![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
"There is some controversy, as will be seen if one traces the history of this article, as to whether the word ..." - one of Wikipedia's guidelines says that articles should not self-consciously refer to Wikipedia.
I redirected the current article to black people (ethnicity and then we'll create another article called black people (generic) for the broader definition Some feel capitalization is too confusing and maybe they're right Gottoupload 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
i believe that is a better suggestion
Muntuwandi
02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OKay one person agrees with me. Does Ezeu and Fill agree that this article be divided into 2 separate articles black people (ethnicity) and black people (generic)? That way the editors who feel strongly that only African ancestry people are black can work on the black people (ethnicity) article, and those who feel strongly that Australian aboriginals and other dark skinned people are black can work on the black people (generic) article. That way both sides wont be competing to monopolize the same article. Gottoupload 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is "Black people (ethnicity)"? Black people are not an ethnic group. Black British people are an ethnic group. African Americans are a different ethnic group. Both of these groups are of recent African descent, but thhey are ethnically very disimilar. Indeed West Indian culture and society (ethnicity) is not at all like African American culture and society, and both are very different to modern African cultures and societies, which themselves are far from homogeneous. If "Black people (ethnicity)" is supposed to include all Black people of recent African descent then it cannot be given the label (ethnicity). Who would we include in a "Black people (ethnicity)" article? Who would we include in a "Black people (generic)" article? I'm asking because I do not understand what the distinction is supposed to be. I do not think there is such a thing as an ethnic group called "Black people". This does not mean that one doesn't exist of course, just because I don't think it exists doesn't mean that it doesn't, so I'm not looking for a fight, just clarification. Alun 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How about Black (African descent) and Black(African, Asian and Polynesian Descent) Muntuwandi 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ethnicity simply means people who are from the same part of the world. Black (ethnicity) describes people of equatorial African origin (not West African only). Not sure why Alun wants to separate the black ethnic group in to many different ethnic groups. We don't see it that way.__ Whatdoyou 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Please allow some time to discuss this proposed split before actually doing it. Creating new articles that are copies of the current article is not the correct route. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I been away doing some serious work elsewhere, and i dont know why a n tag is on this article., I am sorry. Doesnt it discuss various opinions, I suggest removing it. Because there is a discussion doesnt mean the article is balanced. it is 100% more balanced than when i first saw it. Dont u realize it will never be perfect and this would go on and on and on and on and on?-- Halaqah 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to hear what Diop and others said--- Halaqah 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The word Indian has 2 meanings: Defintion 1: Someone from India. Definition 2: A native American. These are 2 totally separate ethnic groups and they deserve separate articles. Does anyone think it would make any sense to put Indians from India and Native American Indians into one article? So why put the 2 definitions of black people into one article. One definition is for people of recent African origina (an ethnic racial definition), the other definition is for any dark skinned person (a generic descriptive definition). These 2 definitions are conceptually distinct and used in totally different contexts. The fact that the aeta may derive from a word that means black in tagalog has nothing to do with African diasporas ethnicity adopting the term black in the 1960s. It's just a coincedence that both groups have dark skin and were called black. It's absurd to try to merge totally different ethnic groups into one article as if we're discussing a single unified concept __ Whatdoyou 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I recently discovered black people (disambiguation). This should really be linked from black people, as otherwise there is no point in having that disambiguation page. What should be done here? Carcharoth 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh no dont start with that Black African language, oh no dont u start that racist language. Unless i will add a Yellow Chinese one and a Brown Indian one. this is 2006 leave that slave language on the Amistad.-- Halaqah 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
