Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:46, 25 October 2006

Please 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.

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.

Template:Todo priority

Archives

September 2003 - July 2006 July 10, 2006 - 19 August 2006 August 2006 - September 2006 September 2006 - October 2006 1 2 3 4

Lets start from the bottom.

Let's start from something basic.

The integrity of a POV is maintained by how the language is used to present it. When I saw "Who is black" changed to "definitions of black people". I (and every black person I spoke with) took offense to the arrogant conceited nature of the Wikipedians that changed that name. Why is Who is a Jew not called "Definitions of Jewish people"? Why does the principle for one, not apply to the other? Both are humans, both are groups, both deserve equal respect. (This little point is actually a critical foundation of the example of why Black people and white people in this discussion are at odds). Explain, whoever you are, why you feel "definitions" is more appropriate than "who is" for the title of the articleDefinitions of black people? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I say again, I think everyone should write their own page, with references, then we should connect them and place caveats on the pages. But...I am burned out on this. So much pointless arguing.--Filll 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's sarcasm on your part. Why is black people such a topic that this kind of indignation and exasperation so acceptable? Let us handle this difficult issue responsibly! Why not consider that maybe your intractability is the cause of your own burnout! Is it going to kill you if you acknowledge that black people inhabited Asia without the use of iron shackles? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Filll, your response did not answer the question. Again, this indignation that white people use in order to avoid directly answering and taking responsibility for a blunderous use of prejudice... that is unacceptable. I ask again, Why was "What is a black person" changed to "Definitions of black people"? --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to give you a response since you seem to want one. I do not know who changed "What is a black person" to "Definitions of black people" or why. I think it is probably better to stay with the precedent set by the other articles on Jews or white people, but this is not critical. Also, I will certainly acknowledge that there are people around the world in Oceania, in Australia, in Asia and other places that have either called themselves black and/or have had other people call them black, either now or currently. And I will also point out that some people very vehemently disagree with this position for a variety of reasons. So, as I have said over and over and over, I would like this article or family of articles to represent both views, complete with references. I think that it cannot be settled by arguing. And it is pointless. I think that the fact that there is disagreement and controversy should be noted and documented in the articles.--Filll 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok where is the answer to my question? --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I answered your question but I am just confused. Sorry. I am not your enemy, but I am just overwhelmed by all this.--Filll 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no enemy. There is only competing philosophies that are interfering with the reporting of black people in the world for this article. You have people saying that this article shouldn't exist because THEY feel that black people shouldn't be a label or shouldn't be a label to describe some of the people. This is an encyclopedia, the black people label exists and it's not going anywhere. I am proud of being black and I don't need to listen to some desperate nonsense about 17th century white men. Humans all have the capacity to distinguish contrasting features in other humans, the 17th century white men are no more or less perceptive than Egyptians or Romans or Ethiopians in seeing that black people are distinct from white skinned Europeans. I keep hearing how black was created by white men, yet no one can explain how Kushite, Ethiopian, and Zanji came to be used to describe the same people known to them. So they invent reasons. Hamitic would have worked better than African, but the White Eurocentricists ruined it by making it mean "Caucasoid Egyptians with a tan". For all of this "pro-black" articulation by the Arabic named contributor named Halaqah, I find it fascinating that he rather use "sub-saharan African" (disgusting) to describe us. I am not sub anything and a damn desert is not going to be where my identity is based. African and Black have equal relevance to my identity and I do not find either offensive. He does. This article is not at his whim. Move on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Compare the respect and the lack thereof

IN the article Who is a jew

• "Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: ?מיהו יהודי) is a religious, social and political debate on the exact definition of which persons can be considered Jewish. The Hebrew phrase Mihu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?") came into widespread use when several high profile legal cases in Israel grappled with this subject after the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. As Judaism shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnical approach to identity is used. Throughout the years jews have been characterized in many different lights.

In the article Who is black

• This article presents the competing definitions of black people, based on a racial, socio-political, lexical, biological, and other viewpoints. The concept of “black” as a metaphor for race can be traced to the 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races: Europeanus which he labled the white race, Asiatic, which he labled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race. Gradually the "yellow" and "red" races got lumped together yielding just three races commonly known as mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid. The last term is derived from Negro which is a Spanish adjective for black. Some anthropologists added an Australoid category (which includes aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago).

Notice the respect given to the Jewish perspective, and the lack thereof given to the Black perspective. No, despite the fact that black people are found in the bible, in ancient dialogue, in historical contexts predating the 18th century, instead, the contributor wants the reader to think that Carolus Linneaus concocted the black race from his imagination, or that blackness is only relevant when it's a metaphor for race (otherwise it's irrelevant to some white people, and therefore irrelevant in reality). Carolus created us black people and not only that, but we must follow along Carolus' imaginations and his postulations as to how we are defined. I'll keep bringing this up until this lie is abandoned by Misplaced Pages. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dark skin was obviously noticed throughout history, but the concept of race did not exist before several hundred years ago and so Black as an ethnic idenity did not exist. And the reason the article is not called "Who is Black" like the "Who is Jewish" article, is because this article is better than the "who is Jewish" article because it provides a list of cited and varied definitions from people of different races (plus extensive criticism), and thus can have an encyclopedic title. "Who is Black?" is a question, not a title for an encyclopedia artice. "Who is Jewish" should also be changed.__Whatdoyou 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Then change the Jewish article. Use your assumptions that are false and apply them there. This issue is not about race, and in addition the concept of race existed as far back as the pyramids. The concept of race is not uniform, and our present day reliance on some DNA, or skulls to DEFINE it does not mean it was conceived from that. But more importantly, you believe the Jewish article is titled incorrectly? Then change the title to ] without hesitation, with the same passion you do here. Do it now. Do not make excuses, do not be a cowardly punk. Do not be a chump. CHANGE IT NOW! In fact, I will copy your comments here, and put them THERE. Let the contributors there respond to you through me, and we will see how much integrity you truly have. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just changed the title to something more encyclopedic. I didn't call it definitions because they don't have definitions in their article.__Whatdoyou 16:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you do not do it yourself, I will change the title and cite you as the reason, copying your own words into the talk page of the Jewish article. And I will cross post between these two articles, having you debate them whether you like it or not. You have 24 hours. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough, you changed it to "Controversies about Jews", change it to "Definitions of Jews". Do not be a coward. "You had no problems with "Definitions" of Blacks. Have no problem with "Definitions of Jews". --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Connect the dots why do you think people like me reject the term with such passion. U r trying to climb the impossible: reverting a word thats root is wrong, how can you put pride in that which has no pride? Thats why the broader the defn the better, then it would reflect that "black" isnt a race but more a social classification born out of racism. I thnk whatdoyou is correct and the defn and critic gives balance. ---Halaqah 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have no position to determine if it's a concept which has pride or not, and your opinion is yet again arrogant ignorance. The social classification of blackness predated the racism of the west, i've said that and proved that dozens of times. In addition, you are not in the white people article making the same claim, your words do not inflect any passion regarding white people, therefore I conclude you do not in your heart believe in it. Instead I postulate this: I belive you think the world would be a better place for everyone "else" if the black people would simply dissappear and assimilate themselves out of existence. Where the racism and bigotry against us would theoretically dissappear with it, "if only" we would abandon who we are and emulate you and other non-black people. Being proud of being black is not even a question for me, however your arrogant attitude about deciding what and who should and should not exist is a perspective that I will utterly destroy without mercy in this dialogue forever. Halaqah you are the reason that Black people reject you with more passion. In fact your quote from your talk page "I hate dishonesty, I respect a KKK man who believes what he believes from his knowledge before a so-called Pan-African hypocrite who calls for one thing and then does another in full light of the facts." shows me your bias. Because you call a pan-african a hypocrite and you know nothing of that, nor of our experiences. You hate black people, the so called slaves "abed", but your hatred is encapsulated in a philosophy that is designed to "rationalize black people out of existence". I want you to know really clearly, your belief in the dominance of white men in creating and dismantling other people's identities is misguided. There is nothing wrong with blackness as an identity, whether social, ethnic or racial. Even idiots understand that it's not meant to be taken visually literally. The social classification may have been born out of racism, but a lot of social groups are born out of solidarity against oppression, or by even the dominant groups' imposition. Regardless on this day in the 21st century, black people, the black identity has changed and has long been usurped and controlled by the very people who identifies with it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be like me coming at you saying that there should be no arabs, because Arabic is a language and people should not be identified based on the language they speak. (Otherwise you'd include anybody that speaks the language and well we can't do that!) But more importantly, here is your chance to tell the whole world

1. Why is black identity "wrong".
2. Why do you feel that it has no pride?

Be a man halaqah, answer these questions. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yawn.__Whatdoyou 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here I'll be consistent. You need to sleep, then go to bed. Otherwise we can lock that article too. I'll do the job your too scared and/or lazy to do. Yawwwwn! Both articles will have the same title "Controversies". --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go. consistency. We have two articles. Controversy over Jewish Identity and Controversy over Black Identity. I have negative respect for you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue resolved. This section of the talk page is done. Any changes back to "definitions" will be reverted ad nauseum. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

yawn is right, u r the one argueing for ownership of somethng that clearly you are unable to defend. When were Africans ever black before Europe came? Moreover when did African identify with black b4 this date? Bring one book where African people said "we are black". Maybe you should a. go to Africa or b read a history book. How the hell can you be so proud of being a color, name the other race that is called a color (apart from the ones that call people by color). Man its a shame to see you clinging to a silly concept, Dont you have anything else going for you? Thats why you fight with such emotion because surley you can see it is empty, the problem with you is you have nothing else. Its like finding out Santa Clauses doesnt exist. Look at the entire debate. black is a color what is the dif between black and Negro. I have a website about black people, go and watch the doc and listen to what they call themselves in Spanish "NEGRO" yah dig, because black = negro. Face it you fell for the trick, you dont wanna be Negro so you decided to be black. 40 years later you still aint wake up 2 the reality black = Negro, so why not be proud of negro? anywhere here is the site Black is Negro in spanish. I dont have to dam define why you should be proud of black, i am not black you are!! Ask me why i am proud to be African that is something to answer. Get with the program man. flying off with passion and blindness face it if you say you r black then be proud to be Negro Les Negros. start an all negro site but this is wikipedia---Halaqah 23:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, firstly, the identity of black people is not based on regional affiliation, never has been. Only when the Europeans came did the association strictly with Africa come into play. Now, your Arabic based attitude does not do anything but make you look like an opportunist. I am not interested in your Yemeni "I don't want to be black" responses at this point. Black may be a color, but the "Kushi", "Zanji", "Ayn", "Aeta", and other names certainly sound better and more respectable than "Sub-(missively/humanly) Saharan, or "Negro" (I am not spanish). I have no problem with people in Spanish calling themselves "Negro" because that's the term they use in Spanish. I have a problem with us using it in English, because it's a colloquial word made out of ignorance. African also is born out of a European mindset "Africanus" and I am not going to spend the rest of my life like you are trying to "not be" something in order to make a point that has no point at all. You're misguided and your hatred of blackness is just another version of self-hatred. Yemen?!? give me a break. Why don't you just call yourself "Abed" like the Arabs call you anyway? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah Arab r u crazy, Arab and black is not the samething. Arabs are from ARABIA, they speak ARABIC. blacks are not from Blackia and they do not speak BLACKITIC, yeah some old timers like to cling on to their slave names, cool, but then stop complaining when Tamils et al are included in the true definition or the mahn defines black for you, he gave you the name. Why did Malcolm, Jesse, John have an issue with the name?---Halaqah 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs are from ARABIA, not the "Arabic republic of" EGYPT, not Iraq, not Syria... not Lebanon! Not Sudan! (thats where the bulk of the Arabic population is counted) You want to make up a problem with the use of black, you try to "find" a logical reason not to have it used with people outside of Africa, so you attack it entirely (throw the baby out with the bathwater). Halaqah, you're annoying, not inspiring. You want to destroy the unity among black people, that's your problem. You want lightskinned Arabs to rule over the darkerskinned Sub-saharans and make a unified Arabic culture in Africa? Whatever your aims are, you're inconsistent and ignorant --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

JEWS, practise JUDAISM, they are from JUDAH. you see the pattern? get on the bus leave the slave name behind.--Halaqah 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How about you get off the bus and leave your slave ass behind? You call me a slave, I call you a slave. Whatever. In the end, you only talk about "not" using a word, not using a name. YOu offer nothing. I am not going to resort to "just using African" when your ultimate goal is to use that to sever any references to black people outside of Africa in this article. (Yes, you forgot what the article is called didn't you). You want to prove that "black" is a bad old slave word? Then go and do that on your own. Why don't you show some consistency and go into the African-American article and remove all references to "Black" and replace it with whatever you want. You don't like "Equatorial" (probably because it shows a relationship to people outside of Africa". in fact, I think, behind your fake pro-black facade, you just want to isolate Black people from the rest of humanity, typical white racist goal. Show some integrity before you come in here trying to sow seeds of chaos. I can see right through it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Make it simple. Change the title into "black identity" SecurID 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a little better, but the "people" is important. I don't want any omission of the human aspect of the black identity. Notice by the way that the Jewish article reverted back to the "Who is". --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Equitorial African

Equatorial Africans what is this Equatorial Africans, i meant to ask but i said let me keep quite. Equatorial Africans. Is Ethiopia Equatorial what about Mali? Do u know how cold that place is? Is South Africa "Equatorial" SA just as far from the eq than Algeria. Like Sub (below) Sahara (a desert belt) Africa, makes no sense. but we buy anything they sell us--Halaqah 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Its simple. When we speak of Africans, its hard to distinguish the "black" ones from the "not-black" ones, when you refuse to use "black" as a term. On a broader scale, it's difficult to distinguish the "black" Asians from the "not-black" asians. Equatorial people are people whom the regions closer to the equator have allowed them to retain their "equatorial" features. This should be especially comfortable for you since you reject the notion of the existence of black people. But anyway, I invented the term... "they" did not give it to me. I prefer "Equatorial" over "SUB" anything. And Halaqah, your "pro-black" rhetoric is not selling me, so why don't you cut the crap. You just sound like EO with the volume turned slightly up. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not pro-Black, I just think the word African is enought. Those Arabs in the North are called North Africans, not Africans. funny some of them do more for African unity than the "equitorials". The whites in the South Are called Europeans in Africa---Halaqah 03:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with using African, but not at the expense of black. This whole thing is ultimately based on whether or not we include some asian ethnic groups as Black. If your whole position is that color labeled ethnicities is inappropriate, fine, I can live with that. But this article only reflects the presence of those identities and the fact is, you can't erase historical facts with "that shouldn't have happened". furthermore and more importantly, you cant ignore the consistent parallels of the Aeta, Africans, and other black people throughout the world. If you won't call them black, then fine, use another word. In the end, the similarities and parallels will not be forgotten! Not on either side of the debate. Not while I'm here. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen i got too many white people i am debating with. fight u another day. I find developing the Ethiopian cusisine page more relaxing---Halaqah 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I supporting that, i am not denying blackness, i accept it as a political term--not a racial one. Thats one view, let everyone have their view. This is the black people article i know. As long as the full pros and cons are aired i have no issue with anyones definition, but it cannot exclude other "black" peoples---Halaqah 03:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why the hell are you arguing against me? I've been trying to INCLUDE other black people (Aeta, Siddi, Sheedi, etc)! --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, please no more off topic ranting about other articles. Any more off topic posts will be deleted. Timelist 16:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Timelist, I didn't know what you were referring to until I saw the edit history. Not only did you delete my posts, but the posts of others as well. Furthermore, you deleted posts that went to the very heart of this topic and certainly showed claritiy in this issue. I am left to conclude that you are working your bias into this, and are determined to "win" your position, by simply erasing my own, and of course the cover up, the legitimizing of the cover up is your statment "no more off topic posts". No, we will not erase anything. You will not get away with this farce. Get back and leave the content here where it stays. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

thats 2 reverts! Timelist, you're violating the rules, expecting the people higher up to support you I assume. Lets see what happens. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

West african type

Listen i am not happy with that Ethiopia thing, how many times do i have to say this. Is anyone supporting me on this? They take this study and broadcast it like it was established fact or the common opinion on Ethiopian people. It causes a serious distortion. Tell that to an Ethiopian they never heard of this stuff. Anyway you going to enjoy this West african type we should add this in (joke) see the section on black people and sports.--Halaqah 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe you dont know but that picture is of OROMO boys, now i am not going to help anyone but Oromo are not considered Habasha so the photo discussing "ethiopia" isnt even showing "pure Ethiopians" the Oromo came from Kenya like 500 years ago. So when you say White features you tricked yourself because thats not who the study is refering to, i think it refers to the Amhara and other "semitic" ethnic groups! --Halaqah 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ethiopian section is very balanced. It makes clear that Ethiopians historically defined the black race and shows the irony of scientists now questioning whether they're black and also includes cited criticism of this by an African American culture critic on the very topic of Ethiopians. Timelist 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see your point and withdraw --Halaqah 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BLACK PEOPLE IS JUST A TERM PEOPLE USE WHEN THE TRUE TERM IS AFRICAN AMERICAN OR JUST AFRICAN

African is not synonymous with Black. Neither was Aethiop. It meant burnt face. Thus term was applied to many peoples who were seen as darker than reeks, but not neccessarily as dark as people orinally labeled as black. In fact there was even the term Leukaethiop, which literally meant white burnt face. So obviously a burnt face did not always equate to dark skin. Furthermore Aethiopia was not Ethiopia, it was Sudan and south, so using the word to claim all Ethiopians (Not just more recent migrations) is innacurate as they were Abbysinians back then. No, not all Ethiopans see themselves as Black. --Salsassin 14:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Celebrate "Good Times" ZAPH is GONE

Zaph has been blocked indefinitely for misbehavior. I have questions about the legitimacy of this block, but it is great he is gone. He has threatened to return with a completely different writing style, but if he does, I don't think that'll be a problem. Now we can make some progress on this article!

I do believe that he raised some serious issues about the Jewish articles, unfortunately there is an agenda-pushing mafia of editors that makes improving those articles near impossible.

I cant believe they banned him!!! It is funny like or hate there is right and wrong. I bet had he been pushing some other agenda and happen to be of another race, he would still be here. The militancy is only allowed from one end of the race game. And i have noticed that some areas in Misplaced Pages are off limits to de African (i say no more) i got burnt going into these strange places. Truth is what they allow you to say, go beyond their limits and you are in a world of hurt. Zaph has been slaughtered a reminder for us to know our place, And dont believe the hype about democracy, If Ur African freedom has its limits.---Halaqah 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about all that. But you have to admit he was not being as cooperative as he could have been. I think he had some good points, but you have to cooperate with others, rather than try to convince them. This is not a debating society. It is an encyclopedia, and for an encyclopedia I think the goals are a bit different. The fighting and nastiness were a bit tedious and counterproductive. If there is no agreement on a subject (and I would claim there was evidence for disagreement here), then the article should reflect that fact so readers can understand the issues. Why try to stamp out the disagreements and confusion that exist? This is not the place for that, even if it were possible (which seems unlikely)--Filll 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He was totally uncooperative. He promised to revert and edit under other names indefinitely. He also filled up talk pages with unending nonsense. But if he agreed to quiet down a little I would sign onto a petition to let him return. (I'd do this for just about anybody if you guys ever find yourself in trouble) CarlosRodriguez 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did. He contributed nothing encyclopedic. And he drove many of the best editors away. It's a shame he wasn't banned long ago. I think many of the admins were afraid to block someone claiming to be black for fear they would look racist. He played the race card almost every time he posted and it worked for a long time, buit eventually someone got tired of his constant personal attacks. Gottoupload 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolls can try to revert all they want

But all I will do is revert it back. If you have an editin issue state it. Don't just delete whole paragraphs.--Salsassin 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And that goes for Carlos Rodriguez, too, w/regard to his blanket reverts done without any attempt at explanation/justification. deeceevoice 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the gallery

Some of the previous versions had some nice pictures that might fit in there. I like that picture of the saint's statue in the German church and the photo of the Egyptian statue showing one black figure and one white figure. Is there any place for those in this article or on an associated page? Also, it would be nice to have a link to that NPR program page with the race quiz that shows how difficult it is to classify people according to race in some cases.--Filll 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The NPR thing sounds interesting, but it sounds better suited to a general discussion of race, rather than an article on "black people," because blackness isn't strictly about race. Never was.deeceevoice 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kobrakid 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

well just as a reference. That is all. Because to a lot of people, black IS about race (certainly historically it was). Otherwise, why do I hear all this stuff about the "black race"???? There are over 700,000 hits on Google for the phrase "black race". So even if it is complete nonsense (which I sort of lean towards), SOMEONE at sometime clearly equated the two. --Filll 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I tend not to use the word "race," since the notion of race is largely a social, political and economic construct. And when I do use it, I tend to put it in quotes. If an Australian Aborigine, a Sri Lankan, and a Southeast Asian all are considered black by somebody, then clearly, "black" is transcultural and transracial; the term transcends geography, ethnicity and commonly held notions of "race". That is precisely why I have resisted placing this discussion/article under the rubric of "race" and genetics. Blackness preceded modern notions of race, and it certainly preceded genetics.

Furthermore (this is a bit off-point, but it bears mentioning here), some people seem to be laboring under the misconception that "Caucasoid" when applied to certain people of color means "Caucasian." It does not. Caucasians are whites. "Caucasoid" blacks are obviously not white people; they have certain physical characteristics that fall outside the narrow "Negroid" classification, a term which confines itself to some stereotypical physical characteristics of some equatorial African peoples. But, then, the Wolof of Senegal, who very clearly are considered equatorial Africans, have similar faciocranial attributes which anthropologists have used to assign a "Caucasoid" designation to (only some) Ethiopians/Eritreans of the African Horn. And then there are many (not all) Nubians, Somalis, Kenyans, etc. Add to those so-called "Caucasoid" blacks some East Indians, some of whom are among the blackest people you'll ever meet. They have (so-called) "Caucasoid" traits, but very clearly aren't white. In fact, historically, these peoples have commonly been called "black" -- and often in a pejorative manner. "Caucasoid" refers to a set of physical characteristics, and is not a racial classification. deeceevoice 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There's no such thing as black caucasoids. If you are caucasoid then by DEFINITION you are NOT black. Gottoupload 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Well as far as I know, there is one race of humans on earth at the moment: homo sapiens sapiens, of which we are all members. However, historically the word race was used very differently. And there is copious documentation for that. So please, lets try to write an encyclopedia, not a political diatribe.--Filll 22:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very aware that this is an encyclopedia, so no need to state the obvious. However, the concept of "race" is a discredited one. It serves no purpose to continue to write as though strict racial boundaries still exist -- because they don't. There are populations distinguished by cultural, historical, geographical and physical characteristics they either share in common -- or do not. Relatedness. And that's all genetics can establish -- not "racial" identity.

Finally, yes. Ethnic identity is political; it always has been, at least in part. And properly recognizing that is not engaging in polemics; it is realistically acknowledging that political factors (as well as objective historical factors) also play a huge role in how people define who and what they are and what they call themselves, and how others with the power to define characterize other people. And because people's objective realities are different, people's interests are different, there is rarely a universally agreed-upon standard for the various terms in use. That's simply a fact. deeceevoice 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you buy this politically correct propoganda about race being discredited and think there's no point to writing about, then this article needs to be deleted, because the tradition of calling people black, white, yellow, red, and brown started with the concept of race. That is extensively documented. Not sure how you missed it. Gottoupload 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with gottoupload. Even though I think the concept of race is a load of nonsense, that does not mean that it has not had a HUGE influence on the events of the last few hundred years. A person who wants to know what "black people" means will want to know that to understand history and the way the world is and various attitudes. You can try to ignore it, but it is the truth. There are many people who live in places where NO black people exist, or very few. Or no white people. Or no black OR white people. And for someone in a situation like that, they will want to understand what all the fuss is about. If you do not write an honest article that includes ALL points of view, they will get a very limited picture of the world and its history. So that is why I constantly plead to have a broad broad article with many different viewpoints represented, and contrary views, and evidence of disagreement, and inconsistency, and hypocrisy and sheer stupidity (all with references of course). Why? Because THAT is the way humans are and have been for centuries.--Filll 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly a way of writing about the concept of black people as it traditionally and internationally has been understood to be the case, as population groupings which transcend cultural, "racial"/ethnic and geographic distinctions. In fact, the concept of blacks being only Africans and their "modern" descendants is a fairly narrow, provincial view not held in common throughout the Western world, let alone globally -- as this article repeatedly has tried to point out. And, no. Actually, while distinctions always have been made among different peoples, the concept of "race" is a fairly modern one. There were black peoples long before there was any such thing as humanity divided among Mongoloids, Caucasians and Negroes -- and later all the other "oids." deeceevoice 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm begging you to do some reading and not from Afrocentric sources. Read Professor Frank M. Snowden Jr., a very well respected black professor at Howard university who did the most extensive survey of what it meant to be black in the ancient world. He says terms "Kushite", "Nubian", and "Ethiopian" were the closest think the ancient world had to terms like "colored", "black", or "Negro", so obviously long before science formally recognized race, blacks were equated with Africans. Gottoupload 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think I've confined my reading to Afrocentrist sources? I came to Howard University shortly after Snowden left (he wanted the university to be the "black Hahhvahd"), and I'm well acquainted with his work and his focus on the "classics." Yes, the term "black" was equated with Africans in the classical world, but that's still not equivalent to the relatively modern concept of "race." Further -- again -- the term ("black") has been widely applied in a far broader context in the many centuries since. deeceevoice 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And the article extensively documents the broader context its been applied. Read the alternative view points section. The article is excellent and well balanced and I'd hate to see it ruined over such minor disagreements. Gottoupload 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up needed

I think it is good but needs to be cleaned up. I spotted little spelling errors like "east Indian" etc. Also the references need to be done better, references should have viewable details, no one should have to click on them to find out where they go. I think in the interest of diversity a diverse image of "black" people should be used and not only the image currently up there, it is not rep of the topic. Pick a diverse range of people it would really help the actual material than the old "image" of blackness---Halaqah 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

wow

It would be nice if the huge amount of new content now at the top/start of the article had references instead of being just a sermon from a soapbox.--Filll 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam? I thought that the early human ancestor was an Eve, not an Adam ???--Filll 21:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article developed rather quickly into absolute garbage. Look at the huge section about Ethiopia right at the beginning....would anyone (other than perhaps Zaph) consider this a good organization? We have higher standards here than on Afrocentrist blogs. Learn to write! CarlosRodriguez 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility, CR. deeceevoice 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not attacking anyone. He's criticising the article. But I have no problem with Ethiopians at the start because the article is organized chronologically and Ethiopians defined the black race in antiquity and its a good photo to have near the top. Gottoupload 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, i think the old material on colonialism or black in ancient sources is needed, you really cant start with Ethiopia. The order needs fixing and some of the old material needs to come back---Halaqah 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ethiopian section discusses blacks in ancient times. It discusses the only reliable source about blacks in antiquity and they were known at Ethiopians. Start at the beginning. Gottoupload 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is excellent

It's so well cited, so interesting, so well balanced, telling the complete story of black people in chronological order, shows so many different perspectives from racist theories of the 19th century to Afrocentric scholars of the 21 century to respected black scholars from Howard university, to a ton of diverse definitions of black people, to a fascinating photo gallary that applies those definitions to famous people. This article is so perfect the way it is I just don't want anyone to touch it. Gottoupload 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I touched it. The references appeared like: ], ], and I changed them so a reader can at least have a clue what sort of site he is being sent to. There were also problems with whether " marks should include the (cite which sends the reader to the reference list) or the " not include the and just include the quote which the cite is to. Misplaced Pages:Footnotes (shortcut WP:FN) tells how to do this and WP:CITE can also be helpful. I went through it and (hopefully) improved it. I should also point out that several of the links are dead links and should point out that several links point to personal opinion on personal websites (a no-no according to WP:RS). Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 08:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Style question: Are terms such as caucasoid, africoid or australoid capitalized or not? It's not consistent within the page.SecurID 06:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is looking nice. I still think at least 3 images should be used at the beginning to fit the "diverse" theme of the article. but the topic has come a long way, i hope it stays that way, because i walk away and come back and it gets turned inside out. English rules say you capitalize names, i have argued that black be capitalized to distinguish it from the color. how for example do you say a black man made a black comedy. Many situations arise where not capitalizing Black causes issues. But Africoid and Caucasoid have to be capitalized.---Halaqah 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is nothing of the sort (excellent); it's racism at work

It is riddled with POV. The black editors have been effectively driven off, blocked for clearly intemperate remarks (Zaph), or locked out of participation by repeated tag-team edit warring -- block reverts of new material with lame excuses that wouldn't hold up if applied equally to other (read "non-black") editors. These automatic reverts include reinsertion of blatantly erroneous material, misspellings, problems with syntax and capitalization. deeceevoice 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, so you can fix the grammar issues. After that what is the problem? I see a very general POV, rnt both sides sorted? You should explain what you see as wrong.--Halaqah 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So now I have your permission to fix the "grammer issues"? "After that, what's the problem?" What a joke. You clearly have a problem with even my corrections of grammar, syntax and spelling -- forget the wrong sh*t -- because you and your cronies block reverted every f***ing thing I contributed. After you (and your henchmen) repeatedly reverted my corrections wholesale with inane excuses? And one of you has the nerve to visit my user page and tell me to take a break from editing because "Your edits aren't helping"?!!! And that's followed up by a warning to me about edit warring?

Aw, yeah. Sho', massuh. I's gon' do jes' whut y'all sez.

I'm not explaining jack. There's a double standard at work here. I make edits based on the information provided, but I have to run every, single, niggling change by you guys first? I need your permission? But white editors are free to edit at will, making all sorts of changes in content and structure without any attempt at a meaningful edit note or so much as a kiss my a** on the discussion page? And now you have the nerve to pat each other on the back, congratulating each other on what a great job you've done! You're dreaming. This article is a classic example of what is so reprehensible about Misplaced Pages: white people writing about their distorted notions of black people, including all the ignorance and misinformation/disinformation they care to insert, citing a rabid racist like Blumenbach like his antiquated notions are f***ing gospel -- and too arrogant to even read the changes and corrections made by others before they mindlessly obliterate them. *x* deeceevoice 10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you could be talking to me, I have no idea what you are on about, I havent blocked you, i actually dont understand your issue with the article. I have never been to your user page, and i havent asked you not to stop editing. I have argued against the banning of zaph, I think you need to calm down and explain the issues, maybe then others, like me, would see your point(s) and argree. --Halaqah 10:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics