." If you view "black" as one set and "people" as another set, then "black people" ought to be the intersection of the two sets.  As we have seen on this discussion page, people object vehemently to that simplistic view, and do so on various grounds.
The first element of the social construct may be the dark skins of humans who are well adapted to withstand high levels of UV. A "black" skin is the most easily perceived trait of the various groups of people that various observers call "black people." A minor problem with talking about this element is that the de facto definition of the word "black" is different from the definition the word is given in physics. It is helpful to realize that the definition actually used by most people corresponds more closely to what artists who work in oil paints and other such pigments call a "shade," i.e. a "darker shade" of any color on the artist's palette is obtained by mixing in some amount of a truly black substance like carbon black.  As observers we are more sure that something is a "shade" of some color when the percentage of black pigment is high, and more doubtful about as sequentially less intense shades of that color are encountered. I would not, for instance, assert with much confidence that some of the photographs of "black" people that Filll provided had black pigment on their palettes. Those people, a very much lighter shade of dark, are accepted by some as "Black people", and yet the same judges may reject much darker people from S.E. Asia, so just discussing the dark skins does not adequately describe what some people mean by "Black people", so we have to take their criteria into account. (Factual component 1: pigments present in the skin.)
The second element of the social construct, at least for many people who use the term "Black people," appears to be close genetic connection to some but not all of the current populations of Africa. Without splitting hairs, it is easy to see what the intent and reasoning is here. The original inhabitants of Africa (L1, L2, and L3) all seem to be accepted as founding populations for the populations that are accepted as "Black Africans" today, and it is membership in the "Black African" family tree that is for many a sine qua non for membership in their version of the "Black people" category. Just as there is a kind of logical fuzziness with the idea of "black" coloration, there is also a kind of logical fuzziness with the idea of membership in the "Black African" family tree. The fundamental question is what status is appropriate for a person one of whose parents descends from a long line of ancestors isolated in "darkest Africa," and the other of whose parents descends from a long line of ancestors from some far part of the world, the Taiwanese aborigines for instance. (Factual component 2: genetic heritage of the individual.)
The third element of the social construct, and one that I haven't mentioned before, is actually a group of learned behaviors -- things such as language, group-specific behavioral cues to group membership (hair styles, affective display conventions, dances and music, etc.). (I am reminded of being with my friends, the owners of a fruit stand in Taipei, their kids, and some of their frequent customers, when an American-born Chinese was being interviewed in Chinese on Chinese TV. His Mandarin was good, but his body language was totally aberrant--for a Chinese--because he was gesticulating "wildly" as any American teenager might. My friends seemed torn between being highly amused and being creeped out.  I had the flip side of that experience one time watching a teenager approach a low-rise apartment building on a bike. I assumed he was an "Army brat" who was far off course and I was just speculating how a kid could get ten miles off course on a three-speed bike when he jumped off his bike and shouted toward a third-floor window, "Mama, wo hui lai le!" (Mom. I'm back!) He suddenly went from what he looked like (typical American teenager) to what he sounded like (typical Chinese teenager). He continued to look American, but I could tell in an instant that he hadn't been raised that way. Chinese people going back to around 200 BC would have predicted just this result whenever a "barbarian" child is raised in a Chinese household, or vice-versa. Just read Xun Zi.) (Factual component 3: ethnic heritage of the individual.)
Unless somebody can point out how these three factors fail the test of fairness in explaining how various groups conceptualize "Black people," I am going to add something to the intro paragraph to indicate that "Black people" is a family of concepts that involves a certain range of skin pigmentation, a certain range of genetic heritage, and a collection of ethnicities. P0M 07:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding the right spot under the canopy 

message: I found an informative and very well researched study based on physical characteristics of all human types in general; and the following link is a page mostly based on those defined universally as Blacks. Since we can't copy the image and use it here, I think we can get ideas out of it, and maybe use real photos rather than drawings if possible. I don't want to recommend linking to it since it would seem more like a free advertisement of it because this isn't exactly an official website based on that sort of stuff. Anyway here it is:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/34877428/ click on the thumbnail to enlarge it.
-Bélancourt
:Interesting. Joumana has certainly done her homework, but nevertheless its original research, and not particularily relevant here. It may not be her intention, but her assumptions come forth as an attempt at scientific racism. --Ezeu 10:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different human traits associated with indigenous "Black" people