the soln like Han Chinese is simple. If you talk about Han Chinese for Chinese then you cant talk about Black African, you can say Somali African or Afar African, or Amhara African. I didnt call u racist, far from it, u just dont know better. big difference. racist language doesnt mean u r racist. I called people Eskimos i didnt know it was wrong. There needs to be logic behind reason. U cant have people called black and exclude another group which is also called black, because we rep a world view. Now i believe most of these issues can be solved be debate and logic. We r not suppose to all agree but add the diversity of opinions to the discussion. American Africans or African in America, or African Americans might want to "copyright" black, then say that what they want. and offer their view in the article. But i have to put down my foot at these strange terms, because many use it dont make it correct, a few years back Negro was used, today it is offensive, so is black African. it doesn’t match the trend anywhere else in the world. brown Indians, no Punjabi Indians, Silet Bengalis, popularity doesnt bring justification, just like the N-word. should we use it just because J-lo does? shes popular.lets be progressive how do you think societies evolve?-- Halaqah 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We should organize this collection of material in some reasonable fashion that makes sense, and still keeps people from wanting to beat each other to a pulp. There is so much work to be done, we just do not have the time and energy to spare to waste it in meaningless fighting.-- Filll 04:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
have a bullet point or todo list of all the "major" issues. and discuss them point by point. look at the camps arguing and c what they want and listen to their voice. baka!-- Halaqah 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We must be careful and not create to many articles, i am def against "Dark Skin People" because some would argue most humans have pigmented skin, or maybe we should have an article on thin nose people. or big bottom people (joke, i coulnt help it) But African People is a good one.-- Halaqah 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity I am wondering why the white people article has not attracted as much attention and controversy as this article. I think who is white is just as complicated as who is black. Muntuwandi 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
white created white as a way of "purity" so white is almost a term of exclusion rather, where black is a term of inclusion. i.e. u rnt white ur ... Africans arent going to be up there editing and complaining, but guess who comes here often to remind the African he has absolutly no agency with even who and what he/she is... -- Halaqah 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I knew there was something funny about that Planet of the apes movie, were the monkeys suppose to rep Black people?-- Halaqah 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah but in the end the humans were found to be superior so who do the humans represent in this race things?-- Halaqah 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ist Humor verboten hier?
his article refers to black as a racial or ethnic term defined by African origin ethnicity. For a discussion of how the term black can also be used as a trans-ethnic label for dark skinned identity (regardless of African ancestry) see Black as a skin color identity. There is no universally agreed upon standard for how much African ancestry is required to be Black nor is there agreement on how much of Africa is considered Black (some limit the term Black to those of African ethnicity, while others expand the definition of Black Africa to include ancient Egypt).
I think 100% the above view is arrogant and if this is one of the opinions being debated here causing problems then lets curb it ASAP. Wikipedia is very clear about WORLD VIEW. Black people in a WORLD VIEW context can never be "people from Africa." So why r we having this problem? It is the same as looking up slavery and it only talks about African-American slavery. Can people look beyond their little hill? we can say, some people think: the above madness-- Halaqah 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All you need to do is state that in the definitions, and guess what All African Americans dont go along with it, although i beleive it is a Pan-Americanism (i.e. Blackness) people in Africa rarely call themselves black. Caribbean do but not like AA (because Caribbean pep r a majority--why would u) And we need to add the whole Brazil dynamic because there are more Black People in Brazil than in America 4 sure, so why is it always about America? with its minority AA population?-- Halaqah 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I say it is time for change and they need to stop thinking local and realize they many people in the world outside of America and these people are VALID TOO!-- Halaqah 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
