Talk:Black people/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

Removal of 'Refimprove' tag

This article should be removed. Black people are marginalised in todays society so they dont really need a page devoted to them.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet as911 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Refimprove' template tag from the top of the article, which requested that users submit more verifiable references. As of this edit, the article has around 6000 words, and over 100 references. Unless there is something else at work here that I haven't noticed during my (admittedly cursory) read-through, I think we can safely say that the content is well-sourced. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but I think that this article still needs to be improved in some ways (See "Re organization at the bottom of the page) -(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Barak Obama picture

It should be moved one paragraph down to the part that talks about his "Blackness" issue during his 2008 campaign. Though really I don't even think his picture should be here since he is 50% White, so not Black.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.135 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"50% white, so not black" What??? Are you being sarcastic, here? "black and white" are messy and loaded terms, making percentages -- let alone absolutist and arbitrary definitions thereof -- pointless except to further add to the confusion and the legacy of racism.Youngea (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture is there to illistrate an example of partial blackness. Yahel Guhan 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the picture the caption requires re-wording and an explanation of "Blackness" similar to what is below.

The notion of "Blackness" (in America) is a cultural manifestation of the "Black Experience"  in the U.S (or a similar culture of disenfranchisement).

"Partial Blackness"? . The notion of "Partial Blackness" does not exist in American Culture. I think the News coverage of Obama by the media has shown that. Veterans of the "Black Experience" with light skin colour a blue eyes are "Black". Please note that "Partial Blackness" is never used to describe Skin colour or cultural experience. Tonstarr (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Arabs and Obama

Just to jump into a real thicket, a few points To help improve two WIKI articles on an increasingly controversial topic:

• The Afro-Arab article is a messy stub that needs to be beefed up with some of the useful material in the "Middle East" section, as well as better definitions of how the phrase generally is used (working on it);
• Despite what this article says, given the (not addressed here) Sudan issues on black Africans and Arabs, seems the "Middle East" section should be renamed "North Africa and the Middle East";
• Obviously there are (prejudiced sounding) claims that Obama's relatives are African Arabs and/or Muslims. While I'm no genealogist and haven't tracked down a reliable source yet in online searches (and haven't read his books) it seems this would be relevant given Obama gets coverage in this article. So Wiki actually can shed reasonable light on an issue ;-) Carol Moore 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I am not surprised there would be attacks on Obama and alleged Arab connections. I wager that the same folks who are pushing an 'Aryan' model by stealth on Wikipedia across a number of articles are behind it. The source shown below exposes a lot of these falsehoods. I'll check out what you say.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf Mojabba (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"According to his third wife, Sarah, he originally was a Roman Catholic, but took the name Hussein when he converted to Islam; she said he passed the name, not the religion, on to his children." from [1] Obama may be a secrete Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonstarr (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re organization

Would it be better to classify races by ancestry rather than skin color? For instance, there may be dark skinned peoples in Australia and Africa, but they are of very different lineage. I think that the articles that concern races and ethnic groups such as this article should be classified in the following manner:

• African Ethnic Group(s)

• Caucasian Ethnic Group(s)

• Asian Ethnic Group(s)

• Native American Ethnic Group(s)

Each article would have information such as the history of each group. Then, there would be an ethnic category, in which all of the ethnic group articles would fall.

What do all of you think of the idea?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

The human race section of this article is a bit irrelevant. This should only be on the Human Race article, not here. I'll delete it on someone's permission.--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

On the contrary, I find it quite relevant as background info. Please leave it in.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Leave it there! No ignoramus brainwashed by PC curriculum will recognize that it is a collection of mendacious crap. Considering how many such types are present here, the harm for Wikipedia will be minimal. And don't forget to add that we are all Africans under the skin and gorillas and chimpanzees are our brothers and sisters. Centrum99 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be better to classify races by ancestry rather than skin color" is that even possible. What would being 50% race X and 50% race Y. The number of permutations gets large fast —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonstarr (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Today most scholars have abandoned these views and see race as a social construct with no biological basis.

Most is a relative term, Race has always existed by people to define people for their people by the people.

NO support for MOST Scholars statement Race is a word that begs definition, it does exist form a medical treatment standpoint. " most scholars have abandoned " Academic scholars frequently bow to peer pressure,as long as there is tenure their will be conformity but this has nothing to do with truth. Race only in a medical sense has been proven. Its relevance outsides that physical sphere is another argument.Stevo46 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Could you please make your comment more clear?

If we are to classify race by social structure rather than ancestry, there is still much re organization to be done.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Please, we should erase all the ludicrous garbage from the article! It is not only outdated, but even misinterpreted and falsified! I found out that it was a person called "Muntuwandi", who implanted this rubbish there one year ago. For example, the quotation "any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world" is not a conclusion of Witherspoon's paper (2007), but a quotation of American Anthropological Association from 1997 that Witherspoon et al. actually refute in their study. Not speaking about that the "small" 15% interpopulation divergence in humans is typical for mammals that biologists routinely divide into subspecies. The author of the Fst value, Sewall Wright, said it himself explicitly! And the insane claim that "Today most scholars have abandoned these views and see race as a social construct with no biological basis" may be praised in USA and some multiracial Western countries, but not in the whole world, where scientists still have enough common sense. This article is a disgrace for the whole Wikipedia! Unfortunately, it is not the only one about human differences that is filled with this pseudoscientific, politically-motivated crap. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Centrum, I'm afraid you ran out of credibility a long time ago.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that you have ever had any credibility, not speaking about knowledge. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Today most scholars in USA and Western Europe have abandoned these views...

Breakthroughs in genetics and the mapping of the human genome in the late twentieth century have helped dispel many of the earlier myths about race. At least 99.9% of any one person's DNA is exactly the same as any other person's, regardless of ethnicity.

UNSUBSTANTIED CLAIMS OR IRRELEVANT TO THE VALIDITY OF RACE. BREAKTHROUGHS IN GENETICS SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF RACE MORE AND MORE.

Did you Know that the DNA of mice is 96% same as humans, and that of chimps and primates 98%(ththats why those poor things are guinea pigs for humans) with just a difference of 2% chimps and humans are different species, and differences in .0's define our human races. It is that micro differences that define humans, and give us our (individual and collective) individuality

Of the 0.1% variation, there is an 8% variation between ethnic groups within a race, such as between the French and the Dutch. On average, only 7% of all human genetic variation lies between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania.

GENERALIZED AND INCORRECT CLAIM, TRUE ONLY FOR SOME DNA MARKERS:

The proportion of genetic variation within continental groups (~93%) is therefore far greater than that between the various continental groups (~7%)

HARDLY CORRECT. THE INTERRACIAL (INTERCONTINENTAL) VARIATION IS FAR GREATER, BECAUSE THE INTERPOPULATION FST VALUE IS LOWERED BY SMALL FST DISTANCES AMONG CLOSELY RELATED GROUPS:

Or to put it another way, "any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world.

A CLAIM BASED ON OUTDATED SOURCES (VALID ONLY FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF MARKERS) AND - FOR GOODNESS'S SAKE!!! - TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT FROM AN ARTICLE THAT REFUTES IT!!!

Because of these facts, there is general agreement among biologists that human racial differences are too small to qualify races as separate sub-species.

A COMPLETE FABRICATION THAT IS NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS. WHAT ABOUT QUOTING SEWALL WRIGHT OR A RECENT PRESENTATION OF HENRY HARPENDING AT THE Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists?

http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2007/aapa2007schedule.pdf

http://www.paxhumana.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160

NO WORD ABOUT THE CLASSICAL TYPOLOGY OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICANS (HIGHLY CONSISTENT IN ALL PROMINENT ANTHROPOLOGISTS OF THE 20TH CENTURY) AND ONLY 3 SENTENCES ABOUT PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES OF AFRICAN POPULATIONS. AGAIN, IGNORANCE WINS. BUT NOTES ABOUT OPPRESSION, APARTHEID AND OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES MUST BE ADDED AT ANY COST.

