Talk:Negro/Archive 1

message: While generally speaking is correct than in Chile the word "Negro" is used, while in a colloquial context, as a friendly treatment, in Argentina is a very offensive word, usually meaning "low social class individual". --Leprosy 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: use of "negro" in argentina

message: "a trivial and racist insult, suggestive of holding fascist opinions" I would guess this needs rewording since I'd imagine hold fascists opinions isn't "trivial" in Italy. But I don't really know anything of the subject. --Eean 04:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: fascist opinions

message: The recent claim that Johnson used the word "blacks" only "jocularly": is there a citation for that? Even a specific instance of him using it that is at all clearly jocular? Otherwise, I'm inclined to revert it. I was about 14 when he left office, and this doesn't jobe with my memory. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:21, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
I deleted it, because I remember LBJ.  It simply isn't true.  deeceevoice 03:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "jocularly" 

message: Actually, I agree with the restoration of that sentence re Walker.  I misread it. :-) deeceevoice 03:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be edited slightly as it leaves one confused as to whether she is "reclaiming" Negro or Negress.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it looks like someone edited this around to the point where it became unclear. I'll fix that. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reclaiming "negress"

message: I don't know what to make of Wolfsburg's recent edits. I don't know Portuguese well enough to be comfortable on connotations. I'm always a little worried when a new contributor's first edits are on a controversial matter, which is what we've got here. I'd very much appreciate hearing from an experienced contributor with fluent Portuguese. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, I know little Portuguese myself.  I made the corrections to the relevant passage, which Wolfsburg subsequently reverted.  Certainly in Spanish, "negro" is literally black, and "prieto" is a term referring to darkness of skin tone.  (My bad.  I didn't see the "Portuguese" qualification when I edited it. Portuguese does, indeed, differ, of course, from Spanish in some respects; and "preto" is the Portuguese variant of "prieto.")  In Spanish and Portuguese, the word "negro" literally is "black" and is used generically in just about every possible context one would use "black" in any other language.  "Prieto," however, refers to darkness of skin tone in both Spanish and Portuguese and absolutely would not be used to refer to someone who was a cafe-au-lait black person.  And, yes, because Brazileños and other Latinos are generally notoriously "color struck," being considered "preto"/"prieto" is undesirable, and the word often is used as a put-down.
:From an online Portuguese-English dictionary:
:1. preto [a] (black, achromatic) being of the achromatic color of maximum darkness; having little or no hue owing to absorption of almost all incident light. More...
:2. preto [a] (black, pitch-black, pitch-dark) extremely dark. More...
:3. preto [a] (black, blackened) (of the face) made black especially as with suffused blood. More...
:4. preto [a] (black) dressed in black. More...
:5. preto [a] (black) (of coffee) without cream or sugar. More... 
:As you can see, "preto" is used in the context of the intensity of blackness, or blackness  as extremely dark in a relative context ("pitch-black, "extremely dark") -- and in this particular application (the article), it "preto" refers to the darkness of one's skin; a "preto" is someone who is dark-skinned.  Wolfsburg's edits are simply incorrect.  Reverted.  Again.  deeceevoice 11:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese 

message: For the following paragraph:
"A specifically female form of the word—negress—was sometimes used; but, like another gender-specific word "Jewess", it has all but completely fallen from use. Both are considered racist and sexist."
Suggest revision to "Both are widely considered racist and sexist." 
Personally I can see no more inherent sexism in these terms than I do in the word 'Actress' or any other gender-specific word, and I cannot be alone on this.
:Maybe, but it can be colourably argued that "actor" is more often used to refer to only a male practitioner of the profession (though there has been something of a shift to females calling themselves "actors" as well), while "Negro" and "Jew" are generally thought of as referring to both genders.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree that in Britain the word 'Jewess' is generally considered taboo either in terms of race or sex, or that 'Negress' is considered as anything more than an obscure, antiquated anthropological term. I can understand that from a US viewpoint this is sensitive, and they are both special terms for minority women - but just because a word refers to someone's race or sex doesn't make that word inherently racist or sexist. Or am I just unusually thick-skinned? 
Regarding this difference in perception, I note the American Heritage Dictionary says: "Like many other English nouns in which the suffix -ess is added to a gender-neutral word to indicate femaleness, the terms Jewess and Negress are now widely regarded as offensive.". I doubt many people in the English-speaking world outside the US would concur that -ess is a sexist suffix; it just happens to be part of our language. Note, though, the use of 'widely'. Xyster 14:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: See in article about use in titles of artwork.  But that should be more extensively developed.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universally offensive? 

message: --220.238.44.174 09:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Have you read it? It is about the word "Negro". -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevent. We are not talking "Nigger" here.--58.104.11.118 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we have a seperate page for term "Afro-American" then?--220.238.164.56 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We discuss that term in the article African American. I don't really see that it needs a separate article: the two terms are nearly interchangeble (much as are Euro-American and European American), although African American has become the more common form. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this page just redirct to [[Negroid]] or [[African]]? 

message: I have added also the italian as a origin meaning for black: in fact the word, even if considered archaic in odern italian, is still in the vocabulary meaning for black, e.g.  "vedova, sconsolata, in veste negra" (Petrarca), "triste, cupo: sogni e penser’ negri.. " (Petrarca)  --Biopresto 09:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian

message: To suggest that the word Negro had negative connitations in say the 50s possibly inaccurate. The word Negro carried with it respect when used. It is a pity that the word which carried such respect has largely gone. These days people are called "black people" or "African-Americans" or "Afro-Carribeans" or some other mouthful. These terms do not have the same respect as the term Negro had. Martin Luther King refered to himself as a Negro, and with justified pride. Wallie 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any such implication in the article. But perhaps I am missing something. Can you point to the passage you think implies that? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Correctness

message: I haven't read this piece in a very long time, but I have just one question.  Why isn't this article titled "Negro (word)"?  It is, after all, about the term and not the peoples. If the name of the article is not to be changed, then how 'bout an italicized note at the beginning of the article explaining that it is about the term? deeceevoice 02:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article needs a "hat text", go for it. I don't think we usually make a parenthetical addition unless there is an issue of ambiguity. We could move this article to Negro (word) and change Negro to a disambiguation to this page plus links to African American, Afro-Brazilian, Afro-Cuban, etc. But I don't think that is necessary: I doubt anyone today would look up "Negro" as a way of finding these topics. Still, if there was some sort of consensus around it I wouldn't object. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Negro (word)"?

message: The "Further reading" section of this article is basically a bunch of books with "negro" in their titles, from the era when this word had approximately the same meaning that "African American" does now. They are not about the word "negro", which is the actual topic of the article. Do they really belong here? (Some of them may belong at African American.) -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "Further reading" section relevant? 

message: I don't understand:
:Negro was the descriptive assigned by Prince Henry the Navigator, the fifth son of King John I of Portugal.
Do you <strikw>mind</strike> mean that Henry was called negro in Portuguese?
That Henry named negro the African slaves?
Why is any of those important?
Anyway, there were black slaves in Rome and Al-Andalus and in Christian medieval Spain.
The Portuguese just by-passed the middle-Moor.
--Error 23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Assigned by" means he used it. This would be absolutely clear to any native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what would make it clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we learn that he used the word? He wasn't the first, was he? --Error 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the nickname was because he had either pitch-black hair or a swarthy skin (this second seems likelier). Elsewhere in Europe the equivalent term "to black" was often used likewise. jggouvea 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry the Navigator

message: Does anyone know the source of these two comedy bits about LBJ from the mid-1960s.
# A voice coach working with LBJ as he endlessly tries to repeat "Nee-grow" rather than "Nig-ruh"?
# A comedian as LBJ saying "It took me five years to learn to say 'Negro' and then they changed it to 'Black'"?
-- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LBJ again 