off topic, i gotinto a debat with an AA and they were thinking the whole Pan-African and progressive Africanist came from them, i just had to show them how many of those people were African And African Caribbean, they can be so arrogant that they absorb other peoples genius into their passportand forget that these people come from Africa and the Caribbean, Diop, Ivan Van Sertima, Garvey the list is long, Belefonte, on and on, The world is richer if we look beyond our doorstep.-- Halaqah 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It is also unfair to lump African Americans together and asign to them a certain perspective. There have certainly been several African Americans here that have had a broad view. There are mainly three African Americans here, two of whom attend the same Black Consciousness class (by their own admission), that are intent on pushing a particular POV. Another African American recently said that based on the discussions here, he'd abandoned his previous perspective. -- Ezeu 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a summary of results for "Other" groups, like "White Other" and "Black Other". [2] It's clear that anyone who self describes as Black can include themselves in this category. Indeed although most people who describe themselves as "Black Other" are of recent African descent, it is clear that people from Oceanea or Asia can identify here if they so wish. Indeed on the White British article it clearly states that self identity is the requirement. There is no coercion in the UK, indeed we don't think in terms of "race" so much as "ethnicity", the census does not collect data on race, neither does it narrowly define what group any person may fit into. Usually there is a space for people to indicate their identity as they see fit. Alun 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
i say again ethnicity is Bengali, Somali, Ethiopian, Amhara, Gurage, Sindi, this is ethnicity, Black is not an ethnic group, its just a broad label for a collection of ethnic groups. Is it me or am i making sense. That British things is a constant battle ground. see www.ligali.org and even the report which came out of the mayors office, the Mayor of London, cant remember it but it was a diversity study. They uses the term Asian and African, and replaced the usage of the word black.black is very dated and many people have issues with it, it is just the media have power and final voice, the whole issue with black lowercase, i mean it makes no sense, so why lowercase, because so stupid tradition in chicago says so, is that a reason in 2007 for something which makes no sense? the world needs to move forward man--
Halaqah
14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does Filll get away with saying things we can't?-- 4.245.143.127 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed this and mentioned it on this page.***NOTE: NOT ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS DO THIS. BUT SOME SURE DO.*** I live in a neighborhood that is about 70% African American. If I talk about Europe, they OFTEN assume that it is also about 70% African American. If I talk about Canada, they assume it is also about 70% African American. If there are Mexicans immigrants here, they assume that Mexico has black-white racial problems like the US does. If you mention Japan or China or India, the first thing African Americans want to know about is the problem between the blacks and whites in China or Japan or India. It is the prism through which they view the entire world. If there is a new drug treatment found that will mainly work with caucasians and not so well for Africans, they charge racism. If there are only 42 members of the US Congress out of 435, they assume it is because of racism. Not that there are only 9-13% African Americans in the country as a whole. They think that there should be 300 or so African Americans in Congress, so it should be more like what they see in their own neighborhood. I do not fault them because they do not know. But to argue against them is hopeless because they are sure you are lying to them because you are racist. Even if you are another minority. They see the world as black and white, not as a palette of colors. ***NOTE: NOT ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS DO THIS. BUT SOME SURE DO.***-- Filll 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely correct. Keep us on topic.-- Filll 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the lead paragraph says that "Black people" is a "strange term", which it arguably isn't, so I've edited that out. Furthermore, as evident in the discussions above, the lead paragraph should in a neutral way explain (or at least mention) the ambiguities and disparities regarding the term "black people" – and which is the reason for the disputes on this page and elsewhere. My edit of the lead paragraph ( diff) is an attempt to reflect the discussion on this page. -- Ezeu 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Timelist said in his edit summary that we agreed to create two separate articles. The issue has been discussed, but there is obviously no consensus to create separate articles. The consensus, as far as I can deduce, is that creating separate articles may quell the dispute, but it would not adress or clear the issue of POV, and furthermore it would be an abdication to systemic bias.--
Ezeu
19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So then, what is a "black person"?
And on and on and on. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF A BLACK PERSON. I live in the US. I am sitting in a library in a "white" area. I guarantee that if right now, through that door over there a full-blooded, dark skinned Aborigine walked in, everyone in this library, Caucasian American and African American would call them black. NO QUESTION. Not even a moment's hesitation. And I know from talking to them and reading the literature, that in Australia, they refer to themselves as "black fellas". But according to many on this page, and according to the way that the article is written sometimes, there is no way that this person is black and in fact we would all know it immediately when we looked at this Aborigine. I dispute that quite vigorously. Why are there elements here who want to insist that there is no disagreement? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT? What evidence for the nonexistence of disagreement do you have? Since I have been reading this page for the last FIVE MONTHS there has been nothing but disagreement from Africans, African Americans, Black Europeans, Caucasians, Asians, South Asians, etc. How can you imply there is no disgreement? What are your reasons? Why try to stomp out disagreement? Do you think that this will make it true somehow?-- Filll 20:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to ask. WHAT IS WRONG WITH AN ARTICLE THAT SHOWS REALITY? AND THE REALITY IS THAT NO ONE AGREES WITH EACH OTHER. Why are people so hostile to this truth?-- Filll 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if my repetition of this statement over and over in large capital letters and bold lettering is tedious. But I am trying to make a point. I am glad Ezeu at least agrees with me that this statement is fairly obvious. Which I think it is, from anyone who has read these pages carefully. I think that some people would like to avoid this "inconvenient truth". Now given that there is disagreement, the best we can hope for is to have an article that reflects this. People arguing for their own personal definition or viewpoint will never convince the others. It will never make the fact of disagreement disappear.-- Filll 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, one potential partial resolution is to make a collection of black and African people articles that reflects the disagreements and differing definitions that exist. Take a look at the list I started at List of topics related to Black and African people. If you look at African American and all its list of topics associated with it, and Pan-Africanism and all the list of topics associated with it, and all the related topics that are associated with each of these articles, it is clear that we have literally HUNDREDS upon hundreds of articles about Black and African people. They are not well organized and cross-linked etc. Some articles are in bad shape. Some are stubs. Some need editing. Some new articles need to be written. But given that African Americans are so prominent on Wikipedia and the internet, I would argue that for that subset of African Americans that want to define black people in an African American way, there should be no problem with allowing them to have a separate article, say Black people (US meaning) or something comparable. Then the history of the use of the phrase "black people" in an African American context can be fully explored and described. And this article can be reserved for a more general viewpoint. An alternative is to turn this page into a disambiguation page, and move the present article to Who is a black person? or Black people (global meaning) or Meaning of the term "black people" or something similar. That way the short name "black people" that everyone wants to fight about would be available to none, and used for disambiguation. This is more a Solomon-type solution: "cut the baby in half".-- Filll 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
"There is some controversy, as will be seen if one traces the history of this article, as to whether the word ..." - one of Wikipedia's guidelines says that articles should not self-consciously refer to Wikipedia.
I redirected the current article to black people (ethnicity and then we'll create another article called black people (generic) for the broader definition Some feel capitalization is too confusing and maybe they're right Gottoupload 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
i believe that is a better suggestion
Muntuwandi
02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OKay one person agrees with me. Does Ezeu and Fill agree that this article be divided into 2 separate articles black people (ethnicity) and black people (generic)? That way the editors who feel strongly that only African ancestry people are black can work on the black people (ethnicity) article, and those who feel strongly that Australian aboriginals and other dark skinned people are black can work on the black people (generic) article. That way both sides wont be competing to monopolize the same article. Gottoupload 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is "Black people (ethnicity)"? Black people are not an ethnic group. Black British people are an ethnic group. African Americans are a different ethnic group. Both of these groups are of recent African descent, but thhey are ethnically very disimilar. Indeed West Indian culture and society (ethnicity) is not at all like African American culture and society, and both are very different to modern African cultures and societies, which themselves are far from homogeneous. If "Black people (ethnicity)" is supposed to include all Black people of recent African descent then it cannot be given the label (ethnicity). Who would we include in a "Black people (ethnicity)" article? Who would we include in a "Black people (generic)" article? I'm asking because I do not understand what the distinction is supposed to be. I do not think there is such a thing as an ethnic group called "Black people". This does not mean that one doesn't exist of course, just because I don't think it exists doesn't mean that it doesn't, so I'm not looking for a fight, just clarification. Alun 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How about Black (African descent) and Black(African, Asian and Polynesian Descent) Muntuwandi 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ethnicity simply means people who are from the same part of the world. Black (ethnicity) describes people of equatorial African origin (not West African only). Not sure why Alun wants to separate the black ethnic group in to many different ethnic groups. We don't see it that way.__ Whatdoyou 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Please allow some time to discuss this proposed split before actually doing it. Creating new articles that are copies of the current article is not the correct route. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I been away doing some serious work elsewhere, and i dont know why a n tag is on this article., I am sorry. Doesnt it discuss various opinions, I suggest removing it. Because there is a discussion doesnt mean the article is balanced. it is 100% more balanced than when i first saw it. Dont u realize it will never be perfect and this would go on and on and on and on and on?-- Halaqah 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to hear what Diop and others said--- Halaqah 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The word Indian has 2 meanings: Defintion 1: Someone from India. Definition 2: A native American. These are 2 totally separate ethnic groups and they deserve separate articles. Does anyone think it would make any sense to put Indians from India and Native American Indians into one article? So why put the 2 definitions of black people into one article. One definition is for people of recent African origina (an ethnic racial definition), the other definition is for any dark skinned person (a generic descriptive definition). These 2 definitions are conceptually distinct and used in totally different contexts. The fact that the aeta may derive from a word that means black in tagalog has nothing to do with African diasporas ethnicity adopting the term black in the 1960s. It's just a coincedence that both groups have dark skin and were called black. It's absurd to try to merge totally different ethnic groups into one article as if we're discussing a single unified concept __ Whatdoyou 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I recently discovered black people (disambiguation). This should really be linked from black people, as otherwise there is no point in having that disambiguation page. What should be done here? Carcharoth 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh no dont start with that Black African language, oh no dont u start that racist language. Unless i will add a Yellow Chinese one and a Brown Indian one. this is 2006 leave that slave language on the Amistad.-- Halaqah 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
the soln like Han Chinese is simple. If you talk about Han Chinese for Chinese then you cant talk about Black African, you can say Somali African or Afar African, or Amhara African. I didnt call u racist, far from it, u just dont know better. big difference. racist language doesnt mean u r racist. I called people Eskimos i didnt know it was wrong. There needs to be logic behind reason. U cant have people called black and exclude another group which is also called black, because we rep a world view. Now i believe most of these issues can be solved be debate and logic. We r not suppose to all agree but add the diversity of opinions to the discussion. American Africans or African in America, or African Americans might want to "copyright" black, then say that what they want. and offer their view in the article. But i have to put down my foot at these strange terms, because many use it dont make it correct, a few years back Negro was used, today it is offensive, so is black African. it doesn’t match the trend anywhere else in the world. brown Indians, no Punjabi Indians, Silet Bengalis, popularity doesnt bring justification, just like the N-word. should we use it just because J-lo does? shes popular.lets be progressive how do you think societies evolve?-- Halaqah 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We should organize this collection of material in some reasonable fashion that makes sense, and still keeps people from wanting to beat each other to a pulp. There is so much work to be done, we just do not have the time and energy to spare to waste it in meaningless fighting.-- Filll 04:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
have a bullet point or todo list of all the "major" issues. and discuss them point by point. look at the camps arguing and c what they want and listen to their voice. baka!-- Halaqah 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We must be careful and not create to many articles, i am def against "Dark Skin People" because some would argue most humans have pigmented skin, or maybe we should have an article on thin nose people. or big bottom people (joke, i coulnt help it) But African People is a good one.-- Halaqah 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity I am wondering why the white people article has not attracted as much attention and controversy as this article. I think who is white is just as complicated as who is black. Muntuwandi 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
white created white as a way of "purity" so white is almost a term of exclusion rather, where black is a term of inclusion. i.e. u rnt white ur ... Africans arent going to be up there editing and complaining, but guess who comes here often to remind the African he has absolutly no agency with even who and what he/she is... -- Halaqah 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I knew there was something funny about that Planet of the apes movie, were the monkeys suppose to rep Black people?-- Halaqah 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah but in the end the humans were found to be superior so who do the humans represent in this race things?-- Halaqah 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ist Humor verboten hier?
his article refers to black as a racial or ethnic term defined by African origin ethnicity. For a discussion of how the term black can also be used as a trans-ethnic label for dark skinned identity (regardless of African ancestry) see Black as a skin color identity. There is no universally agreed upon standard for how much African ancestry is required to be Black nor is there agreement on how much of Africa is considered Black (some limit the term Black to those of African ethnicity, while others expand the definition of Black Africa to include ancient Egypt).
I think 100% the above view is arrogant and if this is one of the opinions being debated here causing problems then lets curb it ASAP. Wikipedia is very clear about WORLD VIEW. Black people in a WORLD VIEW context can never be "people from Africa." So why r we having this problem? It is the same as looking up slavery and it only talks about African-American slavery. Can people look beyond their little hill? we can say, some people think: the above madness-- Halaqah 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All you need to do is state that in the definitions, and guess what All African Americans dont go along with it, although i beleive it is a Pan-Americanism (i.e. Blackness) people in Africa rarely call themselves black. Caribbean do but not like AA (because Caribbean pep r a majority--why would u) And we need to add the whole Brazil dynamic because there are more Black People in Brazil than in America 4 sure, so why is it always about America? with its minority AA population?-- Halaqah 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I say it is time for change and they need to stop thinking local and realize they many people in the world outside of America and these people are VALID TOO!-- Halaqah 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
off topic, i gotinto a debat with an AA and they were thinking the whole Pan-African and progressive Africanist came from them, i just had to show them how many of those people were African And African Caribbean, they can be so arrogant that they absorb other peoples genius into their passportand forget that these people come from Africa and the Caribbean, Diop, Ivan Van Sertima, Garvey the list is long, Belefonte, on and on, The world is richer if we look beyond our doorstep.-- Halaqah 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It is also unfair to lump African Americans together and asign to them a certain perspective. There have certainly been several African Americans here that have had a broad view. There are mainly three African Americans here, two of whom attend the same Black Consciousness class (by their own admission), that are intent on pushing a particular POV. Another African American recently said that based on the discussions here, he'd abandoned his previous perspective. -- Ezeu 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a summary of results for "Other" groups, like "White Other" and "Black Other". [2] It's clear that anyone who self describes as Black can include themselves in this category. Indeed although most people who describe themselves as "Black Other" are of recent African descent, it is clear that people from Oceanea or Asia can identify here if they so wish. Indeed on the White British article it clearly states that self identity is the requirement. There is no coercion in the UK, indeed we don't think in terms of "race" so much as "ethnicity", the census does not collect data on race, neither does it narrowly define what group any person may fit into. Usually there is a space for people to indicate their identity as they see fit. Alun 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
i say again ethnicity is Bengali, Somali, Ethiopian, Amhara, Gurage, Sindi, this is ethnicity, Black is not an ethnic group, its just a broad label for a collection of ethnic groups. Is it me or am i making sense. That British things is a constant battle ground. see www.ligali.org and even the report which came out of the mayors office, the Mayor of London, cant remember it but it was a diversity study. They uses the term Asian and African, and replaced the usage of the word black.black is very dated and many people have issues with it, it is just the media have power and final voice, the whole issue with black lowercase, i mean it makes no sense, so why lowercase, because so stupid tradition in chicago says so, is that a reason in 2007 for something which makes no sense? the world needs to move forward man--
Halaqah
14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does Filll get away with saying things we can't?-- 4.245.143.127 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed this and mentioned it on this page.***NOTE: NOT ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS DO THIS. BUT SOME SURE DO.*** I live in a neighborhood that is about 70% African American. If I talk about Europe, they OFTEN assume that it is also about 70% African American. If I talk about Canada, they assume it is also about 70% African American. If there are Mexicans immigrants here, they assume that Mexico has black-white racial problems like the US does. If you mention Japan or China or India, the first thing African Americans want to know about is the problem between the blacks and whites in China or Japan or India. It is the prism through which they view the entire world. If there is a new drug treatment found that will mainly work with caucasians and not so well for Africans, they charge racism. If there are only 42 members of the US Congress out of 435, they assume it is because of racism. Not that there are only 9-13% African Americans in the country as a whole. They think that there should be 300 or so African Americans in Congress, so it should be more like what they see in their own neighborhood. I do not fault them because they do not know. But to argue against them is hopeless because they are sure you are lying to them because you are racist. Even if you are another minority. They see the world as black and white, not as a palette of colors. ***NOTE: NOT ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS DO THIS. BUT SOME SURE DO.***-- Filll 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely correct. Keep us on topic.-- Filll 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the lead paragraph says that "Black people" is a "strange term", which it arguably isn't, so I've edited that out. Furthermore, as evident in the discussions above, the lead paragraph should in a neutral way explain (or at least mention) the ambiguities and disparities regarding the term "black people" – and which is the reason for the disputes on this page and elsewhere. My edit of the lead paragraph ( diff) is an attempt to reflect the discussion on this page. -- Ezeu 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Timelist said in his edit summary that we agreed to create two separate articles. The issue has been discussed, but there is obviously no consensus to create separate articles. The consensus, as far as I can deduce, is that creating separate articles may quell the dispute, but it would not adress or clear the issue of POV, and furthermore it would be an abdication to systemic bias.--
Ezeu
19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So then, what is a "black person"?
And on and on and on. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF A BLACK PERSON. I live in the US. I am sitting in a library in a "white" area. I guarantee that if right now, through that door over there a full-blooded, dark skinned Aborigine walked in, everyone in this library, Caucasian American and African American would call them black. NO QUESTION. Not even a moment's hesitation. And I know from talking to them and reading the literature, that in Australia, they refer to themselves as "black fellas". But according to many on this page, and according to the way that the article is written sometimes, there is no way that this person is black and in fact we would all know it immediately when we looked at this Aborigine. I dispute that quite vigorously. Why are there elements here who want to insist that there is no disagreement? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT? What evidence for the nonexistence of disagreement do you have? Since I have been reading this page for the last FIVE MONTHS there has been nothing but disagreement from Africans, African Americans, Black Europeans, Caucasians, Asians, South Asians, etc. How can you imply there is no disgreement? What are your reasons? Why try to stomp out disagreement? Do you think that this will make it true somehow?-- Filll 20:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to ask. WHAT IS WRONG WITH AN ARTICLE THAT SHOWS REALITY? AND THE REALITY IS THAT NO ONE AGREES WITH EACH OTHER. Why are people so hostile to this truth?-- Filll 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if my repetition of this statement over and over in large capital letters and bold lettering is tedious. But I am trying to make a point. I am glad Ezeu at least agrees with me that this statement is fairly obvious. Which I think it is, from anyone who has read these pages carefully. I think that some people would like to avoid this "inconvenient truth". Now given that there is disagreement, the best we can hope for is to have an article that reflects this. People arguing for their own personal definition or viewpoint will never convince the others. It will never make the fact of disagreement disappear.-- Filll 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, one potential partial resolution is to make a collection of black and African people articles that reflects the disagreements and differing definitions that exist. Take a look at the list I started at List of topics related to Black and African people. If you look at African American and all its list of topics associated with it, and Pan-Africanism and all the list of topics associated with it, and all the related topics that are associated with each of these articles, it is clear that we have literally HUNDREDS upon hundreds of articles about Black and African people. They are not well organized and cross-linked etc. Some articles are in bad shape. Some are stubs. Some need editing. Some new articles need to be written. But given that African Americans are so prominent on Wikipedia and the internet, I would argue that for that subset of African Americans that want to define black people in an African American way, there should be no problem with allowing them to have a separate article, say Black people (US meaning) or something comparable. Then the history of the use of the phrase "black people" in an African American context can be fully explored and described. And this article can be reserved for a more general viewpoint. An alternative is to turn this page into a disambiguation page, and move the present article to Who is a black person? or Black people (global meaning) or Meaning of the term "black people" or something similar. That way the short name "black people" that everyone wants to fight about would be available to none, and used for disambiguation. This is more a Solomon-type solution: "cut the baby in half".-- Filll 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)