Talk:Black people/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Northeast africa

They are black of course they are obviously negroid. Ethiopians are black and you should delete this section so it can be considered subsaharan African negroid. Ethiopians are black. HornerWarrior (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are Black people who are Light-skinned such as the Albino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackpeoplepower (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Can I edit the article? My mom, dad and their family is Ethiopian and I know their origins so I could write on this section. They are black by the way and they didn’t own slaves northeast Africans which I don’t get why they get their own region they’re typical sub Saharan Africans they were enslaved by Arabs. They are negroid. HornerWarrior (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

HornerWarrior, You can edit it, of course, but if your edits consist of removing sourced information and replacing it with your unsourced opinions you can expect that someone else will return the article to the sourced version. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

First sentence grammar

The first sentence says "Black people are a racialized classification of people...", but that seems grammatically iffy to me. It should either be something like "The term black people is a racialized classification of people..." or "Black people are a race of people..." Finnigami (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Poor grammar. The word "racialized" (or "racialised" as I would prefer to see it spelt), is a pretty clumsy one anyway. What does it mean? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization

From the article's lead:

"The term 'black' may or may not be capitalized. The AP Stylebook changed its guide to capitalize the 'b' in black in 2020. The ASA Style Guide says that the 'b' should not be capitalized."

Which style guide is Wikipedia following? Have we adopted an official stance on this issue? It seems to vary from article to article. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Change request about indigenous peoples of India and Southeast Asia

Change X to Y: Change from X “ It is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of Oceania.”

Change to Y: “It is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of India, Southeast Asia and Oceania.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegenuinehistorian (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that Thegenuinehistorian has been blocked indefinitely. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians and other recent additions

@LARRYkimani25: Please, always use an edit summary. Also, the correct place to discuss this article is here, not my talk page. I reverted your recent additions because of two main problems: There is no definition of "Black" without the societal context. The idea of biologically or essentially defined races has been utterly debunked by modern science, for relevant sources see e.g. Negroid. The ancient Egyptians had totally different ideas about the classification of people than modern Americans have. Additionally, content has to be relevant for the subject, and in case of doubt that has to be proved using a scholarly source on the subject "Black people". --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you know what qualifies as black? What is your definition? I'm curious, as you seemed to have mentioned the Nilotes and Niger-Congo speakers? Thank you, but please elaborate on your criticism: "There is no definition of "Black" without the societal context." --LARRYkimani25 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I added a colon to your comment in order to WP:indent. One of your edit summaries states The official definition of black is of being a darker skinned hue with afro-textured hair. If you want to base your edits on that idea, you have to provide reliable sources, see WP:RS. Unless you can provide reliable sources for your changes (your changes to the lede are completely unsourced), you will not succeed in establishing WP:Consensus here on this talk page. And unless you can reach consensus here, further repetitions of your edits may constitute WP:Edit warring. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to your mention of Nilotes and Niger-Congo speakers. No, the person who inserted them into the article was not me. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm very doubtful that a single, "official" definition exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

Black people were discriminated in Nazi Germany along with Roma gypsies and Jews. Add this to the Germany section.

Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41306842 2603:8001:401:63B4:C01B:6A06:2A60:60BD (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Black Man should be a disambiguation like Black Woman. Black Man has different meanings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.114.55 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Again: Black Man has different meanings. You people have to change the redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.101.65 (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

In the Arab world section, change the sentence:

Distinctive and self-identified black communities have been reported in countries such as Iraq, with a reported 1.2 million black people, and they attest to a history of discrimination.

to read:

Distinctive and self-identified black communities have been reported in countries such as Iraq, with a reported 1.2 million black people ([[Afro-Iraqis]]), and they attest to a history of discrimination.

This is just adding a link to the article Afro-Iraqis. If you want to work that link into the text in a different way, that is fine by me, this is just my thought on how to do it. My point is the link not how we work it in. 159.196.170.230 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

edit request on Nov 25, 2021

I guess I have permission to actually change this myself, but would like someone else to look over it. In section Black_people#Blackness 5.2.2. Blackness, 3rd graph, take out everything after

Clinton welcomed the label.[ref]

, i. e. strike

Scholar Martin Halpern writes that [... about 5 lines omitted...] enjoyed very high approval ratings among African Americans.

Reason: this is a section on Blackness currently dominated by a detailed discussion of a single white person. Meanwhile, just below (because, somehow, the section is apparently ordered north-to-south), Mexico and the Caribbean only get a links each. K. Oblique 08:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)  Done K. Oblique 03:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Turkey section

The turkey section indicates in the last sentence that there is discrimination against black people in Turkey. However the cited news article is questionably anectodal and one-sided. Big number of examples of black people confirming they have never been discriminated against is available in the internet. So an edit to reflect the current situation would better fit the article. I don't know if it would fit, but it might be cool to state that the first black pilot in aviation history was Turkish too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changer123ert (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There are few sources about Africans in Turkey that are written by academics or cite actual sociological field studies. According to hurriyetdailynews article that cites Şimşek's book about the topic: "A common opinion held by the Turkish society is that racism against black people in Turkey is not a big issue because the country does not have a history of colonialism or segregation as in many Western countries. On the contrary, sociologists such as Doğuş Şimşek strongly reject this point of view, stressing that this misperception resulted from the fact that Africans in Turkey often live in the shadows and Afro-Turks, the historical black population of Turkey, are mostly confined to tiny communities in Western Turkey.[10]" (per Africans in Turkey article). This article by Hürriyet cites multiple academics concerned with the topic and they seem to agree on the discrimination aspect.

Currently, the article states that "It is reported" and not "It is". DW is a respected news source, but you are right that it is anecdotal. It would be better to use Hürriyet as a source. For the latter suggestion I have no opposition. At least it should be mentioned in Afro-Turks or Africans in Turkey article. --Gogolplex (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Black people never existed

Forum-style discussion without any sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I love the intro section of this article, and that it says that it is derogative, outdated, and reductive. I have the following concenrs: it should be clearly stated that no black person exists or ever existed, the term is an outdated old-fashinoed innacurate reductive term it should be noted that many people with dark complexion and without still prefer the term and continue to favour an oudated term that might go against their rights few people are aware that black people and white people don't exist, and that skin color might require a more gentle claassifcation like the cosmetic and fashon industry classicfation, that is for practcial reasons and not for race TudorTulok (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Copying my comment from White people. That's a note to yourself Andy. You are the one that thinks that race is scientific, and that there is scientifc proof for the existance of white and black skin, where there isn't such thing. It will take 50 years when everybody realises that we it's offensive to call people terms that are scientifically incorrect, but you say on my talk page that it's offesnive to tell them that the name they have chosen is not scientifcially correct and that offesnvie. I am not a white person, and never will be. I have a light skin, I am a person of light skin, not a white person. I find it offesnive to be called white. It's easy to hide your opinion under the 'not a forum' tag. As I said, it might take you 50 years to realise that you are wrong (that's how slow a culture is, and that's what you follow in this opinion, pleasing the culture, not the scientfic truth, that Wikipedia should go along with). If you are still around here in 2072, please do check my comment. TudorTulok (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: since this has been hatted before I had a chance to respond, I will merely note that my long record of attempting to combat systemic racism (intentional and otherwise) on Wikipedia can readily be confirmed by looking at my contribution history. The accusation above is facile and entirely without merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sports literature

Describe the portrayal of black people in “The Champions of the World.” 2402:3A80:1909:DF1F:0:0:0:2 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization

This issue is in the archives from around 2005, but with the increased usage of capitalizing the terms "Black" and "White" today, I think it deserves another look. It has to do with any page across Wikipedia, so if there is a better place for discussion (or maybe it already is), my apologies. Link me.

Looking at a few articles, such as Black women, you see inconsistencies within that very page. There are various arguments, such as Black Americans whose ancestors came to the Americas on the trans-Atlantic slave trade not knowing their ethnicities/tribes which push them towards wanting to capitalize the word "Black." Depending on political groups, others want to capitalize "White."

Since most people think of Black and White as being some description of ethnicity/heritage beyond mere melanin production (such as geographical ancestry), to me it makes most sense to capitalize both Black and White across Wiki in reference to a person's "group." Weagesdf (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:PEOPLANG. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own preferred usage isn't directly relevant to discussion of capitalisation in this article itself. This needs to be based on what WP:RS has to say on the subject.

I note that currently the lede gives a couple of examples (the AP Stylebook and the ASA Style Guide), but that this isn't discussed further in the article body. I wonder whether, per MOS:LEDE this is appropriate. There are probably more sources out there discussing the changing usage, and maybe it needs a little more discussion in the article body. Or perhaps a separate article, since this is discussing 'terminology' rather than 'people'. Either way, we need to avoid WP:OR through e.g. citing examples, rather than material actually covering the topic directly, and we need to take note that there may be differing approaches depending on English-language variations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia's internal style (though there have been many interesting discussions there) is not relevant to this article. However, the intro is an appropriate place for a brief mention of existing variations of capitalization. The AP is an authoritative US institutions, and US media have generally followed the AP's style change from black to Black. The BBC meanwhile continues to follow its own style guide which specifies a lower case b. What media actually do is at least as relevant to the article as what their style guides say, so it is worth saying that most US Media recently changed from b to B and that the BBC hasn't.CharlesHBennett (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

CharlesHBennett, I reverted you because the BBC source you gave just uses the word "black" with a lower case B. It doesn't say that a specific spelling is preferred, so this is just another example for a text using lower case. I think the question should be discussed in the body and mentioned in short in the lead, agreeing with AndyTheGrump. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If we were to base article content on 'what the media actually do' we'd end up with an ungodly mess of examples and counter-examples, leaving the reader with no clue as to how representative of anything they are. Or of any indication of why there is disagreement about it, which is probably the more interesting question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The BBC News style guide, being a style guide, can be presumed to be an authoritative source on BBC preferred usage, so the fact that its section on race recommends multiple examples of black and none of Black is an indication of a BBC guideline or policy, especially since BBC news stories have consistently used the lower case even in high-profile stories like that on Ketanji Brown Jackson. I removed that and other examples of current BBC usage because as AndyTheGump pointed out, examples are not individually probative and too many of them would merely clutter up the intro. If you can think of a better way of concisely characterizing existing variations, please do so rather than reverting to version that in my opinion is less informative and too US-centric. Other opinions are of course welcome.

In response to AndyTheGump, I would say that 'what the media actually do' is a legitimate topic to mention, albeit briefly without drowning the reader in examples, but as he pointed out earlier irrelevant to what Wikipedia's own preferred usage should be. In that connection, besides MOS:PEOPLANG, see interesting discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&oldid=1015816705#Discussion_about_capitalisation_of_Black_(people) CharlesHBennett (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

AS has already been noted, the BBC News style guide contains no recommendation regarding capitalisation of the word 'black'. [1] And basing article content on WP:OR-selected examples (which is what this is) is contrary to policy. I am going to restore the article to its earlier state, and suggest that you follow WP:BRD practice, rather than trying to impose what is so far a minority opinion. If necessary, we can perhaps hold a WP:RfC over how we resolve this, though personally I think it might be better to look for further sources so we can discuss the issue in more depth in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Southeast Asia

This section should be either removed or overworked. The references are newspapers links and fail WP:RS. Furthermore are the Negrito a collection of unrelated groups, with some superficial similarities which resulted in the creation of that named group, based on outdated racialist concepts. Last but not least, these groupings are genetically close to East Asians and other Southeast Asians, and not the first people there, they share a common ancestor with East Asians which diverged from each other. The current wording gives us the impression they are an own human population, which is simply wrong. The whole concept of "black people" is fringe, we also do not have a article "pale people". Skin colour is a superficial trait. See also the peopling of Asia:[[2]].178.165.207.169 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have rather missed the point of the article. Yes, the description 'black people' has been applied to groups that share no common ancestry beyond that shared by humanity as a whole. And yes, it is 'a superficial trait', more or less by definition. The purpose of the article however isn't to argue that 'black people' is a valid biological/genetic distinction, but to document how the term has been used - and in doing so, to hopefully demonstrate its meaningless as biology, and its roots in racist pseudoscience. There may well be problems with sourcing, and I'm sure that the article could be improved more generally, but removing specific sections that actually demonstrate the arbitrariness of the classification won't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've expanded the lede a little to make clear the arbitrariness of the classification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What about the Māoris?

Not all Māori tribes are particularly black (some are brown) but why aren’t the New Zealand Māoris or the Polynesians on here? There are brown (not black) Aboriginal tribes in Australia (e.g Tasmanian Aboriginals were brown). 123.208.18.224 (talk) 21:53 December 30, 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

The sentence "Some have commented that labeling people "black" is erroneous as the people described as "black" actually have brown skin." is absolutely absurd. The sentence reads as if this is subjective or conjecture. On the contrary this is the literal truth, my skin is brown and this isn't a "comment". I feel that this information should be accurate despite social norms. The sentence should read as follows:

"Labeling people as "black" is indeed erroneous as the people described as "black" actually have brown skin." Thewpwizard480 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the sentence entirely as it is not mentioned in the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

bias

"Historians estimate that between the advent of Islam in 650 CE and the abolition of slavery in the Arabian Peninsula in the mid-20th century,[37] 10 to 18 million black Africans (known as the Zanj) were enslaved by east African slave traders and transported to the Arabian Peninsula and neighboring countries"

I find this racist against Arabs and Islam and cheap propaganda from Westerners who are trying to get rid of the of guilty by accusing others, The slave trade from Abyssinia was before Islam, and this number is very exaggerated. The Arabs did not have huge ships to transport this number of slaves 197.253.204.239 (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Cite your sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. There appears to be a heavy consensus for not moving this page. Withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Black people → Blacks – Ngram linked here indicates a higher appearance of "Blacks" compared with "Black people". With that, this move seems reasonable. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Even ignoring the fallacious Ngram argument (which clearly doesn't take into account other uses of the term 'blacks'), it is offensive. This article is about people, who deserve to be described as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, could also refer to Shades of black and possibly other topics. The user also opened a parallel discussion at Talk:White people#Requested move 13 December 2022. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

And at Talk:Asian people. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• oppose ngram shoes nothing as 'blacks' could refer other things. Also change the redirect to the dab page—blindlynx 14:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Opppose per WP:COMMONNAME, among other things, "blacks" is definitely not more common when referring this set of people. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Add Persecution of black people in Nazi Germany to Germany section. 201.71.0.220 (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no need to repeat what's covered in the linked article. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Add African portal to see also section.

201.71.0.220 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Already contained in the box on top right. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Black or black?

I'm almost afraid to ask, but I need to know before I do any editing: Should it be Black or black? It's both ways throughout the article. (The African Americans article uses Black throughout.) I probably needn't add that both Black and black are used interchangeably throughout many other articles. I'm thinking a whole lot of editing might need to be done throughout Wikipedia.

Shouldn't we be consistent? Or does it really even matter? Is there a stated WP policy on this? Is there a better place on WP to bring this up? Apologies for my ignorance, but I'm a newbie. :)

In an effort to be a real troublemaker, I've also asked about White vs. white in the White people article. Yesthatbruce (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:RACECAPS, but that's not really clear. Anyway, you don't have to apologize for your "ignorance". Rsk6400 (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response ... I just now managed to find the MOS discussion, and I'm sorta relieved to know that it's basically an unresolved issue. I'm more than happy to just let it go. Yesthatbruce (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Definition of 'black'

As far as I'm aware, most of the Indigenous people of Oceania are not considered 'black' and even aboriginals are generally considered to be genetically and socially distinct. Shouldn't the article reflect this rather than sticking them under one term? Schwarbage (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's one term, but it has many different meanings and many different connotations, depending on who uses it, when they use it, and in what connotation. It certainly is used in Australia (sometimes currently spelt blak), more often by Aboriginal people to describe themselves or their fellows. It is often deliberately politically loaded today. The issue with Melanesia is well described in the article. That name literally means Island of black people, which is hard to ignore. But you're correct in saying that the term is rarely used today to describe people from there. I think the article does a reasonable good job with an inherently fraught term. Individual sections can always be improved though. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

@White American 2023 and Fajita Biscuit: You added information about Black people in Germany, which I removed for the following reasons: The history of anti-Black racism in Germany is not limited to Nazi period; Black people have a longer and richer history in Germany than just being victims of the Nazis or other racist people; Jews and Roma were persecuted on a different level, i.e. they were systematically murdered. Some Black people were murdered by the Nazis, some were sterilized, some (like Hans Massaquoi) were able to live a kind of "normal" life. Not everything that is sourced should be included here, see WP:ONUS. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

@White American 2023 and Fajita Biscuit: You added information about Black people in Germany, which I removed for the following reasons: The history of anti-Black racism in Germany is not limited to Nazi period; Black people have a longer and richer history in Germany than just being victims of the Nazis or other racist people; Jews and Roma were persecuted on a different level, i.e. they were systematically murdered. Some Black people were murdered by the Nazis, some were sterilized, some (like Hans Massaquoi) were able to live a kind of "normal" life. Not everything that is sourced should be included here, see WP:ONUS. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

Black also includes the Indigenous people of India as Well as The original Dravidian speakers of india. This is non inclusive and must be changed immediately.

Also need to add the Indigenous People of India and Dravidian people onto the page Under South Asia 2600:1702:3C80:9850:D1AB:E63E:8D0C:454 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)