message: There have been several rounds of deletion of interwiki links to this article and related articles, and reversions of the deletions, on several wikis. The problem seems to be that most wikis deal with the biological/evolutionary as well as sociological/linguistic aspects of the word in one article, whereas in English and a few others the subject is split into Negroid and Negro. Interwiki linking shouldn't be a problem between wikis that have only one article, but there may be a problem with linking to English and other wikis that have two articles – unless "double interwiki" is possible, i.e. two links to the same wiki from one article. Is it possible?  Unfortunately the deletion that has been going on is plain deletion and not replacement, and it even deletes interwikis between wikis where there is only one article. I think this is wrong, and I have reverted the deletions once in some of the wikis. However, I would like to see the opinion of other wikipedians before I go on reverting across the wiki world. --Eddi (Talk) 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this for several articles too. Unfortunately, the way interwikis are designed is to be one-to-one. If an article is talking about the biological and the linguistics/sociological aspect of an ambiguous concept maybe it should probably be split. If an aspect is missing from a language, it probably doesn't deserve it's own article, but might be mentioned. I don't think a simple mention suffices to have an interwiki link. ---moyogo 21:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: An interwiki should link to the single most appropriate article in another language. It should be possible, from there, to navigate to other relevant material. So it's OK if two different English-language articles interwiki link to the same article in another language; that article should interwiki link to whichever English-language article is most appropriate, and the English-language articles should almost certainly link to one another. - Jmabel | Talk 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki trouble 

message: Today I reverted a change made by someone who was on a mission to impose UK English on articles in US English. That is, most changes were to another article, but from their history I reverted this one too. However, my changes were later reverted to the UK spelling (that is, the one added earlier today) with no comment except 'rv'. This isn't an article I monitor, and I am leaving it as is, but inviting those interested to decide what to do. There are Wikipedia guidelines that apply. Reference: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Notinasnaid 19:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  There are guidelines to follow, and since the first major contribution [] (more than just a sentence or two) was written in American English, this article should conform to that standard.  Confiteordeo 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varieties of English 

message: isn't negro a slur term?--142.177.124.67 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In English today, especially written with a lowercase n like you wrote it, it can be. Historically it was not. Have you read the article? This is basically what it is about. - Jmabel | Talk 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Negro is not a slur term.  Millions of Negroes were placed on the auction blocks and sold.  Negroes used to be valuable commodities.  Their owners protected from abuse until the Civil war of 1861-65 "freed" Negroes.   Many negroes have been shot from ambush and killed since 1860.  In my opinion, "African American" is a slur.  RxBrainwashers 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Negro

message: I believe that there is another usage, mainly within the African American community, still current (though maybe not among younger people), and also generally using the exaggerated knee-grow pronunciation: using the term to suggest that someone is an "oreo", and a bit pretentious. As in "that uptown knee-grow can't even remember what the ghetto looks like." I lack citation for this. Does someone have something? Or does someone think I am wrong? - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another usage 

message: The article first says that negro is in some languages 'black' and then it says 'dark. Which is it, or is it both? I want it to be clear what it means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.214.217 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2006.
: In Spanish, it properly means "black". Like "black" in English, though, it can merely mean "dark". A "Black person" is not normally literally "black". A "black night" is not necessarily truly lightless. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black or dark?

message: The article begins "Negro means "black" in the Spanish, Portuguese, Filipino, and ancient Italian languages…" Doubtless true, but what is the relevance of Filipino and ancient Italian to the article, which is about the use as a term for dark-skinnned people of African origin or ancestry? Surely that comes from Spanish or Portuguese, not from Italian, let alon Filipino, a language that postdates the period in which this word came into use. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True but irrelevant 

message: I believe that the quotation from Stanley Lane-Poole in the article is at least a slight misquote or paraphrase, but it is in quotation marks. There is a vague remark citing it to his 1886 book The Story of the Moors in Spain. I don't believe that the theory of African origin of the human species had any traction at that date. I suspect that nothing beyond the first sentence—"According to American law, anybody with African ancestry, however remote, is a Negro"—is Lane-Poole. And maybe not even that, because the next portion, like the thirteenth ring of the clock, casts doubt on what went before. If someone can cite this solidly, great. Otherwise, I think we should remove it from the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given this a few days. No one has responded. I am removing it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, the passage I removed is "Stanley Lane-Poole, author of The Story of the Moors in Spain remarks in his book: 'According to American law, anybody with African ancestry, however remote, is a Negro. To follow this logic, since evolutionists believe the human race originated in Africa, according to evolutionists, everyone in the world is a Negro. A word so vague it has no meaning.'" - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lane-Poole misquoted 

