This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.84.149.78 (talk) at 02:07, 25 March 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:07, 25 March 2023 by 73.84.149.78 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Fiery but mostly peaceful protests are what we needed. Thank you George Floyd and bless you for showing us the way.
Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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, 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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn.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)
- 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)