Centrum99 82.100.61.114 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that different human races were sub species. Please read my comment again. --(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

This whole conversation is consistent with one problem. How we define races changes with our sentiments. We define races based on skin color and regional association. This is before DNA anything came into the conversation. The DNA research has been used to reaffirm this social agenda. IN this, you see that only certain genetic markers are used to define race... and those genetic markers have little or nothing to do with the physical appearance. But because, as even random chance will indicate, out of the millions of genetic markers to choose from, some will follow the same regional and skin color pattern... it is those markers that are used to hoist the myth that race is as real as stone. The fact is race is a concept. And it's also obvious at this point in society that the Genetic race game is all about disassociating as much positive meaning a possible from black Africans. You will invariably find "yes... but" and "however" in statements where black heritage is demonstrated in non African groups. While you will find the smallest genetic indication of Caucasoid presence heightened to mislead readers into thinking a founding heritage of white-Caucasians established a great society and culture (from Japan to Ethiopia). You can certainly find just as much black "African" genetic markers in European and Asian groups, but those will be given the heave-ho when those in editorial power re-examine those markers and redefine them to be Caucasoid or (not black) markers, thus redefning the very ancestors as "not truly black". --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best if the 99.9% comparison statistic was entirely removed from this page. Humans may all be 99.9% similar to each other but our DNA is also over 98% similar to Chimps. This statistic does not mean the same thing to the biologists that researched it as it seems to in the largely social context of this article. '.1%' is a HUGE difference when it comes to DNA, NOT a similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole section should not have been removed because of one person's bullying CAPS approach and opinions of certain groups. Ok granted the 99% stuff is irrelavent, but teh difference in variation within a population to between should still be noted. (93.97.78.171 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

It should be noted that Race theory was conceived by people who gained from Race politics and buffeted up by scientific charlatans. No one had any idea about the real functioning of genetics and DNA. The Racial explanation of man diversity is as correct as the Zeus is pissing though the clouds expiation of rain fall.

Race exist as histrionic that is very important to the world view of many people. Even academics who stun racal definition sometime use terms such as "Black".

As for the claim "UNSUBSTANTIED CLAIMS OR IRRELEVANT TO THE VALIDITY OF RACE. BREAKTHROUGHS IN GENETICS SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF RACE MORE AND MORE."

Consider: 1) An African American may have Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b without looking Nordic. So DNA is not a very good genetic race classifier being rather hit and miss. It certainly doesn't determine race, does God play dice with race or is DNA respected?

2) Or put another way what is the Race gene? 3) Also, at what point did Race A arises from two parents that were note Race A. (as it did not exist before)

We should use race in the context of history not science. The reality of Man's similarity and diversity is very complex. Only a few people are enlighten enough to approach it without projecting our world view. Those who do attempt to bully science into support their world view will continue to see their theories disproved. Which is sufficient compensation to the people wronged by those views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonstarr (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians section should be removed

no it shouldn't - there is a direct lineage from Americans and Egyptians based on DNA research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.194.67 (talk • contribs)

That section is already it's own article and does not need to be here since it is very controversial. Also most people labeled "Black" living away from Africa are descent from Western Africa which is far away from Egypt so they have nothing to do with Egypt anyway. Also ancient Egypt, like today's Egypt, was very mixed and people didn't really label each other as "Black", so the term "Black" has nothing to do with them. Anyone else agree that that section should be removed from this article?

No it shouldn't. Look up Berber, Moor, and Blackamoor. Even in the Webster's dictionary makes the link between Africa - Egypt - American Blacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.194.67 (talk • contribs)

Agreed complitely. The picture itself is loaded, highly controversial in that it purports to represent an ancient Egyptian ethnicity, while ancient Egypt was governed and populated by different ethnic groups during its existance. =Unsigned= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.56.60 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your points about ancient Egypt and different ethnicities, there is in fact some "controversy" put forth by Afrocentrists about this and therefore should remain. Remember, we're working towards verifiability, not truth.--Woland (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the exclusions of the Ancient Egyptians unacceptable. The article is about black people, not merely black people in America. Also, we do not know the proportions of West to East African compositions in Black Americans. We also do not know how much of Ancient Egyptian ancestry blended through the many migrations and contacts with West Africa over the past 3000-4000 years. It's absurd to dismiss the Ancient Egyptian presence in this article based on their speculated lack of direct ancestry to Black Americans. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice

Should we mention that most of the people are afraid of black people, and black people usually rapes or mug other races, that most of the time they are the ones to go to jail, that they control the rap business, that they are good at basketball and usually the term gangster often draws up an image of a black male? -150.108.232.26 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

--edit-- Possibly use the popular culture's view against blacks. Maybe explain the media bias against them, explain the origin of streetgangs since racism was still rampant and gangs had to form. The current gang is a perversion of its true intended purpose. Also maybe explain the cause of white flight, and culture on the blacks. Maybe add a pop culture section to the article? -150.108.232.26 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The sorts of things you're mentioning are discussed in Stereotypes of black people, although that article could use a lot of work.

PS - If you want people to take you seriously, don't make a comment like "black people usually rapes or mug other races". It's considered trolling, and that's why your comment was removed twice. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a black person, and I haven' rape or mugged anyone in my life,and all of the black people i know. None have ever done that either. In fact, black people usually DONT rape or mug other races --71.238.121.147 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls people. --Woland (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit

CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE REMOVE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THIS ARTICLE THAT CURRENTLY READS "Also know as gay n*****s."??? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THAT TO BE HERE. 160.39.152.18 (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism, and it's been removed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No it hasn't. It's still there for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhartha21 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

that'll happen. i think it's some issue involving caches. 4.174.169.60 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Move

To minimise offense, I recommend a speedy page move to Tinted Brethren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slydevil (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dame Right!! Sums em' up init!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.115.148 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

the stupid quote is there again

the "Also know as gay n*****s." is still in there, I've seen by these posts that it was once removed, but it's there right now, can someone take care of that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.185.81 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

darker skin color?

The first sentance is "Black people is a term which is usually used to define a racial group of human beings with darker skin color." That doesn't make sense, whith darker skin colour than what? If you say 'with a darker skin color' then you have to compare it to something, for example, with a darker skin colour than white people. I haven't changed it my self because I'm not sure what to make the comparison with. Your thoughts???DineshAdv (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a valid concern. The problem is that it varies cross-culturally and we can't just have the Euro-American POV. That sentence does make it seem like anyone with more melanin than Europeans would be labeled 'black,' when in fact that isn't the case. The best solution may be to add another sentence about how this varies cross-culturally, which I believe is mentioned in the article.--Woland (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

yes i have to agree also it should read people with very dark skin as black, though in the united states weird construct some people who do not have very dark skin are considered black(though they should not )--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats because "blackness" is not merely a description of phenotype, it is an interplay between culture, self-identification, and the arbitrary classification of skin pigment. Saying that "people with very dark skin" are black is not particularly useful to this article.--Woland (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As a light skinned black person, I find Wikiscribe's comment to be patently false. "Should not"? No Wikiscribe I "should" be black based on my culture and ancestry, not based on the definitions and insistence of those who are not even members of the group. When you say "should not", you are implying that someone else "should" determine what black means... and who might that be? --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical usage of the term "black" as regards human race

Being "black" has not always meant being of sub-Saharan origin. For thousands of years the term "black" (in regards race) meant a dark caucasoid, eg. Black Irish, Black Jews, Black Italians, Black Moors etc. This article makes it look as though "black" has always meant "Sub-Saharan". It hasn't. Even into the 20th century Turks, Arabs, Berbers and related peoples were referred to as "black". The use of "black" meaning "sub-Saharan" has only existed since the term n****r became unacceptable. A lot needs to be added to the article showing the usage of "black" through the ages.... Dr Rgne (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The strength of the term over the last few generations has been concentrated within Black people from Africa. In fact, the issue is really that there are those who do not wish to include Moors Jews and others as black because they do not wish readers to believe that those groups had African (Sub-Saharan) heritage. Also, the use of Black Irish as anything more than a passing mention does little else other than to disenfranchize the Black African from their own social identity. Black even becomes no longer a unifying identity among the black people of the world (of which the Black Irish would have no part of). Black has been used through the ages since the word "Kush" "Kemu" and "Nehesi" were used in Ancient Egypt. Kush meaning black skinned Southerner in Africa. KEmu meaning Black Person from Egypt. Nehesi meaning Black Nubian. "Ethipian" meaning black skinned. So the word "black" has been used, simply not in English since English did not exist yet. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ERm, the point was that for thousands of years the word "black" (not just in English but the equivalent words in Greek, Latin, Arabic, German, French, Aramaic, Berber languages, and various other languages too) used to mean "dark caucasoid". Obviously that isn't the case today. But for thousands of years there was a clear difference between a "black man" and a "n****r". Just like the word "gay". Today it means 'homosexual', but for hundreds of years 'gay', and 'gai' meant lighthearted. It is only recently that "gay" started to mean 'homosexual'. This is not the place to get into the 'Moors, Egyptians, and Israelites were Sub-Saharan' argument. I can say that the same words used to describe them were also used to describe Greeks, Italians, Turks, Afghans etc. I also noticed you used the word "African" as a racial/ethnic term. Yet this definition of 'African' does not include over 150 million North Africans, nor the Khoikhoi and San peoples, who are obviously African, but not "African", as you use it.

Getting back to the actual point, just because the word "black" today means a certain type of person(as used by some people), does not mean it was always used in that way. In fact, the modern definition of 'black' is very recent. All I was suggesting was that a paragraph or two on the historical usgae of the term, showing how it differs with the modern definition, may be included... Dr Rgne (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough. The work of Frank Snowden shows that "black" was not used in the same way as it is today in European, particularly American society with its race obsessions. Also the term 'black' takes in people with a wide range of physical appearance, even on the African continent, from narrow-nosed, wavy haired East Africans, to brown-skinned fellahin of Egypt, to Bushmen way down south. Just as Europeans have shorter, swarthy Italians and Portugese, alongside tall, ultra-pink Scots- just so black people vary. Bit of course there is a clique on Wikipedia that fears this basic truth, even though it is supported by well documented modern scholarship- as referenced in the article. They like stereotypical definitions of 'black', just like the old time anthropologists who use it to drum out 'bleks' out of areas 'reserved' for those designated as 'white' or whatever label is most misleading at the moment.Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

i am wondering wether Black means sub saharan africans or just skin colour. for example, both my grandparents on my fathers side were French and on my mothers side it is half Iranian and african. i have green eyes and 'straight' hair, and i am tanned. africans calls me white and europeans calls me black.., . my point is basicaly, are mixed race people black or white ?41.220.99.64 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)HConfiance41.220.99.64 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr Rgne tried to add a paragraph abotu his personal theory to the article, but without supporting citation regarding both change in application of the term and evidence of prior historical usage, it looks like a personal version of history, and needs citation before reinclusion.ThuranX (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rgne's point is supported by Frank Snowden, in "Blacks in Antiquity" where the term is used for a variety of peoples, some of whom today are seen as 'white.' It is also supported in Historical definitions of race article. Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not my personal theory. In Peter Frost's 1990 book "History of European Ideas" this is included:

"This older, more relevant sense has been noted in other areas. The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color. The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir. Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black within the normal color spectrum of English people. Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French, or Weiss and Schwartz among the Germans.

And apparently wikipedia has a Black Irish page too.

Joseph Ben Nathan, a medieval Jew made frequent references to Jews being "black" yet see that he looked just like modern Jews.

The phrase "blackamoor" to describe a Moor, is so well-known it does not have to be cited, yet look under the Moors page to see what Moors really (look)ed like.

I'm sure it's also well-known enough that the Ancient Egyptians were describe as "black"", yet go to http://www.geocities.com/enbp/eg_pics.html to see what the Ancient Egyptians really looked like. I'm sure everyone would agree that they don't look like "white Europeans" but they certainly aren't "black" in the modern sense either! Dr Rgne (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

you must not be aware of our Race of Ancient Egyptians article. The depiction of Egyptians as un-black is, of course, an evil Eurocentric conspiracy designed to hush up the superiority of the black race (rollseyes). dab (𒁳) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you still trotting out that old Afrocentric strawman from the early 1990s? Well sourced, respected scholarship in the field has long shown the Egyptians to be a variable population with links to tropical Africa as well as the Mediterranean coast, and Palestine/ Syria over the long span of Egyptian history. The field has already moved on from such tired strawman tactics. Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And you included this citation when you added it? Further, it's one author, and his theory, one apparently drenched in the 'oh noes teh ebil white man is lying about history again' agenda. It's about as boring as the 'oh noes, all the other people was to revize teh hsitorys' agenda. Find a few citations showing this view that the meaning has been narrowed, and we'll find an inclusion, but right now, not enough for me. ThuranX (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More nonsensical strawman statements. What 'ebil white man is lying'? Is that authentic 'colored' dialog you are using? lol.. Rgne's point is supported by several references from the article Historical definitions of race. You want citations, they are there, including Snowden (1983), Smedely (1999) etc.. Some want the narrowest possible definition of 'bleks' because that allows them to allocate certain others to their preferred groupings or classifications. See: Snowden FM (1983) Before color prejudice: the ancient view of blacks. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, or Smedley A (1999) Race in North America: origin and evolution of a worldview, 2nd ed. Westview Press, Boulder Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not one author and his "theory" (misuse of the term). It's also not "narrowing" of the term, but an entirely new definition. The idea was to add something that stated that the term "Black person" USED TO mean one thing, and now means a DIFFERENT thing. Also, when people see Herodotus' writings stating that Egyptians were "black people" that they should be aware of the fact that what he meant by "black people" and what is today meant by "black people" are 2 different meanings. I do not understand the need for the "oh noes etc" part either. A lot of stuff has been added to wikipedia with far less informative/reliable citations/sources, but then what would be good enough for you personally? Some quotes from Shakespeare? Some NAZI propaganda about non-"Aryans"? Could you be more specific what exactly would suit your criteria? Dr Rgne (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, your point is backed up by at least 3 sources in Historical definitions of race. Methinks some want to keep out your observation because the narrowest possible definition of 'bleks' suits certain agendas. If for example 'bleks' are conceived as somewhere way down south, then people like Ethiopians can be shifted to the 'white' column. That's part of a whole agenda and some scholars even note it in their academic writings critical of 'race' theorists. Of course, I won't be referring to anyone here mind you.... Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Reference#41'''

The source says nothing about race definitions. It should be http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobsween (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said it had anything to do with race definitions. In fact that was the actual POINT, that "Black" did not signify someone of a different race, and only in the recent years has "black" meant someone of sub-Saharan origin. So thanks for making my point for me. Also your link is to a site giving the latter-day modern definition of "black". You haven't proved anything at all. Quite the opposite you've actually done a quite good job of giving my suggestion a stronger position. Thanks. Dr Rgne (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that they are trotting out old Afrocentric strawmen using pseudo 'colored' dialog, shows they have no real position re your points.Larsposenaa (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world

I hope that this clear error will be fixed, and politics will not enter into the discussion. This article quotes the following from the cited paper (citation 5): "any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world"

In fact this paper states the following: "In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that ‘‘data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world’’ (subsequently amended to ‘‘about as different’’)."

So, the paper that is cited is actually quoting a different paper, and also noting that the quotation was subsequently amended (to "about as different"). I think that the proper source should be cited, and the quotation changed to "about as different".

--137.99.117.114 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done possibly the quotation in the ref is too lengthy but it does indeed I think make it quite clear Matilda ^talk 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is good to get an accurate quote, but the point is a valid one that appears elsewhere in Human Geonome research, and undermines those who want to allocate all of humanity into neat little racial checkboxes on a biological basis. Of course, someone does not want the quote in there. It has vanished. Larsposenaa (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok so why has this whole section been taken out? (93.97.78.171 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

So-called 'Off topic' section arbitrarily taken out

The so called 'off topic' section (bogus labeling) worked on by Matilda and others was unilaterally taken out without discussion and needs to be restored. It is directly relevant to the article, because it discusses the changes in the definition of black people and race. It's discussion of the history of the race concept including the theories of Carleton Coons has direct historical relevance. Seems it was taken out in order to hide or eliminate the work of scholars that challenge traditional race categories in relation to blacks.

The point about the small amout of genetic variation internally versus that external to a group is crucial to any discussion about 'Black people' for it calls into question a whole bunch of agendas. For one thing it means that 'bleks' cannot be defined as some narrow type, as far south as possible in Africa, but that they vary in how they look, just like other normal human populations. The other point about the high genetic diversity in skin color within Africa is another point. Yes, Black people vary in skin color, within Africa, as part of their native variation, just like other folks elsewhere. People like Somalians, Ethiopians, etc form part of the package, unpalatable as this may be to those who want to consign 'bleks' to the narrowest possible checkboxes. It is no wonder some desperately want that section removed.

The human race: section arbitrarily removed section without discussion

-

A Maasai man in Kenya

-

Main articles: Human and Race and genetics

- In the early twentieth century many scientists held the view that biologically distinct races existed. The races corresponded to the major continental regions of Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas. These races were distinguished from each other based on a few visible traits such as skin color and hair texture. Black people were largely defined by their dark skin and sometimes by their tightly coiled hair. The belief at that time was that not only did the races differ in appearance but in behavior, intellect and origins. Some scientists such as Carleton S. Coon believed the different races to have evolved separately over millions of years and that racial differences were thus extremely significant.

- Today most scholars have abandoned these views and see race as a social construct with no biological meaning. Breakthroughs in genetics and the mapping of the human genome in the late twentieth century have helped dispel many of the earlier myths about race. At least 99.9% of any one person's DNA is exactly the same as any other person's, regardless of ethnicity. Of the 0.1% variation, there is an 8% variation between ethnic groups within a race, such as between the French and the Dutch. On average, only 7% of all human genetic variation lies between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. 85% of all genetic variation lies within any local group. The proportion of genetic variation within continental groups (~93%) is therefore far greater than that between the various continental groups (~7%). Or to put it another way,

data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are about as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world.

- - Because of these facts, there is general agreement among biologists that human racial differences are too small to qualify races as separate sub-species. However there is still much controversy regarding the significance of these small differences. For example, some scholars argue that even though there is more variation within populations than between them, the small between-population variation may have implications in medical science.

-

A San man from Namibia

- ===Single origin hypothesis===

-

See also: Recent single origin hypothesis

- Based on genetic evidence, the contemporary world population is assumed to be descended from a relatively small population of Homo sapiens living in Africa some 70,000 years ago (in population bottleneck scenarios, this group may have been as small as 2,000 individuals). The differences in physical appearance between the various peoples of the world is as a result of adaptations to the different environments encountered by various populations subsequent to this split.

- Examples of African variation due to natural selection include the Dinka, some of the tallest people in the world and the Mbuti, the shortest people in the world. Others such as the Khoisan people have an epicanthal fold similar to the peoples of Central Asia. Furthermore, a recent study found that Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest within population skin color diversity. An example of what might be the result of the simple accumulation of variation over time (due to the fact that Africa has been occupied longer than any other continent) is the large variety of body shapes and facial features found among sub-Saharan Africans.

If necessary the section can be trimmed, but the core points are relevant to the topic, and need to be in place, not arbitrarily removed. Larsposenaa (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, how do you justify a section on "the human race" as relevant to this article? I can see a section with {{main}} article African peoples, but "race and genetics" and "human"? If any of these points need to be made here, they need to be made much more briefly. It won't do to present a reader trying to look up "black people" with a lengthy discussion of humanity in general, the notion of race, general observations about genetics, etc., before condescending to give information about the actual topic. Stay focused, and use wikilinks to refer to related topics. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosa Park's picture

Is Rosa Parks black or white. She is known as African American, but she looks white on images, uploaded on computer. Most people learned she's black.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Talk pages are for the discussion of the relevant article, not this kind of question. --Woland (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Asia and australasia

The section claims that Europeans are more closely related to Africans than to Asians, but this appears to contradict the Race and genetics page. The cited reference (Thangaraj et al.) doesn't say anything about Europeans. Qemist (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Most anthropologists, geneticists and biologists would probably argue that the evidence as it stands supports the Recent African origin model for human expansion out of Africa. This model is predicated upon a bottleneck during the out of Africa migration, this means that all non-sub-Saharan African people are more genetically similar to each other than they are to sub-Saharan African people. That means that Europeans would be more closely related to all global human populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa than they are to sub-Saharan Africans. Peoples from East Africa are probably the most closely related to non-sub-Saharan Africans. I think the confusion here is that Europeans are closer to sub-Saharan Africans than Asians are, and that's a different thing. Or to put it another way, the further from Africa one travels the less like Africans the populations become. There is direct genetic evidence for this. So populations from regions close to Africa are more like Africans then populations far from Africa, but all non-sub-Saharan Africans are still all closer to each other than they are to sub-Saharan Africans, due to them sharing a much smaller and much more recent set of common ancestors. It also means that we would expect to see significantly reduced genetic diversity outside of Africa, and there is direct evidence for this as well. Human populations in African south of the Sahara contain about 100% of all human genetic diversity, but populations in Papua New Guinea contain only about 70% of human genetic diversity. As people moved away from Africa there was a series of bottlenecks that acted to "dilute" the gene pool of each successive migration further from Africa. Meaning that Africa is a genetically much richer place than anywhere else in the world. I have some nice papers that discuss this in detail if you are looking for sources. Cheers. Alun (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear who else Africans are being compared to in the phrase Africans are more closely linked genetically to Europeans -- more than whom? -- nor is the sense of the comparison clear. Africans are more closely linked to Europeans than Africans are linked to someotherrace, or Africans are more closely linked to Europeans than someotherrace are linked to Europeans? In all the article would be better without the sentence. Qemist (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Africans from different parts of Africa are related in different degrees to each other and to non-Africans. We can't think of Africa as some sort of genetically homogeneous continent, any more than Europe or Asia are genetically homogeneous. Indeed Africa may be a great deal more heterogeneous because of it's rich genetic diversity. The strange thing is we know very little about African genetic diversity and a great deal about say European genetic diversity, but it's in Africa where we can learn the most because it is the birth place of our species. Clearly east Africans, especially Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis are most closely related to the peoples of the Middle East (outside of Africa), especially those of the Arabian peninsular, these are their closest geographic neighbours outside of Africa, and this is one of the possible routes for the original migration out of Africa. Is the claim sourced? I agree the sentence makes little sense. Cheers. Alun (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Synonym for Negro

The term black people usually refers to a racial group of human beings with dark skin color, but the term has also been used to categorise a number of diverse populations into one common group. Some definitions of the term include only people of relatively recent Sub Saharan African descent (see African diaspora), while others extend the term to any of the populations characterized by dark skin color, a definition that also includes certain populations in Oceania and Southeast Asia.[1][2]

OK, this paragraph is problematic.

1. It assumes the existence of biological race, which in itself is controversial - but also perhaps appropriate since "black people" often refers to a perceived race.

2. This article mentions "a racial group of human beings with dark skin color", there are several racial groups with dark skin color, which haven't been very often classified as a single race - this paragraph mentions them.

It also says that the term is used to catergorise diverse populations into a single group (while it no doubt has been used in many ways, I would dispute how notable that is)

In Australia, Aborigines are referred to as "blacks", the aboriginal news program is called "Living Black" etc.. Very few Australians would classify indigenous Africans and Australians in the same racial group, though black describes them both.

This paragraph should mention that the term black people is commonly used as a synonym for Negroes primarily in the US (though this term is well understood in Australia, Europe etc), rather than project the difficulties (of using an English adjective to classify a racial group, when the adjective is equally applicable to other groups) this causes on to Australian-English. It seems like this paragraph is accusing the people describing non-negros as black of being imprecise.

Explaining that black people is a synonym for Negro, and that the term negro has become problematic for some people, in the opening paragraph would alleviate these difficulties. 58.6.183.78 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Archaic Dude

"Negro" (Do you live in 1960?) is actually kind of archaic now dude. It be better to say that "Black" is often synonymous with African and/or African-American.--Woland (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, his premises are bad. I've met plenty of Australians who call anyone dark 'black', african or aborigine. As for racial groupings, there are plenty of books which examine this stuff, and conclude that scientifically there's little difference, but sociologically the gulf between skin tones is vast, and called a race. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Negro has been been largely replaced by synonyms, but whatever synonym is used inherits the exact definition of Negro ie African comes to mean Negro, and not literally any person with a connection to Africa, black comes to mean negro and not any person with dark skin etc

Your suggestion of using African does not work, because populations exist in Africa such as North Africans, Afrikaans etc who are not generally referred to as black.

The term white people is also problematic - usually referring to native Europeans (with the exception of some small groups - Sammi etc), and people near these areas , since some groups such as North East Asians also have light skin, and an albino of any group would also have light skin. However, the wikipedia article on White People mentions in the opening paragraph that it's also used as a synonym for "Caucasian", which explains these inconsistencies.

An albino child born to African Americans is a "black person", so it must be explained that in this sense the term is being used a synonym for a perceived racial group.

The Negro page on wikipedia mentions that the term is a synonym for "black", "black african", "african american" etc

btw Woland37, I don't want to mock by calling myself Archaic Dude, i just needed to think of a name to sign my comments with and liked the sound of it58.6.183.78 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Archaic Dude

Tharanx - I'm confused 1. Why do you assume I'm male? 2. Which premise is bad? I said the same thing you did about usage in Australia. 3. I'm not saying races exist, the opening paragraph of this definition says that. I'm just pointing out that the inconsistencies in this definition are a result of neglecting to mention the usage of "black people" as a synonym for "Negro".

For instance "extra-terrestrial being" is a synonym for "alien", I'm not arguing that aliens exist just pointing out that they are synonyms. 58.6.183.78 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Archaic Dude

African-American not synonymous with black people. Never mind that it's a term only used in the US, it also only refers to populations within the US. Obviously there are black people outside the US, and not even US Americans would refer to these as "African-Americans" (duh). Black people can be used synonymously with Black Africans (or alternatively can also include non-African blacks such as the Australian Aboriginals), but certainly not with Africans, since there are ostensibly non-black populations in Africa. Sure, "Negro" is obsolete in English usage, but it is, after all, just the Spanish for "black". So... big surprise, the Spanish term for "blacks" is still negros. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing 'ostensible' about it. Go call Gaddafi a Black african, and see how many intercontinental flights you survive. Plenty of Arab and other non-black populations there. Theresa Heinz Kerry's an African. As for distractions like gender, I'm not wasting time jumping through the guessing game hoops on that shit. ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

TharanX, you are replying to three different people in that paragraph.

1. Woland suggested Africans, and Black Africans were more appropriate synonyms for black people than "negro". 2. You haven't answered my (Archaic Dude) question about which premises you thought were bad, you seemingly just agreed with me but didn't know that you did. 3. You are taking strong exception to the use of "ostensibly" by dab, even though his point was similar also similar to yours, without the threat of a plane exploding.

Anyhow The point of this discussion is, the opening paragraph defines black people a race of dark skinned people, and focuses on Sub-Saharan Africa (while acknowledging (but inferring imprecision) that other groups of people have dark skin and are called "black). Now - the definition of negro (and I'm sure we are all aware of the etymology) is the same.

- The main definition on this page is the same as the definition of negro.

- Negro page on wikipedia lists synonyms for negro such as black african, black etc -

- The White people page says it's used as a synonym for caucasian -

- Skepticism of the scientific validity of race isn't relevant, if black people is used to refer to a "race" which is the same "race" that negro refers to, then the words are synonyms - just as pixie and fairy can be synonyms without necessarily existing.

- Explaining that "black people" is often used as a synonym for negro would reduce confusion in the article.

Please be specific with support or objections? 58.6.183.78 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Archaic Dude

There's nothign to 'support' or 'object' to, you've yet to propose a change to the page. You just keep bitching about how 'black people' refers to 'negroes', (nice race-baiting there), and how it should refer to all non-whites, like 'colored' can, near as I can tell, along with some stuff about how race either is or isn't relevant, without being clear, without any distinction from you about the different meanings of 'race'. So until you're clear, i'm objecting to you blithering on. ThuranX (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've missed everybody's point who has posted ThuranX, you don't appear to have anything to add so I withdraw my questions to you about which premises you thought were wrong, because you don't understand.

Please no-one post replies to what TharanX summarized because it's highly inaccurate.

The proposal is that since the opening paragraph has the main the definition of black people as a race of dark skinned people from sub-Saharan Africa it should be pointed out that the reason that black people now has this main definition in many areas is that it has become a synonym for Negro, while the term black people also applies to other dark skinned populations around the world and this usage is not synonymous with Negro. 58.6.183.78 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Archaic Dude

ThuranX, we will thank you for actually reading what people are saying before replying. Otherwise, this is hardly a "discussion", is it? dab (𒁳) 07:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if he'd posted at first what he just posted, it would've been far easier to agree. Next time, he can be brief and direct, and I can find a point in his blathering. If that's what he actually proposes, then yes, I agree that clarification of the term is needed, giving distinctions by socio-geography. ThuranX (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

physical differences

In this article you misuse the word "race" there is no such thing as "different" racial groups as it relates to "modern day Humans" there is only one race "the Human race" if we must differentiate the various people of the world, the proper way to do it is by ethnicity. Black people are not a different and distinct "race" they are a distinct ethnic group

Also in the article should include a paragraph describing physical features other than just skin colour. There are also many interesting medical facts that could be mentoned like that black people statstically don't digest milk as well as white ppl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

lactose intolerance isn't a black trait. It's a trait of most people outside of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IN

Gallery removal

I removed the gallery only after the gallery was removed from White people but my reason is that these are not representative of black people, and indeed we cannot and should not try to make such a list. We should instead add photos of people notable in the modern history of black people such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Marcus Garvey and William Wilberforce, and intersperse the photos in the text. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

you misuse the word "race"

In this article you misuse the word "race" there is no such thing as "different" racial groups as it relates to "modern day Humans" there is only one race "the Human race" if we must differentiate the various people of the world, the proper way to do it is by ethnicity. Black people are not a different and distinct "race" they are a distinct ethnic group

Race in Brazil

The opening sentence of Race in Brazil is "Unlike in the United States, race in Brazil is based on skin color and physical appearance rather than ancestry." When did the United States adopt a singular definition of the word race? Isn't that a subject in constant dispute, even within the scientific community? Either find a citation for what "race" is in the United States (preferably 12 or 13 citations, since it's such a debated notion), or delete this God-awful sentence.Icetitan17 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Morrison & ref to Clinton as "first black President."

During the recent US presidential campaign, Tony Morrison clarified her statement, saying she meant that Clinton was being attacked mercilessly on very weak logical bases, as a Black person would be, if various personages wanted to take said person down. I'm sorry not to have a reference, but I think NPR archives might have the interview in which she made the clarification. To me at least, her explanation makes more sense than the explanations given in this article.

I think Ms. Morrison would agree, that it is not only women who must be twice as good as a (white) man in order to make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.229.123 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

need a IW link

[[wuu:黑人]]

Done. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

150 million African-Americans

I don't think so. Not even if you include all of the Americas. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the Demographics of the United States gives 40.9 million as of 2006 as the number. Can someone find a ref?--Woland (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not African Americans, descendants of Africans in the Americas. It's sourced to this summary of a United Nations conference: "[I]t was estimated that at least 150 Million persons within the Western Hemisphere could be considered African Descendants." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel worded and apparently a "drop" formulation. No point contending the issue though, the article has more severe problems than that (e.g. the description of how human species developed dark skin in Africa). The "actual" best "number" would probably be a linguistic value such as "approximately 100 million". The major populations are in the US, Brazil, Haiti, and various other Caribbean Islands and the total who self identify as black is certainly not much if any more than 100 million. All humans can be considered African Descendants BTW. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Russians call Tatars black -- has to be removed

"A cultural classification of people as "black" exists in Russia... Certain groups of people who are ethnically different, and generally darker, than ethnic Russians are pejoratively referred to as "blacks" (chernye), and face specific sorts of social exclusion (see Racism in Russia). Roma, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category.[84]"

-- The last sentence in part concerning Tatars is simply not true, and it is a shame such false information can be found in Wikipedia. Russians call "black" only people with darker skin (the second sentence is absolutely right in this). People from non-Russian, Asian, etc. decent with white skin will not be called black by Russians. This is important, because Tatars who are second largest ethnic group in Russia (over 5 million) are generally whiter than some ethnic Germans or French. I grew up in the capital of Tatarstan republic and lived among Tatars from 6 to 30 years of age. I have a pure-blood Tatar friend who has blond hair and blue eyes. For a Russian to call a Tatar black is the same as for an American to call black, say, a Spanish man. Please edit out this stupid assertion about calling Tatars black (I know, it quotes some research, made by some Western "scientist" who had no idea what he was talking about). At present, two ethnic Tatars are Ministers of Russia: Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliyev [2] and Minister of Economic Development Elvira Nabiullina [3] Check out their photos on their pages in (Russian) Wikipedia: do they look "dark" to anyone? Elvira is actually what a very typical ethnic Tatar woman looks like (note her blue eyes as well). 99.243.13.191 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Rozmysl

You're misreading what the article says. Its speaking of a cultural classification, not a physical description. Its in the same vein as treating the Irish and Italians as non-white, prior to the 20th century. Its obvious that both can be as white (as a physical description of lighter skin tone)as someone of English heritage but the cultural classification system excludes them from the white category.--Woland (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Woland is right thats compareable to germans, italians, greeks and irish not being considered white in the U.S not because they phenotypcaly were not white but because other reasons in the U.S case reasons such as resticting land ownership and such.--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you guys have a very strange logic. I am trying to convey two simple facts: Russians call black only people with a physically dark skin. Russians do not call Tatars black because Tatars have very white skin. The article claims Tatars are called black by Russian. This is pure lie. Way to go, folks. That is why I tell my children, never trust Wikipedia.--99.243.13.191 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well excuse us for not believing a random person on the internet. If you'll notice the statement has a source that it comes from. If you really feel that strongly you should check the reference provided (as I am in the process of doing). You may want to consider that you are simply unfamiliar with this usage. And yes, you should never take anything written down as fact; this is why we provide references that can be studied for confirmation.--Woland (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<undent> I just got the reference through interlibrary loan and it indeed supports the statements in the article though it was specifically speaking of Ivanovo Oblast. I'm not sure if there is any reason to believe that this is a localised phenomenon but it can be edited to reflect this.--Woland (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article

The tone of the article is somewhat disturbing. The article needs some fact based reporting and less stories of individual history. It needs to be focussed on skin color and social constructions, rather than an arbitrary selection of Africans in history. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We have African peoples, African Americans and Stereotypes of African Americans, all of which can get WP:SS summary treatment here at best. This article should focus on the racial classification. It should mirror the White people and Asian people articles in structure wherever possible. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

About Tatars (again)

Tatars are not classified as black. Yes, I know that Caroline Humphrey wrote that they are, but people make mistakes. Lets look at this Russian source.[4]

Общие стереотипы дополняются вторичной политической, религиозной и культурной мотивацией фактического применения приемов геноцида. Грубые прозвища, употребляемые в отношении жителей Кавказа - "черножопые" или "черные", переделаны в официальный русский эвфемизм "лицо кавказской национальности".

It clearly says that only people from Caucasus are classified as black. Of course there was historically a group called Black Tatars (Kerait), but you won't find a single Russian source where Volga Tatars are classified as black. DVoit 00:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to reply (as I was the one who reverted your edit). I've been at a conference with only my laptop and for some reason my "i" key isn't working....Thanks for pointing this out. I am not sure what to do when sources conflict though. Is Humphrey actually mistaken or is she documenting something specific to that region? Even if we believe that she is mistaken, I think it might be orginal research if we simply decide this. I may be reading it wrong (its been a good six years since I've read Russian on a daily basis), but that source doesn't seem to say anything about the use being specific to the Caucasus. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed but I don't think that simply removing the sourced material should be the first step.--Woland (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But still phrases like "Roma, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category" sound very strange. Why only Tatars, but not Bashkirs and Yakuts. Why only Georgians, but not Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Maybe she meant Caucasian Tatars (old name for Azerbaijanis) or Mountain Tatars (old name for Karachays), but I doubt it has anyhing to do with Ivanovo Oblast, since it has less than 2% of non-slavic population (which means black = non-slavic). May be we should change this prase to something like:

According to Caroline Humphrey - Roma, Georgians, and Tatars fall into this category.

or

Caroline Humphrey claims that...

or

Usually only non-slavic population falls into this category

DVoit 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Humphrey doesn't go into detail about it at all in the passage, as far as I can tell she was just relaying cultural information that she had discovered. Anyway, the first option looks like the best one for our purposes. The second borders on weasel words while the third is really just an assertion I suppose.--Woland (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence

Perhaps something should be said about statistically-backed low intelligence found in blacks? Also, they exhibit much higher rates of crime and anti-social behavior in every country they inhabit, be it Haiti, Jamaica, South Africa, the USA, Britain, etc. Although race and crime has recently been deleted by the liberal fascists that edit on wikipedia, race and intelligence still explores the correlation. As well, it should be noted how sub-Saharan Africans never independently developed or utilized the wheel, archery or any art or craft that's seen as ancient innovation by most other countries and races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.44.88 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a constructive suggestion, or a piece of race-baiting? If you want to improve the article, why not suggest specific, constructive, sourced edits? That would be helpful; what you've posted above is not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bell Curve by Herrnstein is a well-known, peer-reviewed book that explores the differences between the races. Also, numerous adoption studies like the Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study disprove that intelligence is a direct result of nurture. Black people might not be intrinsically stupid/criminal as a race (i.e. monkey compared to human), but given the scientifically-supported inheritability of intelligence, antisocial disorders and criminal impulses it wouldn't be offensive to simply highlight the debate around the issue. 98.110.44.88 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got an article on The Bell Curve. I wouldn't characterize it as "statistically backed low intelligence for blacks", because psychometrics are about a zillion times more complicated than that, and attempting to order intelligence along a single one-dimensional scale is a gross, gross oversimplification, and of sharply limited usefulness. (This is coming from someone who knows how to knock the roof off an IQ test, and who knows that he is nevertheless quite stupid sometimes.)

Nevertheless, it's true that there has been significant controversy about various attempts to link race to various qualities and behaviors. How much of that belongs in this article, and how much should be treated at other articles to which this one links is a fair question. You might find that a lot of the information you're looking for is already in Wikipedia, but perhaps not linked from here. It might be that the best place for the information you're talking about is not in this article, but in Race (classification of human beings) or Race and genetics. Have you looked at those? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because some scientific methods are imperfect, doesn't mean we should totally dismiss and ignore the findings. IQ tests are exceedingly good indicators of intelligence in nearly all cases. Blacks are at the bottom end for most studies in intelligence and criminality. This fact has caused significant social problems in the countries they inhabit, problems that continue even with socialist policies like Affirmative Action and anti-Discrimination laws. The scientific consensus before World War II had blacks at or near the bottom tier of the racial hierarchy, and after WWII we adopted equality laws for purely social reasons. As far as I know, there were no significant advances made in explaining race and intelligence during WWII. The only explanation for this turnaround in consensus is political correctness, something that WP doesn't abide by. I think that someone should create a little subsection under the Debates on Race section that highlights the issue and then links to Race and Intelligence and related articles, similar to how Afrocentrism is discussed. 98.110.44.88 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should link to race and intelligence from this article, and in particular from the section Black people#Debates on race? There's already a link in the infobox at the top of the page, but it sounds as if you're suggesting a new subsection within that section, to address the debate on intelligence? Is that right? Would you also add such a subsection to pages on other races that are compared at race and intelligence? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Wow! This worked so well, GT! He really did learn and not come back to troll more! So AWESOME is your method! WOW! ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep watching, Thuran. I know you will. Sit back, and let me fail, because I'm so wrong. Enjoy the show. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You will fail. He's a racist. You wont' change his mind. ThuranX (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What a mysterious comment this is! Who ever said anything about changing anyone's mind? I'm just hoping to provide a clear answer to his suggestion. That is, we either incorporate it, or we state the good reason for not incorporating it. Either way, our reasoning here serves as a document for future readers that this question has been asked and answered, and just what the reasoning looked like.

An enumeration of good reasons for why this article contains or does not contain seemingly relevant information is not a bad thing to have around. It will help people in the future. It's certainly better than trying to sweep the question under the rug, and say "No, there's no such thing as people who genuinely believe that blacks are stupid. If there are such people, they'll never change, and there's no point telling them anything except 'piss off'. There has never been a case of a person wondering about their preconceptions, seeking information, and then developing new ideas based on that information. That never happens and never will happen, so don't let's dare post the information that might help someone like that. If they don't already know, then we don't want 'em."

That's what I'm hearing from ThuranX here, and I think it's sad. If this encyclopedia isn't here to inform people — even people whom we might not already agree — then what the hell is it for? Apparently, this attitude makes me "naive" and "clueless". If that's so, then I'm proud to be those things. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous disclaimers at the top of this page that warn of potentially offensive discussions. If this particular topic offends you so much that you find yourself unable to civilly discuss it, then maybe you should look at other discussions. 98.110.44.88 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ThuranX, we have to be able to talk about things. If you think that simply raising the question of a link to race and intelligence is unacceptable, then you truly are too biased to work on this article. What really worries me is that you don't trust a consensus of editors to decide on the correct action, but insist on quashing the any mention of it. Aren't you confident that the community will make the correct choice, or do we have to protect ourselves from this conversation?

Why not just answer the post by explaining precisely why the suggestion is inappropriate, and then save that in a FAQ somewhere that you can point people to? They did something like that at Evolution, and I'm told it's somewhat useful. Do you really think a correct answer to the anon's question would be a bad thing to have around? How does that work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already said black people are genetically stupid. There's nothing to discuss, it's flat out racism. You're taking his bait, the rest of us simply discard the nonsense and continue. ThuranX (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but there is no question to which the correct answer is "shut up and go away." Your failure to know the correct answer is no excuse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The fatuous question. The baiting question. The question for which you don't care about the answer, only the reaction. Read WP:TROLL. "DENY RECOGNITION." That means you delete the troll's comments over and over until they learn that no one will play with them. You have fed this troll, and made him fat and happy. He will be hungry again soon. ThuranX (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know your opinion. There's no need to repeat it further. Thank you! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP's comment was removed by multiple editors for multipel days as race-baiting trolling. There's no reason to bother addressing it. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's anything wrong with my answer. It beats edit-warring with him over it. Fighting over edits and labeling them "trolling" feeds trolls a lot more than just giving boring, sober answers. It turns out his question has a boring answer, and the next person who comes along will see that there's no point trolling, because Wikipedians are professional, and we rise above it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. 'we're professional'? you're getting paid for this? you get health insurance and a 401K? no? we're volunteers. And if we don't want to put up with racists coming through here weekly with their 'black peopel are XYZ' crap, we can remove it per WP:VANDAL and WP:TROLL. You want to fight it this time in this high minded style, then you will wind up fighting it again and again. Better to show trolls that they will not get a response here by removing it, over and over. VANDALISM is outside of 'edit warring' standards anyway. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... multiple editors over the course of multiple days weren't able to make him go away by deleting the comment, but I made him go away in an hour by just answering his question. Think about that.

When I say "we're professional," (no 's') I don't mean we get paid. I mean we're smart enough to deal with disruption professionally, instead of allowing people to get a rise out of you. Your method fights fire with gasoline, and that's foolish. You're not foolish, so you should change your method. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, we're no longer talking about how to improve this article, so if you wish to criticize me further, I invite you to my talk page, or else to just start an RfC on me. Thank you for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. We have very, very detailed coverage of the race and intelligence issue. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, it's controversial. That's not a problem for Wikipedia, since we just report controversies without taking any position. If there are anonymous editors bringing this up, for whatever motivation, just point them to the existing articles. --dab (𒁳) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Protection and Supervision of this Article

I am shocked to see the subject matter that is being considered for inclusion in this article. This is nothing more than the typical racial hatred that has plagued Black skinned people of African origins since their earliest encounters with whites. I wonder if anyone has suggested that the article on whites should include a discussion of their tendencies toward violence? White people are often associated with hideous crimes against humanity. Aren't they associated with the extermination of so many people from the face of out earth. Yet no one considers this to be an inherent biological factor. It is truly reprehensible that this sort of racism is tolerated in our day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, what's being considered for inclusion in the article? If someone makes a suggestion as in the section above, then we direct them to articles such as race and intelligence, where the claims are dealt with neutrally. As far as I can tell, nobody is seriously considering adding anything about "tendencies" of black people to this article. If they do, we'll just do whatever is necessary to bring the article back into accordance with NPOV.

Have you got a suggestion for improving the article, or what exactly are you suggesting here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

There are already some established guidelines on dealing with Trolls

• Wikipedia:Deny recognition
• Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore
• What is a troll

Wapondaponda (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only people who have been feeding trolls here are those who responded with repeated removals of the post, thus clearly provoking more, identical posts. Trolls love nothing more than provoking people into defensive reactions, and several editors seem to be arguing to give trolls precisely what they love. I'm against that. This is an encyclopedia, not a game of cops and robbers. Playing cops and robbers is precisely what they want you to do. Don't do it.

Demanding first that some kind of constructive comment be made, and then responding to that comment professional and thoroughly is the best way to not feed a troll. If the person isn't a troll, and just a very ill-informed person, then they learn something. If it is a troll, then they learn that they can't get a rise out of you, and they go away. The "revert" policy kept him coming back, again and again. That is failure.

Just respond boringly and professionally, and they'll go away much more quickly. I speak from experience, and if you disagree, then cite specific experiences. I'm ready with evidence. The proof is in the pudding. My pudding is that the above reply worked. Where's your pudding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links

Thank you, Wapondaponda, for those links, which support precisely what I'm saying. From the meta: page on trolls:

“ Pestering
Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. Of course, sometimes what is obvious to one person is obscure to another. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. You can also send them to the help desk. If they persist, politely explain that you would love to help but you are rather busy. If they continue asking the question even after you have clearly answered it, or begin complaining that you will not help them, there is a chance of them being trolls. Or they could just be lazy or confused. Of all the kinds of trolling, this is the most important kind not to get bent out of shape about. Remember: Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. Be friendly about providing knowledge to people. That said, in extreme cases, this can be a method of trolling, and it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions. ”

I added the emphasis in there.

The deny recognition page supports the idea of not giving them special treatment, such as by calling them names, or showing that you're mad at them. Dig it:

“ Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. ”

Exceptional notice: like jumping to revert whenever they post, or calling them a "troll". Don't do it. Be more boring. (Really, WP:DENY was created to get rid of pages we used to have documenting particularly prolific vandals. It's applicability in this case is far from obvious.)

The Revert, block, ignore page is for dealing with vandalism, and applying it to this situation is pretty much inappropriate, but we can still find a gem in there:

“ The best way to dissuade them from vandalising is to convince them that vandalising is boring and has no impact on the community or the encyclopedia. Boredom is Wikipedia's secret weapon. ”

Emphasis added, again. Simply answering the stupid, boring question with a boring answer and moving on is the boring approach, and it's the one that works best. Thanks again for the links. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The point

The most important lesson in here is this: There are people who sincerely believe, in their heart of hearts, that black people are stupider than others, that science supports this, and that the liberal media is in denial about it. Now, I consider that view philistine, blinkered, stupid, etc. However there are people who hold it in good faith. There people are ignorant, and they are precisely our target audience. If an honest racist posts here asking why we don't mention about blacks being stupid in the black people article, then the correct answer is this

"The issue of race and intelligence is a complex and controversial one, which we deal with in an article of its own: race and intelligence. If there is a specific edit you're suggesting to this page, then please say what it is, otherwise, you might get your question answered at the other article."

That reply is boring, emotionless, and informative. We have sent an ignorant person to a page where they might learn something to make them less ignorant.

Suppose, on the other hand, we've got an honest racist asking why we don't talk about the stupidity of black people, and we delete his posts, call him a troll, and get him blocked. Then we have failed in our mission to inform. Also, we have convinced the racist that he was right, and that people really are trying to cover something up. After all, why chase him off unless we have something to hide? The "call him a troll and block him" strategy makes the racist a little more racist, and it makes the world a little bit worse.

Please don't use Wikipedia to make the world worse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Looking at the table of contents, there's something missing, it seems. The sections, "In sub-Saharan Africa", "In the Arab World", "In the Ottoman Empire", "In the Americas", "In Asia and Australasia", and "In Europe" should all be grouped under one general heading, it seems.

First of all, does that seem right, that those should fall under a more general heading, and what should it be called?

If that's done, then there are three main sections: Physiology, Historical/Geographical/whatever this is called, and Debates. Does this seem to be a good suggestion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a section under "Debates"

So, the article organization makes more sense now, I think. It's divided into three major sections: "Physiological traits", "Cultural ideas of a black race", and "Debates on race".

Now, it seems that an anonymous editor was suggesting above that the article address scientific findings regarding the intelligence of black people.

I think he's right. I think that the claims made about intelligence of blacks fit into a larger context of so-called scientific racism. It would seem very appropriate in this article to note that, dark-skinned people having been enslaved and subjugated by lighter-skinned people for much of history, there have evolved a number of arguments to justify this oppression on scientific, or scientific-looking grounds. I'm thinking this would be in a proper context in the "Debates on race" section, after the two subsections that are already there.

If there's no good reason offered not to do this, I think it will be my project in a few hours, when I've got more time free. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptians had a very symbiotic relationship with blacks, yet after the Egyptians faded, so did any sort significance or progress for blacks in that area. Historians and archaeologists have a hard time trying to find any record of progress in written language, archery, metal working in Subsaharan Africa. It's safe to say that blacks would not be living nearly as well as they are now without the outside influence of whites. 100% black countries and even towns in America speak for themselves. Blaming black problems on whites and Arabs would greatly compromise the integrity of the article while only satisfying the whims of Egalitarians. 129.25.20.82 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions regarding the article? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but the OP does and I'm advising against it. At best, he'll write a slanted paragraph that tries to direct blame towards non-blacks for black problems. Leave the debates on black problems to the scientific articles that Black People links to. It's inappropriate to sling mud in article of this nature. 129.25.20.82 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see what he writes, and how slanted it is. How about that? It's not like anything I write can't be removed if it's no good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

let's not. It's bad enough you've fed the troll; giving him a real stake in the article is going to lead to trouble. You seem intent on romancing this IP troll, and I really wish you'd stop. He's a bigot. Scientific racism's already covered in it's own article, and in others on stereotypes and histories of race relations. ThuranX (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got no idea what you're talking about, and you said you were going to leave. The fact that some person is or is not a bigot is utterly irrelevant to the question of what this article should look like.

Are you claiming that the "Debates of race" section is better without expansion, and that this article shouldn't say anything about the causes of Afrocentrism before diving into a discussion that doesn't even define the term? Is that what you're arguing, ThuranX? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible outline

What I've been thinking about is structuring the "Debates" section into four subsections:

1. The Hamitic Race
2. Scientific racism
3. Afrocentrism
4. Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Sections 1 and 4 are already written, with section 4 labeled "In Afrocentrism". It seems that section 3 is necessary to say something about what Afrocentrism is, and since Afrocentrism rose up in the context of, and as we read in the article, as a reaction against scientific racism, then it makes sense to include section 2. It also segues nicely from section 1, because they represent parallel justifications of social conditions, the earlier in terms of scripture and the later in terms of science.

I'm open to suggestions on how to keep it neutral. However, if the only suggestion is "give up", I think it's fair to give me a chance first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would like some clarity on this. How can Snowden's conclusion be true? Modern-day terminology to describe black people today is as varied as Herodotus. Black people, black families have variations consistent with ancient Egyptians in regards to phenotype, skin color, and hair texture. It is the Caucasian whites that have the least phenotype variation, despite the most recent academic attempts to change that. Even if there is a distinction between Egyptians and Ethiopians, that merely reflects observable variations, not a distinct cut off from one group to another. What's the difference between a darker skinned Ancient Egyptian and a lighter skinned Nubian? But show me the darkest Caucasian and there will be a strong attempt to distinguish the subtleties from that of the lightest skinned black person. The methods are not the same because one group is inclusive, the other is exclusive. The Egyptians were, like modern black people, inclusive. --Panehesy (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Least phenotype variation by what objective standard pray tell? The comment is incoherent as it already assumes that ancient Egyptians are "black people" as such, based on merely American race obsessions. (collounsbury (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Black people vs African diaspora

The topics Black people and African diaspora are very similar and there is considerable overlap in content. It would probably be best if we could minimize the amount of duplicated information that is present in the two articles. Preferably this article should focus on the black identity, what makes people identify as black in the different social contexts. The African Diaspora article can detail which specific countries and regions of the world, have descendants from Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the current contents of the "Debates of race" section? Is it appropriate here? Should it be expanded? Should it be cut down? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Footnote number 1

There is no indication where this note comes from. Is it original? And in any case it is incorrect. Austronesians are speakers of an Austronesian language they are not an ethnic or racial group and should not be included in the list of "black" Asian peoples. Nitpyck (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Arab view

"In general, Arabs had a more positive view of black women than black men, even if the women were of slave origin." I'd say this line very much needs a citation, except I really doubt it would be possible to find a reliable one. Probably it's best to strike this for being unsourceable and unencyclopaedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.229 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No section on other differences?

There are a wide variety of differences between the races (e.g. blacks having more testosterone [5]). Why the focus on superficial things like skin and hair? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiological studies only weakly establish causal relationships between variables without additional evidence, as explained in our article on internal validity. Are the differences in testosterone levels attributable to a genetic mechanism, or variations in environment mediated by sociological factors? The question is rather unimportant for the purpose of cancer epidemiology (higher testosterone levels will produce an increased probability of malignant neoplasm, irrespective of their causation), but of considerable significance for this article. (Based only on a reading of the abstract of the study), the authors, given the limitations of their study methodology, make no claim of genetic causation; therefore, per WP:NOR, neither can we. Per WP:VER and WP:NOR, if you are going to add content asserting "a wide variety of differences between the races", you will need substantial support in the form of specific assertions of genetic causation published in peer reviewed sources which Wikipedia considers reliable for science, with relatively recent dates of publication, as extremely old studies of this particular subject are likely to be considered discredited. It's my considered opinion that acceptable references are highly unlikely to exist, because this is not the sort of thing that reliable scientific sources publish... Erik9 (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BRAZIL

}The article don't says then in Brazil Ppople of African descent made up the majority of the population until the late 19th century, when the massive entries of subsidized immigrants from Europe reduced the percentage of blacks and mulattoes in the country.

At the same time, Brazil's economy, which was eminently agrarian at the time (coffee, cotton, tobacco, rubber and sugar cane being the main crops), needed able laborers once black slavery was ended. The choice of European immigrants was due to a long discussion about the ideal worker to substitute slaves after abolition and determined the changes of the Brazilian ethnic composition from the half of the 19th century to the early 20th century.

In 1500, Brazil was inhabited by some 2.4 million Amerindians. Since then, 6 million Europeans and 4 million Africans entered the country.[3] The current Brazilian population is characterized by its diverse, multiethnic character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaomarcos6004 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama.....the statistics on how he is seen.

there is a part under the One Drop Rule where there is a list of how whites and hispanics see obama versus how blacks see him. On there its stated "after they are told he has a white mom". I find that this is incomplete as there is no mentioning of how both whites and hispanics see Obama BEFORE they are told he has a white mom.

It feels like that column was trying to make it look as if blacks were the ones one dropping. If the article is going to go into statistics on how he is seen after people know his racial background, then isnt it important to know how people view the same biracial person, before they know if they are biracial or not?

I would like to know those results. If majority see him as biracial instead of black. Then what were the results when they did not know for a fact that he was biracial and werent sure if he was black or not? The before they know is just as important as the after they know.

There is no point in mentioning just the after results, if you fail to show the before results.

How people view mixed people when they are not sure if they are mixed or not, says just as much about society as what they think after. If this article is going to be neutral, then it needs to mention the before AND after statistics. not just the after statistics.

97.91.174.0 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I notice in the White People, and other ethnicities articles, the people shown are either well known, or has a less than anonymousness about them. Can we, instead of using pictures of random people, use also, pictures of known individuals? --Panehesy (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)