message: I find it hard to swallow the continued spread of mis-information that Europeans enslaved Africans. I've found no proof of such claims and believe it is generally accepted and acknowledged by experts that slaves were sold by their own people to slave traders on the African costs; especially those on the Atlantic.
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html :
*"This human cargo was transported across the Atlantic Ocean and sold to New World slave owners, who bought slaves to work their crops. " 
*"European sailors seeking riches brought rum, cloth, guns, and other goods to these posts and traded them for human beings."
For lack of cited sources, I have removed the claim that Europeans enslaved Africans and added a citation req. for the claim that Africans were enslaved IN Portugal. (Has anybody heard of that claim before?) Andem 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negros enslaved by Africans 

message: What is with the recently added phrase "dark hued people", now repeated twice in the second paragraph, which already contained the perfectly clear phrase "dark skinned people"? - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dark hued" 

message: When it says qoute "Around 1442, Europeans began to enslave Africans in Portugal" is that true do to the fact rome enslaved africans to and they were treated in a manner as slaves."The Romans were what could be considered a colonial power--actually a conquering power is better--and they brought captives from different parts of the world--especially Africa."<----- referring to captives as slaves(from http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm) I may have read article wrong so please do not quote me on the state ment. -- daven200520 (jayson mcknight)
:# Roman slavery was a very different institution than "modern" slavery.
:# Romans enslaved defeated peoples in general. Specifically racially based slavery in European societies was a different matter. 
In other words, this is not the first time Europeans had held slaves, nor the first time Africans had been enslaved, but q. - Jmabel | Talk 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the sentence sounds rather clunky, if not misleading. The enslavement of Africans by Europeans began in Africa itself. They were brought to Europe already as prisoners, after all. FilipeS 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaves 

message: Many people say every day - " that blond...", "that man with black hair..." without any insultive meaning. Why we cannot say " that negro..." ( "that black...", "that dark-skinned man..." )" or " that white..." ( "that white-skinned man..." ) when with this words we can better describe the man?
The words "niger","negro" are not bad, bad are such people that give them insultive meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.130.24.98 (talk • contribs) 23 November 2006.
: I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about the article (in which case I don't see what your question really is? Are you merely asking, as your subject header says, why "blond" isn't an insult? (Why should it be?) Or are you asking why some words for ethnicity or appearance are insults and others aren't? (Which is not easily answered, but it's just like any other insults: most insults are words where there is also a non-insulting word for the same thing.) Or why particular words have become insults and others haven't? (Not easily answered, but the most interesting question of the lot, so it's the one I'll try to answer.)
: "Black" and "White" in contemporary English are not insults. They are simply the most common terms for people of certain racial backgrounds. "Negro" often is seen as either archaic or vaguely condescending, because is was the most common, polite term for black people during a period when, in most Western countries, they were decidedly second-class citizens. The adoption of "black" (or more specific terms such as "African American", "Afro-Cuban", "Afro-Peruvian") as terms of self-reference represented a conscious statement of wishing to move beyond that history and form a more self-defined identity. Similarly, "nigger" (I assume that is what you meant when you wrote "niger") is even more insulting, and has moved beyond the point where it can be seen in contemporary use as even merely archaic, because it relates to slavery times, and because it was a word favored well into the 20th century by the most virulent and violent of white supremecists; even among blacks at that time, the word was almost uniformly an insult, much as when a white person might call another white person "white trash". There have, of course, been efforts to reclaim the word in recent years, especially in the hip-hop culture. 
:Again, these things can change over time. When Conrad wrote The Nigger of the Narcissus the term did not yet have its specifically racist, insulting connotation: much as when Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet "He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice", "Polack", now an insult, was, at the time, a perfectly acceptable word for Poles. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why we don't consider insultive for example word "blond" ? 

message: Please consider the inclusion of a link to...
*"The N-Word" by Paul Niquette
...as an outsider's perspective of a linguistic event.
Paul Niquette 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please excuse me (a new wikipedian) for putting this in the wrong place.  I shall appreciate guidance for putting it in the right place. Paul Niquette 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked it again myself and it worked. Paul Niquette 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works now for me. There's nothing actively wrong with it, but I think the content is a little lightweight to be linked from an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Without disagreeing with your opinion about its weight, I am wondering about the implied criteria for external links.  One of the most distinguishing features of wikipedia is its power and convenience as a selective portal to a range of sources for thoughtful insights and commentaries that augment bibliographic references for the formal content in the articles proper.  Please vector me to the relevant policy.Paul Niquette 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested External Link

message: In Mexican Spanish, negro is still the most widely used word for people of dark skin colour (not only of African origins); and it has no negative or racist connotation; unless when preceded by some word which is offensive by itself (in these cases, an agressive or derogatory tone of voice is used).  It is also used very often with the meaning of "sweetheart" in familiar speech.  The term prieto (see portuguese preto), on the other hand; is considered an offensive word.  Also, while negro is used both for black colour and black people, prieto is only a pejorative adjective for dark skinned people.  Finally, negro is nowadays falling out of favour in regions where political correctness is strongly influenced by that of the English language; and some consider it to be a racist word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.166.120.142 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negro in Mexican Spanish 

message: What are they teaching you in school these days?
I for one do not find the word offensive. It's spanish for black. This is ridiculous.  I rarely call myself African (hypen) American.  I actually rarely call myself Negro, unless in writings, I usually us the term Black but the word is not offensive.  I don't like colored/coloured. I don't like being a hyphen.  Who makes these decisions?  Name sources please. When you say it is considered offensive please site sources. Hey, just call me Human sense the term means man of color. (NitaReads 03:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHEN DID NEGRO BECOME OFFENSIVE?  WHO MAKES THESE DECISIONS? 

message: A typical Negro?
Has no one else seen this?
I'm disgusted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SNTS1983 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me guess that this (and the following) saw vandalized states of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE PICTURE! 

message: The picture of a "typical negro" is offensive. I believe that it was not chosen at random but rather to portray a negative view of black people.
I attempted to change or remove the picture but was unable to. It did not appear in the "edit this page" box.
Could someone more knowledgeable than myself please fix it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.243.166.92 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we remove or replace the picture? 

message: I didn't check the version to which i reverted to in detail, it was the first which seemed okay at a first glance (just skimming through the text). Maybe someone can check in detail to make sure there are no traces of subtler vandalism left --82.141.54.211 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted due to vandalism 

message: I don't believe the term 'Negro' is offensive.  It may be becoming archaic, but it is not obsolete.
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/Negro
:IT IS IN ALL OF THE HISTORY BOOKS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE AN "ETHNIC SLUR."  I HAVE REMOVED THE WORD FROM THE CATEGORY "ETHNIC SLURS."HYPERDUNCE 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Questionable 

message: The term Negro is now largely seen as archaic and sometimes almost as offensive as the slur nigger.This is a matter of opinion and should be removed from the article.70.69.50.77 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A matter of opinion, not fact

message: Where did you get that from?  I know of no tribe in Africa caled negro.  In the US, which is what I assume you and most people get their ideas of a black person, they may have been called that and used it in the past, but that does not mean that it was accepted.  When you were kidnapped and shut out of society, it is hard to figure out what you should be called, since half whites cannot be called white - yet.  This article is clearly biased and I would not doubt if it is just anohter one created by white supremacist groups who roam the internet trying to make it appear as if they are larger than what they are.--71.235.94.254 19:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accepted by Blacks? 

message: How come the article states that Portugal first came into contact with Africa while trying to find trade routes?  Portugal was an extension of Africa and came into contact (literally) with Africa at least 700 years prior!  Black(I know there were 'other' types too) Moors as clearly dipicted by Europeans were in Portugal as rulers.  I always find it funny when whites try to run away from this fact and try to make it appear as if there are two different types of black (complexion) Africans.  The Moors were black, which is why they were NOT called Arabs.  They were from Africa, not Asia.  They may have been called Moors beofre Africans were called negros, but they were black as well.  You also have to keep in mind that Europeans only knew the parts of Africa that was Muslim dominated, this is why they went around the west coast of Africa - to avoid the Muslims who controlled the Medditeranean.
Stop the lies and get the facts straight.  There are too many Euopean deipctions of clearl black Moors in RULING positions ans well as blacks in slave positions, which you will find in Africa even today.  
I guess since North Africa controlled whites and imported them as slaves as well as mixing with Europeans, white pride feels the need to lie about this aspect of Euopean reality.  Not everyone stays on top forever.--71.235.94.254 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal and Africa 

message: The phrase "Negro is a racial term...." could be written without "racial".  Strictly speaking, the context is correct but the meaning in common language may be understood as a negative.  "Negro is a term...."Goodpaster 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation 

message: I'm not familiar with this short form. What do you mean by poor e? (With regard to removing a portion of text).--Gregalton 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I clicked the enter button, instead of shift. I meant to type "poor English grammar". As it's difficult to understand. Cheers. - Jeeny Talk 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, language-corrected and more complete, with citation flag, re-inserted.--Gregalton 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thank you. :) - Jeeny Talk 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor e? 

message: I edited out the part about 'negro' being derogative in Spanish because it simply means 'black'. The pejorative term in Spanish is 'negrata'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.156.221 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negro in Spanish

message: I don't really think that it is necessary; if others feel that a picture is needed, I'd say one without nudity would be better. Master of Puppets Care to share? 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that the anon IP who keeps reinserting this material is a suspected sock of an indef-banned user, and is currently disrupting this article, WP:3RR, WP:ANI, User talk:Muntuwandi and others...--Ramdrake (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Dispute resolved, I guess, if the user only seeks to be disruptive. Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is hardly nude, only exposing a breast. It's not porn it's very elegant art. I personally find her to be rather beautiful. And when did we start censoring on Wikipedia? --222.155.47.162 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that she was very beautiful but the nudity offends many people.  Alatari (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Portrait of a Negress" 

message: The term "negress" is present in art and sculpture because the names of such artifacts are not changed to suit the current terminology in any culture about any matter, so far as I know. The word was the then-current descriptor at the time the art was created.  To make a point of saying the word endures is to suggest that it is somehow noteworthy in this use rather than merely a fact of no particular importance.  If there is a need to illustrate this historical use (and I do not agree that it is required) then the illustration should also clearly show that context.  Bielle (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, there are many English examples of this.  And Karen Walker and others have made recent artwork in which this use appears in the titles.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It has been called "Portrait of a Negress" since it was painted. That is what it is universally known as in the English speaking world, meaning it is relevant, and shows the preference of the art world to call/translate it as 'Negress' rather than 'Black Woman'. --222.155.47.162 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why it can't be included, especially because Negress redirects here.  Here's some information on the painting Alatari (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negress 

message: "people of high melanin content" is wrong.  People with very dark skin would be clear, and "people with skin with high melanin" would be valid (scientifically) but obscure.  Who came up with "people of high melanin content". The people are not, percentage, by mass or volume, full of melanin. Their skin is. Big difference.  user:Wpostma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.198.185 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: High melanin content is what causes dark skin and can be determined after visual inspection. However, light skinned people with suntans aren't called Negro though so some other ethnic facial and body features are at work.  This is an encyclopedia and I don't see a problem with using neutral scientific terms.  Alatari (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And again I go back to my chromosome comment - TheBillyTalk 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Bitch-chromosome content was a poor analogy for Bitch refers to only a specific type of woman depending on her behavior while negro is more about genome content.  There are people who could be called negro who have light skin so maybe we need an ethnogenetic definition not a colour one; something along the lines of the Race and genetics article. Alatari (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Dictionary.com list of definitions.  I wouldn't be opposed from selecting from one or combination of those defs. Alatari (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 versions 

message: Accepting that the article is describing an archaic term, most of the "Further reading" section comprises rather inaccessible works from a century ago. Is there anything more modern to put in the list? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of those books should be removed.  This is an article about a term, not about actual people.  Any books listed as further reading should be about the word "negro," not black people themselves.  --Allen (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Further reading" 

message: My apologies, I just saw that my edit here was marked as a minor edit. I was using Twinkle and used the "restore this version" option.. I guess my default sets this up as minor. I will figure out how to change this. Nevertheless, the version I reverted was obviously POV. I reverted it to the version before hand, but to be honest, I'm not totally comfortable with that version either. I am fairly certain that the reason implied for the UNCF's usage of negro is correct from what I have read (quotes from Michael Lomax, president and CEO, specifically), but what I have read isn't clear enough to be obviously outside the realm of original research. Anyway, I'm working on it... WDavis1911 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNCF ''Negro'' usage edit 

message: Anonymous, you are insisting in your unsourced additions that "Negro" is in some sense the correct term for black people.  Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V and explain why you feel your additions are neutral and verifiable.  --Allen (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymous, please explain your edits 

message: Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment