Misplaced Pages

Talk:Black people: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:28, 7 September 2005 edit81.154.236.221 (talk) flagrant POV← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:34, 20 December 2024 edit undoHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,097 editsm Reverted edit by 210.3.243.147 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
==Early comments==
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
This article needs to clean up some of its language, and specifically define the terms of its discussion. For example, exactly what are "black" or "European" characterisrics that are found among these groups, but not found in others? Also, what is "black blood?" This term has no scientific merit; there is no inherent difference in the blood of those who have varying degrees of any ancestry.
{{censor}}
{{Calm}}
{{Old AfD multi|date= 2007-03-18 |result= '''Speedy keep''' |votepage= Black people }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid }}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}
}}
{{To do|2}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 24
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Black people/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{Controversial-issues}}


== Black as a Social class in South Africa ==
Nothing article, not even a stub, one ill-chosen link and a naive question. ]


In 1950, the Apartheid government of South Africa introduced the Population Registration Act No.30 which effectively forced the Xhosa people and other nations organic to the land to be registered under the National Socialist system into either one of four categories, Black, White, Colored and Asian.
----
Not any more, moved ill-placed section from ]. Previous redirect was to ], also not quite as accurate.
] 22:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


---


This Act effectively alienated the Xhosa people from their collective identity as a nation unto themselves and forced the label "Black African" on them as a social and legal status.
This paragraph moved here from the article:
:Blacks of Sub-saharan African ancestry thrive best relative to other races in ] climates. In the tropical lowland parts of the Americas, most notably the ], which were colonized originally by Europeans, Africans have displaced the Europeans in those regions where they were introduced due to their much greater tolerance to humid tropical conditions. This phenomenon is also observed to a lesser extent in the southern United States, where blacks dominate inland lowland areas and whites the mountains of ].


A claim that different "races" of people are better suited to different locales is pretty controversial, and might well deserve its own article. A few things are well accepted, such as having darker skin making one less susceptible to sunburn, but whether skin color correlates well with "thriving" in particular climates in general is another matter entirely. In these examples, many would argue that the demographics are due more to accidents of history than to people with more melatonin being partiuclarly well-suited to the Carribean. --] 08:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


This Act not only alienated the Xhosa from their collective identity but also from their resources and property as well with the implementation of the Black Codes from the 1913 Black's land Act and Groups Areas Act.
:I haven't read this article in a while, but I'm glad you moved the above passage. It's absolutely ridiculous/backward. ] 12:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== Proposal to move and merge article ==


This has been the cause of cultural erosion in this community and has prevented the redressing of many injustices that were committed against the Xhosa people. ] (]) 23:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose moving this article to ] or a similarly named article, where ] could also be discussed? As it stands, this article is dangerously close to unencyclopedic by mere virtue of its name alone. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> 05:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


:Is this text you wish to add to the article? If so, do you have sources for the above? I can add it if you do, and if it still needs doing. ] (]) 19:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see anything "dangerously unencyclopedic" about the nature of this piece. However, I'm not opposed outright to your suggestion. Perhaps it would be helpful to see the beginnings of such an article (on "race in society") first. My first reaction to your idea, however, is that your suggested piece seems a bit overly broad and potentially ridiculously unmanageable/sprawling. Perhaps the solution, since you seem concerned about "whites" as a subject, would be a separate article in which changing definitions of whiteness could be explored. ] 14:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== "Blacks" ==
== Non-African dark-skinned peoples ==
Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." ] (]) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:Really? This older Australian (who doesn't want to offend anyone) truly finds it hard to keep up what's OK and what's not in America. When did "blacks" become offensive? ] (]) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::I guess that calling black people "blacks" has the same kind of vibe as calling the Aboriginal people in Australia "Aborigines". While we might not see any real issue with it, the people it's used to refer to might have their own reservations about being called such. I will admit that America's increasingly common and almost impulsive "knight in shining armour" response to anything considered offensive nowadays is more than a bit excessive, but here, I see no real problem here with @]'s request from the perspective I just presented. ] (]) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I understand and accpt hat language changes. MY real question was, when did this particular change in acceptability happen? ] (]) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I dunno, when was the last time you heard "blacks" used commonly in everyday life? To be honest, I can understand why a black person might not want to be just called a "black". I'd be more than a bit annoyed if someone called me a "white" instead of making even a half-hearted attempt to refer to me by any other defining characteristic. ] (]) 07:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{midsize|I've no real personal insight here, but these things aren't binary switches. What is observed as a sea-change is instead like reaching critical mass, maybe as the direct result of many people becoming aware or changing their mind in a short amount of time, but likely just as much if not more some mere signal of preexisting perspectives catching on in the media. A thinkpiece, a sitcom quip, whatever—unfortunately those are the events people notice as regards these things. What I'm saying is there's potentially no answer for you—different folks have different feelings and different explanations. From what I intuit from reading memoirs, it was always possible for this choice of language to confer this particular meaning. }} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It doesn't seem particularly contingent or peculiar to me that a ]-as-demonym can become offensive. I really wouldn't read much more than that into it, it's not particularly complicated or particularly American. I'll steal these citations from ]:
:::* ''Merriam-Webster Online'': {{xt|Use of the noun Black in the singular to refer to a person is considered offensive. The plural form Blacks is still commonly used by Black people and others to refer to Black people as a group or community, but the plural form too is increasingly considered offensive, and most style guides advise writers to use Black people rather than Blacks when practical.}}
:::* ''Oxford Learner's Dictionaries'': {{xt|Using the noun black to refer to people with dark skin can be offensive, so it is better to use the adjective: ''black people • a black man/woman''. It is especially offensive to use the noun with the definite article ('the blacks')}}
:::* ''Dictionary.com'': {{xt|As a noun, however, it does often offend. The use of the plural noun without an article is somewhat more accepted (home ownership among ''Blacks''); however, the plural noun with an article is more likely to offend (political issues affecting ''the Blacks''), and the singular noun is especially likely to offend (The small business proprietor is ''a Black''). Use the adjective instead: ''Black homeowners, Black voters, a Black business proprietor''.}}
:::* ''AP Stylebook'': {{xt|Do not use as a singular noun.}}
:::<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::] <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 15:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


== Why don't we have a picture of some black people in the info box? ==
Deeceevoice, of course all humanity originated in Africa. This is exactly why I don't think the article should imply that, say, Tamils are particularly more African than, say, Han Chinese.--] 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


for example how the page for "<nowiki>'''human'''", or "'''woman'''" or "'''child'''</nowiki>" has a picture of what they look like ] (]) 02:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:Note that the article says "can" apply. Actually, more properly/grammatically, it should say "may"; it doesn't say it definitively does, or that it applies to all -- say, Han Chinese. ] 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:Which ones? ] (]) 03:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about the use of the term "Blacks", I'm saying the quote "more broadly to persons whose ancestors formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times to members of other dark-skinned groups" implies that dark-skinned peoples outside of Africa have a closer genealogical/genetic relationship to Africans than lighter-skinned peoples do, which I don't think is demonstrated.--] 21:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Pls review ].

::<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 04:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:Actually, that was an incomplete revert/edit. I've corrected it. You likely still will have problems with it, but the text now is accurate. It implies no such thing. It doesn't even ''mention'' gentics. The definition is purely about the use of a word, "blacks." Members of the groups mentioned (and likely others) historically/colloquially have been referred to as "blacks." I can't help what someone incorrectly may infer. ] 21:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still think the text, though literally true, is somewhat misleading and reinforces a common but false idea. Why is it particularly relevant that dark-skinned groups had "ancestors formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times"? As you say, this is true of all humanity.--] 21:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I edited it -- again. I thought your version far too simplistic/sparse. Now I suppose people will complain about my use of "Negroid." (shrug) ] 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Though the idea of "Negroid" has of course been incredibly abused, I think the link is relevant. Like many things on Misplaced Pages, this article puts a bit too much emphasis on language. There could be far more, for example on racism and the social meaning of "blackness".--] 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==

Particuarly w.r.t. use in the U.S.A., should 'black' be capitalized? I've seen it both ways in WP, and I'm curious if there's a good reason to pick one over the other. (I also suspect that there are subtle political issues involved in the use of capital letters in white/White and black/Black...) ] (]) 10:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the most common usage is as it has always been -- "black/s" and "white/s" are lower-cased. ] 15:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I have NEVER seen black capitalized when referring to dark skinned Africans. Also, if you look at the Wiki article on ], white is not capitalized. I will be going through this article when I have some spare time and decapitalizing black. ] 05:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::I was about to ask whether there was a Transatlantic divide on this: here in the UK, "Black" is ''much'' less common than "black", whatever the race of the writer. In any case, there's plenty of inconsistency in this article as it stands now (eg the sentence "non-black political entities define the person as Black"), and that just looks indecisive. ] (]) 12:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

==african ethnic groups==

it must be kept in mind that in africa, there are thousands of ethnic groups. it seems logical to me that members of those african ethnic groups would have, in the past or present, interbred with members of other african ethnic groups. thus, logically, there would be black africans, who are, say for example, part swahili and part xhosa.

of course, many blacks in america don't consider themselves as members of the african ethnic groups, and simply think of themselves as "black". however, i know for fact that there are some blacks in america who still adhere to an ethnic group, and it's language, culture, religion, foods, architecture, clothing styles, etc. ] 30 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)

==Fed up. The "pretty table" should be history -- certainly, at least, here.==

I'm fed up with going through this with every single article treating black people on Misplaced Pages: the perverse need to insert an endless list of pejorative, insulting racial slurs associated with the group. No other ethnic or racial group on Misplaced Pages receives similar treatment in articles dealing with them. There may be a legitimate need to present such information on Misplaced Pages -- but it should be done in a separate article. The time for automatically associating backward, ignorant, disgusting terminology with a group -- as though it defines who and what its members are -- is long past. Time for this to end. ] 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

:Most wikipedians are German, which explains racism. . That same admin has many sock puppet accounts and stalks people out of racist motives, . ] 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

First, deleting the entire table goes a bit far. But I suppose that was meant to evoke a response. The problem is that people have always used derogatory names for other groups. It's just that blacks have suffered most from this. I'm afraid your suggestion that this is a thing of the past will never be true. Condescending attitudes towards other groups, and the namecalling that goes with it will always be a part of mankind (well, maybe in some distant future....). Now, I can understand it's irritating to be confronted with that all the time, but 1) it's a fact so it can't be ignored in an encyclopedia and 2) ignoring it would almost be something like saying the holocaust never happened. And we can't have that either. By the way, what's 'pretty' about the table? It's just an ordinary table. I suppose that's meant as an ironic derogatory term :) .

I'd say there isn't too much use of derogatory terms in the table. There is however some explanation of how the same term can sound differently in other languages, and that's useful. Though it is confusing that the article is about Blacks in the sense of 'sub-Saharan Africans' but that the table is partly about them, but also partly about the use of the term 'Black' for other groups. In that sense the table is out of place here, but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Oh, and I notice that under the US there is a mention of 'the N-word'. Now that's useful! This is something I really dislike about US lingo. Say it or don't, but don't be halfhearted about it. If you want to say 'nigger', then say it. If you don't, then don't.

As for a solution. You suggest a separate article. If you mean splitting this one up, I'd say that doesn't solve it and the two resulting articles would be rather short. Or do you mean putting derogatory terms for ''all'' 'races' in one place? That does make sense. How about the ] article? (By the way, how do you feel about the fact that two of the three illustrations are about blacks? Just another example, but justifiable by my previous reasoning.) Let's give it a go. Let's make a list of derogatory terms for different human 'races' (which don't taxonomically exist, but that's a different issue). I can't think of too many off the top of my head (and I'm just about ready for bed :) ). One problem is that there's namecalling for other groups like nationalities. Not sure if that should go in the same table. And then there are misnomers like ''Indian'' for Native Americans. And different languages, like in the table you removed. And certain names are used for different groups too (like 'darkie' can refer to any person with a dark skin). And the same word can be good or bad in different setiings, times or countries. Much work to do :) .

White: camarron (though really for tourists in Mexico only I believe), bleekscheet

Black: nigger, darkie, chombo, nikker, roetmop, kaffer

Asian: chink (though that's for Chinese I believe)

Native American: redskin

] 20:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

: The term "pretty table" (or something like it) was used by someone in an edit note -- hence the quotation marks. And there already ''is'' an article devoted to slurs: ]. And, no. I did not suggest that such ugliness is a thing of the past -- quite the contrary, especially on Misplaced Pages, which is frequently a venue for racist interjections in articles, racist vandalism and the like. What I meant was that automatic inclusion of racist slurs in an article on any ethnic group should be a thing of the past. As I said in the discussion regarding someone's interjection of a racist photo in an article on ], it's time for Misplaced Pages to be an intelligent, enlightened arbiter of information (no, not a censor) and stop reducing segments of articles to racist word association games. Enough already. ] 23:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, some list! If only people would use their creativity in a more constructive way. Strange, though, that the racism article doesn't link to it. But about the 'pretty table', what do you have in mind then? Remove the derogatory terms (which, like I said, aren't all that many) and put it back? But then there's the 2 problems I mentioned. You suggested a separate article, but I don't see how that solves it. Another idea would be to make a list like the one I started, with just the most common terms in various languages, and put that in the racism article, with a link to the List of Ethnic Slurs, because that is rather extremely long. And the slimmed down 'pretty table' couild go back then, with a link to the racism table, so people don't get just the 'black slurs'. ] 08:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:No. I didn't suggest a separate article. I stated that an article already exists where such information would be appropriate. Frankly, I don't see the need for the table at all. This is an English-language site. There are absolutely ''no parallel such tables in other articles on so-called "races" or other ethnicities anywhere else on Misplaced Pages.'' It's simply unnecessary. And it's a safe bet that there is no, for example, listing of terms like "dago," "guinea," "greaseball," etc., in the article on Italians, or of "Christ killer," "kike," etc., in the article on Jews. Leave it be! ] 11:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, at first you suggested a separate article, but never mind that. Now you come with a different reason, namely that this is the English language Misplaced Pages, which seems to be the definitive word on this (wish you would have come up with that in the first place; would have saved me some work :) ). There's still some information in the table that makes sense in the article, though. I'll give it a go. ] 20:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

== Portuguese language ==

Just a bit of trivia here: in Brazil, the term "negro" is the politically correct, whereas "black" is deemed pejorative. I cannot vouch for other portuguese speaking countries, but this is how these words are viewed in brazilian portuguese.

^^^ someone wrote above (not me) and didn't sign their name ] 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:I made an edit like this saying when negro was the thing black was bad to say but I heard it off a stephen king novel (said so in my edit summary). Well, ] was right it seems and I also guess so as nobody reverted me. Oh and the n-word used to be a friendly term that should go there--I want some others to do it because I don't want to write it and have what I wrote erased via reversion (instead of altered) if I do it wrong. ] 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Racial slurs do not belong in this article. I'm sick of readig "nigger" every time I come to an article on Misplaced Pages about black people. Enough! ] 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

== Lowest Common Denominator in Wiki? ==

Is Misplaced Pages sinking to the lowest common denominator, as detractors feared when it first emerged? Unless one is an EXTREME populist, after all, one acknowledges that the majority of any population is ignorant about most things. (Specialists, by definition, specialize.) Yet if all voices are treated equally, and if increasingly they dominate postings on Misplaced Pages due to their sheer numbers, then the result will be an ignorant Wiki. There must be many discussions about this elsewhere, but this page (and the non-mirror image page at ] illustrates the problem as well as any other.

The intent of the Wiki founders and directors is good and clear. E.g., the Wiki guidelines state: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." Yet this page here is named ], and that usage is prevalent throughout.

#Then let us just change it to "Black" and link it within the Black page. I agree with you, i just don't know how to change it. I'm not experienced enough yet

::Before doing any of these changes, there needs to be consensus on this talk page to do so. I disagree with the above comments because the Wiki guidelines quoted are about how to refer to groups of people within an article, not about the name and cultural connotations that arise from what a group of people call themselves. The title of this article, for what it is about, is correct.--] 00:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

== To the Moderators: I stand corrected ==

I, through my inexperience, could not isolate a particular edit, so i figured that the moderators were unilaterally editing the article.

Apologies to the wiki-moderators.

== The Hip-Hop paragraph issue. ==

I pulled this from the article and put it here, someone wanted the matter to be resolved, but didn't want to discuss it first.
:(This statement/paragraph is not true, hip-hop was started by Blacks and Puerto Ricans in New York, and began as a medium to re-express the hardship of blackness, specifically Black ghetto life, and as a unique musical expression to distance itself from disco which was also a black music genre that was usurped by the homosexual/glam community. Hip-hop wasn't adopted by anyone until the Italian sons and daughters of italian record executives put pressure to promote this music, and from the rich lavish lifestyle promoted it's been adopted by everyone that wants to be everything Black but Black, this the last paragraph is not true based on fact, PLEASE EDIT TO REFLECT THE REAL, NOT THE WHITE SUPREMIST COMPANY LINE SOLD BY WHITES, AND THE WHITEMANS HOUSE NEGRO.

What is the difference between this position, and the position you say is not true? A medium to re-express the hardship of blackness, especially Black ghetto life is the same thing as to express their heritage openly and their social concerns.

If I recall, in Jamaica, and parts of France and West Africa they were into rap in the late 80s and early 90s. Especially in West Africa, Hip Hop remained a social expression against oppression. For example Nas gives clues all over his music, the Pharaonic cover of one of his Albums "I AM" seems to relate to the French group "I AM" who also use the motif of Egyptian Pharaohs for their names. In his music, "One Mic", he references to "one God" in French. There is a deeper social and moral aspect of Hip-hop that has been present long before and still despite white meddling into it. And since in America, the social climate isn't receptive to direct social commentary in rap like it was in the 80s, subtlety is the name of the game on this side of the Atlantic. SO I would say that you added some insight but you also missed some, but the original paragraph is true, not withstanding "HOW" the phenomonon spread. Why didn't you put this on the discussion area instead of right into the article? Delving into how Hip-hop spread does nothing to deny that Black people throughout the world do benefit from the expression.

== Black Anarchism? ==

What the heck does Black Anarchism have to do with Black People? Do we see the KKK links on the White People article? No. It's gone!

== flagrant POV ==

This section:

:'''''Non-Black scholars''' try to take a strictly anthropological or genetic viewpoint, '''often''' in order to concentrate and further marginalize the significance of Black people in history. In doing so they subjectively establish beforehand which gene markers and anthropological characteristics to include or exclude. Because of this, attempts to base Blackness on a biological or genetic foundation are objectively flawed, and overlook the most meaningful and relevant human aspect of Blackness: a shared human experience that transcends regional boundaries and physiological criteria''

is ridiculously POV. Firstly, it quite plainly connects non-black scholars in particular with a wish to 'marginalize the significance of Black people in history'. What does their being non-black have to do with it? Are they racists? Are scholars 'often' guilty of misrepresenting black people? Another problem I have is with 'attempts to base Blackness on a biological or genetic foundation '''are''' objectively flawed' - surely they are only objectively flawed according to someone's ]!
:Massively POV, and this is just the opening few paragraphs... the whole article needs to be checked, and points of view mitigated with contrary voices, so I'm tagging it. --] 16:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:34, 20 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-18. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconAfrican diaspora High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAfrica High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnthropology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Black people: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-09-23

  • Find and add citations to reliable sources.
  • Remove unverifiable material and original research.
  • Show a multi dimensional view of Black people across the world, not merely an American perspective.
  • Remove "undue weight" per WP:CSB and WP:NPOV.
  • Give more information on the diversity of peoples within African, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc.
  • Remove the comment about underestimation of strength of Black men - out of context and contributes to racist stereotypes
Priority 2

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Black as a Social class in South Africa

In 1950, the Apartheid government of South Africa introduced the Population Registration Act No.30 which effectively forced the Xhosa people and other nations organic to the land to be registered under the National Socialist system into either one of four categories, Black, White, Colored and Asian.


This Act effectively alienated the Xhosa people from their collective identity as a nation unto themselves and forced the label "Black African" on them as a social and legal status.


This Act not only alienated the Xhosa from their collective identity but also from their resources and property as well with the implementation of the Black Codes from the 1913 Black's land Act and Groups Areas Act.


This has been the cause of cultural erosion in this community and has prevented the redressing of many injustices that were committed against the Xhosa people. Benjamin knox (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this text you wish to add to the article? If so, do you have sources for the above? I can add it if you do, and if it still needs doing. Lewisguile (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"Blacks"

Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The US National Archives defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." TheMiddleWest (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? This older Australian (who doesn't want to offend anyone) truly finds it hard to keep up what's OK and what's not in America. When did "blacks" become offensive? HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I guess that calling black people "blacks" has the same kind of vibe as calling the Aboriginal people in Australia "Aborigines". While we might not see any real issue with it, the people it's used to refer to might have their own reservations about being called such. I will admit that America's increasingly common and almost impulsive "knight in shining armour" response to anything considered offensive nowadays is more than a bit excessive, but here, I see no real problem here with @TheMiddleWest's request from the perspective I just presented. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I understand and accpt hat language changes. MY real question was, when did this particular change in acceptability happen? HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I dunno, when was the last time you heard "blacks" used commonly in everyday life? To be honest, I can understand why a black person might not want to be just called a "black". I'd be more than a bit annoyed if someone called me a "white" instead of making even a half-hearted attempt to refer to me by any other defining characteristic. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I've no real personal insight here, but these things aren't binary switches. What is observed as a sea-change is instead like reaching critical mass, maybe as the direct result of many people becoming aware or changing their mind in a short amount of time, but likely just as much if not more some mere signal of preexisting perspectives catching on in the media. A thinkpiece, a sitcom quip, whatever—unfortunately those are the events people notice as regards these things. What I'm saying is there's potentially no answer for you—different folks have different feelings and different explanations. From what I intuit from reading memoirs, it was always possible for this choice of language to confer this particular meaning. Remsense ‥ 论 07:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem particularly contingent or peculiar to me that a mass noun-as-demonym can become offensive. I really wouldn't read much more than that into it, it's not particularly complicated or particularly American. I'll steal these citations from wikt:black#Noun:
  • Merriam-Webster Online: Use of the noun Black in the singular to refer to a person is considered offensive. The plural form Blacks is still commonly used by Black people and others to refer to Black people as a group or community, but the plural form too is increasingly considered offensive, and most style guides advise writers to use Black people rather than Blacks when practical.
  • Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: Using the noun black to refer to people with dark skin can be offensive, so it is better to use the adjective: black people • a black man/woman. It is especially offensive to use the noun with the definite article ('the blacks')
  • Dictionary.com: As a noun, however, it does often offend. The use of the plural noun without an article is somewhat more accepted (home ownership among Blacks); however, the plural noun with an article is more likely to offend (political issues affecting the Blacks), and the singular noun is especially likely to offend (The small business proprietor is a Black). Use the adjective instead: Black homeowners, Black voters, a Black business proprietor.
  • AP Stylebook: Do not use as a singular noun.
Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Capitalization Moxy🍁 15:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we have a picture of some black people in the info box?

for example how the page for "'''human'''", or "'''woman'''" or "'''child'''" has a picture of what they look like Finnigami (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Which ones? HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Pls review MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY.
Moxy🍁 04:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: