Please provide ref and use a neutral tone. The quote is not accuate, nor is the page number you refer to, this is the accurate one, on page 54: http://books.google.it/books?id=FBh462QXBgoC&lpg=PA419&vq=black&hl=it&pg=PA54#v=snippet&q=black&f=false
Here's what is wrong with what you wrote:
Toynbee also expressed racist views and was infamous for his quote: "It will be seen that when we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races, given by this classification, which has not made a creative contribution to any one of our twenty-one civilizations is the Black Race."—Dr. Arnold Toynbee, The Study of History, Vol. I, page 233. 1947. This was at odds with the evidence of the primarily Black civilization in ancient Egypt (Kemet).
racist views:
He is referring to the contribution of the black race to the specific civilizations for which he has created a concept, and are the following: Egyptian, Andean, Sinic, Minoan, Sumerian, Mayan, Indic, Hittite, Hellenic, Western, Orthodox Christian (Russia), Far Eastern, Orthodox Christian (main body), Persian, Arabic, Hindu, Mexican, Yucatec, and Babylonic. I don't think there what he says is inconsistent. But we are not here to debate about a person or a book content, but about how something should be writen, based on what OTHERS have writen about a person or a book content. There is no academic or even journalistic text that describe Toynbee as a racist.
infamous:
There is not a record about him being a racist in order to use the word "infamous". You must provide a substancial number of accurate references to this (personally i could not find it). Not his book and your opinion about it, but accuarate academic or other valid references that describe a. his racism and b. that it was a famous one.
The controversy of the book departs solely from the fact that it is not easily classified as history in today's standards since it entails spirituality and religion philosophy. But this is a particular book anyway since it is not self-defined as history, but a study of the history, or philosophy of the history. It was never controversial because of its racicistic content.
Please read the book so you can understand how exactly he classifies these civilizations and under which criteria he uses.
Another issue: format-wise, even if what you mentioned was accurate a. it could not appear in the introduction, it stands out and it doesnt follow the neutral and general introductory style of the paragraph, b. even if it did it would need to have accuarate references, c. we cannot accuse anyone about anything, we can only say that someone was perceived as such etc (with the references)
Finally, language-wise: what we write on wikipedia must be an accuracy based on what others have written about what we describe, not our opinion, our reading on what we describe (in this case the book and an author). That is an opinion that belongs to an article, an essay, a blog post or anything u wish to write. But not an encyclopedic article. The latter requires a recorded fact and a generally accepted impression.
Start a discussion with DamaniK
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with DamaniK. What you say here will be public for others to see.
