Talk:Black billionaires/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

"Even individuals with enough African ancestry to make them as dark as Sidney Poitier can pass for White if they appear to have at least one physically visible Caucasian trait such as straight hair or narrow facial features."

The above line is a fantasy from somebody's imagination. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.245.150 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes

EditingOprah, please discuss your opposition to the changes I made here. Many of them were minor fixes, adding citation notices, and fixing grammatical structure. I understand the problems created by multiple edits within a short time frame and I'll try to avoid doing it again. Contrary to our discussions leading up to this point, I'm not here to wreck your favorite article, but to work on what I can. Since it's apparently sticking around for good, please accept my good faith effort to improve it. Thanks! --S0uj1r0 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to note that most of my edits had summaries, contrary to what your reversion summary stated. Please try to be thoughtful when undoing others' work. --S0uj1r0 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to please address your opposition to the changes I made on the talk page without immediately reverting. You attest about them:

His changes are very drastic & I don't have time to correct all his mistakes. He accused someone of alleging racism with a cite, he removed huge sections & Forbes classifies billionaires as selfmade

I never 'accused someone of alleging racism with a cite'. Please make your reasons for reversion more clear by discussing them in-depth on the talk page. The article simply states "Racism was also suspected" with regards to Oprah's run-in with Hermes. This is speculation. Who was racism suspected by? Please cite your sources. Since the article was implying that Oprah had alleged such racist conduct, I added a "[citation needed]" tag for this claim. I also removed a phrase which was stolen directly from the Arizona Daily Star which you restored with your revert. I fixed numerous spelling, grammatical, and structural errors. As for "self-made", I believe it's a somewhat loaded term, and it was repeated excessively in the article (5 times in just that subsection). If its absolutely necessary to keep every instance of it, please argue for that here. Just because Forbes uses the word as a type of classification doesn't mean it needs to be repeated 5 times. As a show of good faith, I will attempt to await your detailed reply here and look to integrate some of the changes I think the article needs afterwards. Thanks. --S0uj1r0 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

S0uj1r0 the article goes into graphic detail about all the people who suspected racism when Oprah was not allowed into Hermes (with exact quotes) so I don't understand why you're asking questions like "suspected by who?". Also, you claim a phrase was "stolen". Well I'm not sure if your definition of plagiarism is any more reliable than your definition of "original research" and "future research" but you removed a fascinating part of the discussion. Surely you realize that quoting sources is not plagiarism? And I can understand why you think the term "self-made " is POV, but once again you're taking things too literally. Obviously no man (or woman) is an island, but the term is used only to distinguish those wealthy people who did not inherit a substantial part of their fortune, and used in that sense it's quite objective. CJ Walker has been called the first self-made woman millionaire and became the richest African American, so that fact that Oprah too has become the richest African American and is also classified as self-made (she’s actually more self-made than most since her mother was on welfare) is a parallel worth pursuing. If the term was used too frequently, the last place it needs to be removed is from the photo caption, because those are often the only things people read, so the main points in each section should be summarized there. Editingoprah 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed 4th AfD

EditingOprah,

If it helps to understand where I'm coming from, here is the full text from the first point under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball":

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

Nothing can be said about Tiger Woods becoming a billionaire that is not speculation at this point. The fact that he makes a large amount of money every year and if he continues to do so he will reach one billion dollars is not sufficient to meet the above criteria because it is not almost certain to take place in even close to the same way that the 2008 Election or the 2012 Olympics are. The inclusion of a few given sources that speculate on Tiger's income are not encyclopedic. I can present you with all sorts of similar speculations that find their way to newstands in the form of tabloids that are no more or less encyclopedic than this article. The fact that it's filled with numbers pulled from financial publications doesn't mean it's useful. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate publisher of magazine hype, nor is it a data dump for statistics from Forbes. You further state:

There are all kinds of Black scholars who have all kinds of theories of why ther aren't more Back billionaires. You may call that a POV launch pad but I call it sociological theories, and reporting on theories is what encyclopedia's do. If you feel the theories are too slanted to the political left, then feel free to add right-wing theories. But please stop advocating the deletion of this article because it's my favorite article on wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This includes original research and opinions of current affairs, both of which apply here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This isn't about stating both of our opinions and battling it out so that each gets equal airtime in a discordant and conflicting article full of unsound theories. This is about deciding if the article as a whole has sufficient merit to be worth keeping, and I believe I've established that it fails to meet the criteria for such in several areas. As for your last statement, plenty of articles full of vanity and original research are created and deleted every day, and they were all someone's pet project. I will, and ought to, vote for the deletion of any aticle that fails to meet Wikipedia standards, regardless of whose favorite article it is. This is one such article, and I'm in favor of deleting it and merging anything useful in it with African_American#Economic_Status. --S0uj1r0 06:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Souj1r0 I already explained to you several times that the article is not about only African-Americans so how could it merged into that article. Do you think America is the only place where Black people live? Anyway the interpretation of all the wikipedia rules you cite are so subjective that I have no interest in debating them because there's no objective right answer. Sure things could be changed, and things should be taken out but the basic data in the article is useful. It may not be important to you but it's survived 4 nomianation so obviously a lot of people find it useful, so why in the world would you want to deny people the opportunity to read it? I don't understand. And if you honestly feel that racial economic disparity at the highest level is not an important subject then we're living on different planets. Editingoprah 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, please read all the policies over again - you're completely misapplying them. Wikipedia ain't a crystal ball would prevent us from saying Tiger Woods will become a billionaire (a prediction) but it doesn't prevent people from going Hey look, Tiger Woods is pretty rich (verifiable). Similarly, Wikipedia ain't a publisher o' original thought means you can't use it to publish your opinions - opinions published elsewhere can be repeated here. Maybe it wasn't clear that this means only Wikipedia is not a first publisher of original thought but also everything in here is either original thought or original research by someone at somepoint, published somewhere else, then republished here. That's how encyclopaedias work, and a general requirement of an empirical outlook. WilyD 12:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am thoroughly familiar with the policies I mentioned. My argument about crystal ball statements and original research hinges upon the fact that Tiger woods, according to the article's sources, has a disputed net worth of about a half-billion dollars or less. The article does not simply say "Tiger is rich", but rather "Tiger woods is likely to become a billionaire", and extrapolating on the given data without citing a source that claims he is likely to become a billionaire is a prediction and original research. --S0uj1r0 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• That said, there's not much point in debating about it now. The article is still around, and, like all articles, should cite its sources and not offer up original claims. Fortunately, it's pretty good about that right now, but could always become better. I've decided to devote some time to improving the article since, after four AfD nominations, it seems to be around for good. --S0uj1r0 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words you hadn't even read the article before advocating its deletion. Please discuss major changes on the talk page, since many of the regulars don't have time to track a rapid fire series of edits. Thank you. Editingoprah 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add emphasis to my comments on the talk page or otherwise modify them. They exist as a matter of record to other editors and should not be changed unless they exhibit personal attacks as per Wikipedia policy. I read the article before advocating its deletion, and I'm not sure where your allegation that I haven't originates. Please address the changed I made above. --S0uj1r0 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I didn't vote in the AFD for this article, however I do believe that the article should be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards if it is kept. OSU80 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of black

The only way we can keep this thing somewhat NOPV is by providing Forbes' definition of black, not yours or anyone else's. There will never be an agreement here as to who black is or not, especially with some editors making pronouncements such as "He's Blasian" and "many feel Chinese is the genetic opposite of black". Furthermore, refrain from rumormongering, and leave your own assumptions and conclusions out of the article. This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. --Ezeu 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you feel the defintion of black in the article was racist? Everyone agrees that modern humans started in Africa so what's wrong with defining blacks as those with a majority of ancestors that stayed in Africa during the original out of Africa exodus? That's how scientists define it. To me the one drop rule is racist, and also virtually everyone on Earth has at least one drop of black blood. Kobrakid 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article you cite does not define "black", it deals with the subject of human migration out of Africa, and in any case, Oppenheimer's theory, as plainly noted on the linked page, does not reflect general scientific consensus – and actually deals more with the origin of Europeans than what is relevant here. So if you are going to use it in an encyclopedia, you should make it clear that it is not a generally held view. But I beg your pardon for calling the definition racist, I should have called it flawed. --Ezeu 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems good enough for our purpose which is defining black. Yes scientists may disagree on some of the fine points, but there's a basic consensus that modern humans started in Africa, and those that left Africa went on to form the non-black races. Do you honestly disagree with that? Now if later on another study finds it wasn't just one migration but two, or that it wasn't 70,000 years ago but 60,000 years ago, we can always update the definition, but it's more important to define black in a precise and scientific way, just as billionaire has a precise and objective definition. I vote we put it back in. If we don't put it back in people will start adding all sorts of nonsense to the page (i.e. so and so has a great great grandmother who is black and thus he's a black billionaire too). Just as the line defining billionaire is clearly drawn, the line defining black should also be clearly drawn as it is by geneticists who say most of your ancestors have to have stayed in sub-Sahran Africa for a certain amount of time for you to genetically qualify as black. Kobrakid 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Defining who is, or is not black cannot be done as easily as defining who is a billionaire or not. Your definition categorically disregards from all non-African people who self identify as black, which is extreme POV. It is not within the scope of this article to make sweeping definitions about something that cannnot be agreed upon. --Ezeu 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself to be fairly educated when it comes to race, and this is the first I've ever heard of non-African people calling themselves black. Obviously there are billions of people in the world, and the term black is going to be used in a lot of different ways, but as an encyclopedia I think we need to stick to scientific conceptions of black. Obviously black can be used in all kinds of informal ways, some of them even metaphorical, like when Toni Morrison called Clinton the first black president. But cultural, social, and metaphorical definitions of black should be given much less weight in an encyclopedia than scientific definitions. Even the definition you wanted to use "African ethnicity" acknowledges the importances of African ancestry, the only problem was it was vaguely defined and insufficiently precise. Keep in mind that "billionaire" is also sometimes used informally by people to describe anyone who is super rich, regardless of whether they actually cross the billion dollar mark, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia has to stoop to that level of inprecision. The definition of black that was being used is very middle of the road (not the extremes of the one drop rule or the opposite extremes of Brazil). Like your definition it emphasized African herritage, the only difference is that it precisely explained what that means (since all people started in Africa) and also precisely drew the line at how much African ancestry is required (since all humans are mixed to some degree). We have a very precise definition of billionaire. It would be nice if we could also have a very precise definition of black. It will certainly save us headaches from later editors if the definition is clear to everyone from the outset. Kobrakid 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you think you are educated. You can however not pick a definition of "black" that suits your "education" and impose it on others. Not in wikipedia. You may not consider Papua New Guineans and aboriginals black, but that is your point of view. --Ezeu 20:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

True. It's also my point of view that one plus one equals two, but I'll be sure not to impose that on anyone :-) Kobrakid 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What about those Black trillionaires?

I want to see more commentaries about the Black trillionaires. The world is overrun with Black billionaires, so there is not real reason to speak of those commonplace people. The Black trillionaires are more rare, and therefore they are significantly more interesting (to me). Superslum 21:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

if you're going to pass sarcastic commments dont make a new heading for them atleast. However I do feel that this article is completely arbitrary. --204.92.192.254 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This topic is excellent

This topic permits anyone to understand why human beings wage wars to establish homelands. Oprah Winfrey is a descendant of slaves who lives in someone else's country, so she is under a microscope. The Catholic church is very rich, but no one has created any article that is titled Catholic billionaires. (I have not seen any such article). Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In the United States of America, Negroes of 2006 are relatively poorer today than the Negroes of 1956 had been, when compared to other peoples over those 50 years of time. Percentagewise, their salaries have declined, compared with the salaries of other peoples. Modern Negroes sleep in abandoned railway tunnels in some cities here in the great "Superslum" where I live. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Caucasians who own the United States of America know that the money in the banks is theirs. Oprah Winfrey does not own anything that the Caucasians who own the banks cannot extract from her. She could lose all of her money in two seconds ... as she is incapable of protecting it. Human beings who own their own nations are rich people. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually even dictators who own their own countries can have their money taken away from them if a more a powerful country decides to do so, or if there's an internal revolt. Your arguments apply to everyone. Not black billionaires only. Editingoprah 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A am not arguing anything. I am claiming that Oprah Winfrey is in a position that resembles the position of the Jews of Russia before the beginning of pogroms. She can be eliminated in a flash. She does not resemble a dictator, of course; she resembles the landless, nationless types who draw attention to themselves as soon as they outshine the members of the land-owning group and achieve some success. I am not shocked by the appearance of this article called Black billionaires. It was just a matter of time until some unhappy individual created that page. Superslum 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Former U.S. President "Ron" Reagan teased Negroes by ordering them to "work your way out of poverty." He knew that he could snatch money out of poor peoples' bank accounts by signing new laws which give tax breaks to rich landowners. The smirk on his face was there because he was a rich landowner whose assets are protected by the U.S. Army. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Black trillionaires own North America, Antarctica, and they may take over Asia, too, including Siberia. Black trillionaires intend to own Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury real soon. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ignorant, Superslum. But there *are* more black billionaires than listed here. Obviously, not a WHOLE bunch more, but a few more... keep in mind, to make the Forbes list or any other list, you have to TELL them about your money, and it has to all be in ONE bank... plenty of billionaires put their money in more than one bank, and thus it wouldn't all be counted. Plus, many billionaires also don't want people to KNOW they're billionaires.

To the above anonymous author, lol do you even know how wealth works? You think the billionaires are billionaires because they have a billion dollars in a single bank account? Please don't be ignorant, almost all billionaires are so because they own stakes in corporations, companies etc, and not cash in bank. And Forbes won't be stupid enough to just look at one bank account of a person to determine his wealth, Forbes takes time and effort to investigate and find out all a person's assets to give a best estimate, usually a close one. --wil osb 10:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem

The identification of billionaires with a USD billion is problematic. Other countries certainly don't use billionaire to mean USD billion - Canadians use CDN, British use pounds, Aussies use their dollar, et cetera. This needs to be fixed. WilyD 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this work for you?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like that's been solved by the title change.--M@rēino 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Okay, a reversion war isn't needed (or allowed), so let's try to hash out a version of the article that's acceptable to everyone. I'll bring up a few points

• The article already links to Black people so an in depth discussion of what "makes a person black" isn't needed here. A short mention of the irregularities on this issue is sufficient.

• As long as the discussion on the first Black guy to make Forbes 400 should make clear that he is not considered a billionaire - but a mention at the end should be fine, for historical context and the like - especially in the context of things like inflation.

• I know there's a strong urge to editorialise a sensitive subject like this, but we have to remain objective.

WilyD 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. This article is about Black billionaires. It is not about the meaning of "black", the question of who is black, or racial theory. We have plenty of seperate articles for that. Keeping articles on the topic stated in the title helps people find what they are looking for, and helps to keep all the articles in top condition. The best way to keep to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all those other important principles is to stick to the topic at hand, which is the phenomenom of black billionaires.--M@reino 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its fine as it stand save for that last sentence of Black-Asian Billionaire. That's editorializing.

It is in fact fine if we can attribute it to Black Enterprise magasine (or whomever). As I read things, that's where this opinion comes from - it would be better if we directly attribute it to someone. But since there is a dispute about whether he's black, it's not for use to decide, per WP:NPOV WilyD 11:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• After reading Wily's comments and re-reading the whole article, it might be best to move Michael Lee-Chin into the billionaires list and out of his own section. After all, if Forbes and Black Enterprise consider him black, who are we to say otherwise? I think we're probably committing original research.--M@reino 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this true? I can't find it, but I was under the impression that Forbes did *not* count hiw as black, and that's where the origin of the whole issue is. Am I mistaken? WilyD 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, to be most accurate, Forbes does not break down billionaires (or anyone else) by race as a matter of policy. They don't even mention that Oprah Winfrey is black.[1] Here's Lee-Chin's entry (along with a MUCH nicer photo; it's a shame that it's under copyright) [2]--M@reino 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Are we sure they've never said anything about it? It seems like the kind of thing they might mention as an aside someplace? Anyways, if we can't find any such source, then he should go onto the chart, I agree WilyD 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Forbes does not consider Michael-Lee Chin Black. They made a huge deal about how Bob Johnson and Oprah were the first 2 black billionaires they could ever confirm, even though Lee-Chin was on their list before either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:72.1.195.5 (talk • contribs)
          • Okay - good. Do you know where the source for this is? WilyD 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Well here's one source by the respected CBS news calling Bob Johnson the first black billionaire and making it sound like Oprah and Johnson were the only blacks ever on Forbes lists, despite the fact that Michael-Lee Chin was there too http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/27/world/main542300.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Two things: one, that means that CBS is defining black, not Forbes. Two, your source is from early 2003, and it says "...two years after Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson became the first black billionaire." Lee-Chin only cracked the billion mark in 2001, so maybe he did so after Robert Johnson. I don't know. But yes, it does look like CBS was disputing -- or ignoring -- Lee-Chin, either b/c he's not American or because he's only half-black.--M@reino 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CBS was not the only one to report the same statistics. USA today had an almost identical story. Both get their data from Forbes, unless you're suggesting that CBS themselves went through the hundreds of billionaires on the list themselves to decide who was Black. Also, in Forbes profile on Bob Johnson they categorically describe him as the first black billionaire even though both Bob Johnson and Michael Lee-Chin appeared on Forbes billionaire list for the first time in 2001. And Forbes only creates its international billionaire list once a year and based on market value on a specific day of the year (in January?), so as far as Forbes is concerned both Michael Lee-Chin and Bob Johnson became billionaires at the same time, yet only Bob Johnson was described as the first black billionaire. This is probably because people of mixed race parents are assigned the race of the non-Caucasian parent, but when both parents are non-Caucasian (i.e. Michael Lee-Chin, Tiger Woods) they are just described as bi-racial....72.1.195.5 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• :And CBS and Forbes are thereby adhering to the One drop rule, something which is completely in line with (white-)American cultural standards.--Brian Tjoe-Nij 22:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes

To this article need to stop. Someone needs to lock it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Max1975 (talk • contribs)

• I'm very impressed that you know about locking already, since this was only your third edit! I always like it when knew people educate themselves into Wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree. In this case, I think it's a sign of healthy and constructive group editing of an article that is brand-new (created yesterday) on a rather important topic, and therefore is bound to need lots of editing. --M@reino 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • • Several of us have been guilty of violating WP:3RR, but since we've settled down, there's no point in blocking us now to let us cool off, since we're already cool. I don't believe a lock is necessary yet, anyhow. WilyD 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does genetic opposites discussion keep getting edited out?

I think it's interesting to point out that not only is Lee-Chin only half Jamaican (who are mostly black) but that his other half is the exact opposite of black. Someone posted a genetic chart showing that North East Asians are the opposite of Black, so overall he may be less black than most white billionaires (who are neither Black nor the opposite of Black). And yes North East Asia was extremely cold when it was colonized.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 (talk • contribs)

Several reasons

• • It reeks of original research, and is at the very least uncited
  • It adds nothing to the discussion of Black billionaires, especially nothing that's appropriate for this page. There are already several links to discussion of multi-racial people here, where this kind of thing would be more appropriate (if it could be cited)
  • It's pushing a POV

There are probly others, I wasn't the one who excised it, but those are the obvious problems with it that I see WilyD 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'll add a fourth thing: those edits kept on insisting that NE Asia (which in this context means China, not Siberia) is the coldest and last-colonized place on earth. That's simply not true. The entire Western Hemisphere was colonized after NE Asia, and huge swathes of Europe, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, and Patagonia are much colder than China. So even if this information were relevant, it's wrong. --M@reino 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the climate today with the climate of ancient times. The North East Asian race had more exposure to the ice ages than any other race, and that's one of the reasons they have their unique features. And genetic evidence suggests they and their cousins (the Native Americans) are the youngest human race, and they split off from the parent population of Caucasians and Caucasians split off from their parent population which are Africans. Thus while Europeans are once removed from Africans (Africans are their parents), North East Asians are twice removed from Africans (Africans are their grand-parents). That means that Blasians are who are a mix of Africans and those twice removed from Africans are on average only once removed from Africans (just like white people). For this reason, on the genetic level, Blasians are genetically no closer to Black people than white people are, so if you're going to call Michael Lee-Chin a black billionaire, then Bill Gates is one too. Are you guys following what I'm trying to say?...72.1.195.5 23:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We understand your argument, we just reject it for the article on the basis that its original research, and that iit's not germane to the discussion at hand, and reject it on the talk page because its almost certainly false. WilyD 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you're calling it original research tells me you don't understand. Are you crediting wikipedians with discovering one of the most significant findings of modern genetic reasearch? It's the research of Cavalli-Sforza. And it's outrageous to claim it's not germaine to the discussion. The discussion is about whether Lee-Chin is black, and you say it's not germaine to report cutting edge research showing half his ancestors are the most genetically removed from Blacks. It's actually the single most encyclopedic thing in the entire article and it's extremely POV to try to to censor something so relevant to the discussion. It's withholding of information, and it's insulting to Robert Johnson's legacy to give the impression that Lee-Chin could be black (based on some obscure magazine) while withholding much more authoritative data.--Whatdoyou 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Then put a link to Cavalli-Sforza in one of the see-also sections. Don't add it to this article. And the chart that you're trying to include is not from Cavalli-Sforza, it's from the website of a crank who writes for the Charles Martel Society. --M@reino 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't why you feel so threatened by this, but I just want people to understand that Lee-Chin is genetically not black because I don't want to see Bob Johnson's legacy threatened without justification. And the graph appears in Cavalli-Sforza's book the history and geography of human genes. It's cited by all kinds of people (cranks and credible scholars)--Whatdoyou 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a lovely point of view, but it simply isn't encyclopaedic, and not appropriate for an article like this - there are other articles where the research (without the commentary) are far more appropriate. Not all of us (if any of us, which seems dubious) feel threatened by this - I myself cannot give a flying fuck about who the first black billionaire is/was/will be, but I do care about WP:NPOV. WilyD 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just read Wikipedia's Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza article. It doesn't even mention the possibility that, once racial categories are acknowledged as genetically based, that any one race is "further" or more "removed" than any other race. You should focus on finding sources in Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's own work that would support adding this assertion to the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza article before you even try adding it elsewhere. --M@reino 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you guys are both great editors, but on this one issue I feel you are not well informed. Cavalli-Sforza's book is over 1000 pages and contains mountains of data showing the genetic distance between different population groups. It's not mentioned in his article because people feel so threatened by the link between genes and race that the second anyone adds it massive editing wars break out. But by withholding the genetic data while citing other sources calling Lee-Chin black, you are not being balanced, and you are leading people to conclude that perhaps Bob Johnson was not the only confirmed billionaire black man in history after all. This is extremely unfair and extremely dishonest when modern genetic data confirms that Lee-Chin is no more Black than Europeans are. If you literally take the mid-point of the genetic distance between Blacks and North East Asians (i.e. Blasians), it's about the same as the genetic distance between Blacks and Europeans, which means that Blasians are no closer to Black than Europeans are. Hence it's EXTREMELY misleading and dishonest to give the impression that Lee-Chin could be black. I'm not trying to go into graphic detail about this topic in the article. I just want it briefly mentioned in the interest of full disclosure. It looks like we might have found a compromise--Whatdoyou 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look, here are the important points:

1. This may all well be good research, but this simply isn't the place for it. Take it to Black people or whatever - the article on Canada does not go into a long speil about what is or isn't a country, and the history of countries - it merely wikilinks to an appropriate place for the discussion. That he's multiracial and that this causes some to discount him as black is all that's really appropriate here. We really have no business rehashing the whole argument here.
2. Even if it turns out that East Asians are farthest from blacks, with whites closer to each, crossing the first two doesn't necessarily equate to the third option, that's original research (that would, for example, be rejected by the adherents of the one-drop theory, I imagine.

There are likely more, but these are the most pressing two WilyD 17:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's outrageous to claim that this is not the right place for the research. This is the only article that discusses a dispute about whether a Blasian is Black, so there is no more relevant a place to discuss this. And I'm not trying to rehash the whole argument. I just want it briefly mentioned. You scaled my edits down and in the interest of compromise I accept that because at least you're letting it be mentioned. And I'm not even trying to reinsert the section about him being genetically no closer to Black than a European is (you don't want that in the article I understand) but it's a mathematical reality that if Europeans are 1 genetic step from Blacks, and North East Asians are 2 genetic steps from Blacks, and Blacks are 0 genetic steps from Blacks (since they are Black) then Blaisians who are an average of Blacks and North East Asians would equate to Europeans in terms of genetic distance from Blacks. But again I'm happy with your recent edit, and have no intention of pushing this any further as long as we can keep it as you left it.--Whatdoyou 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So what are you guys saying, if you're half-Black and half-Asian, you therefore cancel yourself racially? Kinda like matter and anti-matter? This is the stupidest discussion ever. If you're blasian, half of your ancestors came from Africa, half from Asia, therefore you possess both African and Asian genes, therefore you are both. How hard is that to understand?

Cavalli-Sforza

According to an article published in The Economist, the work of Cavalli-Sforza "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all."

Has Whatdoyou even bothered to check that little fact? He mentions the work of Cavalli-Sforza as though it’s monumental in pointing out the differences between races, which incidentally has been the excuse for all kinds of human tragedy. That statement really doesn't belong there because its Whatdoyou's opinion -- which is not even a real interpretation of what Cavalli-Sforza thought of his own work.

Pointing out so called genetic differences has lead to sentiments of race superiority which in turn historically has led to: 1. Nazis killing Jews; 2. Slavery of African Americans, poor whites, and even Chinese in South America; 3. Japanese killing Chinese and Koreans; 4. The Rwandan massacre; 5. Modern day racism and oppression of minorities in America; 6. Arabs/Muslims versus Jews and Western Society

And the list goes on and on...that would be some of the points behind NOT putting in this piece of information into this article.

Finally, let's add the fact that there are no really and truly "black" people in the America's. Not many people may have seen it, but Henry Louis Gates recently had a special (DNA heritage among blacks) in which he showed that the majority of Mae Jemison's (first "black" female astronaut) genes were ASIAN. However when one looks at Mae Jemison is that what you see before you? I'm sure many people (including Mae Jemison) would say no. Therefore being black has way more to do with how you self identify rather than so called genetics.

We have to be balanced and show all sides. Tiger Woods does not sel-identify as Black because of his Asian ancestry. And some who self-identify as Black are not percieved that way by others. That's why it's important to look at race from a genetic perspective. If a Blasian were to tell a doctor that he was Black and get medical treatemnet based on Black genetics he would die, so medical text books talk about how important it is to make sure people know what race they are and to look past self-identification and appearance.....72.1.195.5 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Mae Jemison's genes were NOT Asian. She has ONE Asian Grand parent. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06032/647467.stm

Can you add references to these medical books? I've never heard of anyone dying because they didn't tell their doctor that they are black. Mapetite526 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That chart and this article

Says nothing. Everyone knows that in America particularly race matters. In this article it matters even more because the assertion that is being made and has been made overtly is that blacks are incapable of being billionaires and BEING BLACK. That the real racism behind adding that piece.

Most of you on here: Let's look at all the components of a person! Especially if he or she is "black"! They must have some other genes that account for their achievement. All or most so called African Americans or Africans in the Americas have other genes the majority Caucasian genes. So let's follow your ignorant argument that Asians and Caucasians are closest on the tree. That would mean by proxy, as a result of slavery most African American (who have been removed from African for damn near three centuries!) are the FURTHEST thing from African possible, and closer to Asians that you think. That is what makes that chart UNAPPLICABLE!

It does not take into account the mixtures that have happened as a result of chattel slavery and generations of Afro-European mixtures.

You're not making any sense. African-Americans are on average 83% African and 17% Caucasian. They are Black because Black is the single largest chunk of their gene pool. No person on Earth is 100% pure so race is defined by the single largest chunck of ones ancestry. It's been pointed out that Michael Lee-Chin is 45% Black, 5% white and 50% Chinese so he's not predominantly Black, and any doctor that gave him medical treatment intented for Blacks would be fired especially since the Chinese gene-pool is the opposite of the Black gene-pool.--Whatdoyou 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Medical treatment intended for blacks?!? You mean like Tuskegee Syphilis Study? That's hardly appropriate! And how does someone become 1/20th white, or 1/20th anything? Shouldn't it be a factor of 2? --M@reino 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are certain (although uncommon) cases where race does play a factor in medical treatment - there are certain diseases where different drugs are perscribed based on race, et cetera. As for 2 factors, that's only a single ancestor case. With a mixture of ancestory, one can approach arbitrary fractions. WilyD 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to see references here. I have never heard of anyone dying because their doctor didn't know what "race" they were. Mapetite526 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

CALM

DOWN!

We're trying to write an encyclopedia here. Wikipedia never solves disputes, we just report on them neutrally. If anyone wants to take this "who is black and who's not" discussion to blacks, be my guest, but on the Black Billionaire page, all we have do to is note "look around, and you'll see some well-meaning people who disagree", and then move on. Sorry to shout at the start of this section, but I would really like it if we'd just try to get along and move on to other topics. --M@reino 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Points

1. Science is always arguable - any scientist can tell you this, but if you want an obvious example, see Modified Newtonian Dynamics. There are few if any scientific theories or observations that don't have detractors.
2. Whatyoudo, you're still trying to make the point that whites are somehow "more black" than orientals. This is a pretty controversial claim, one I (frankly) don't see the logic in. Blue light is closer to X-Ray light than Red light is, but a beam of light that's 50% red light and 50% X-Ray light is just as "X-Ray-y" as a beam of light that's 50% blue light and 50% X-Ray light, as both blue and red light are "0% X-Ray-y".

WilyD 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Willy D it would be like having an article about tall billionaires and including someone as a tall billionaire because half their ancestors are tall, and then withholding from the reader the fact that the other half oth their ancestors are short so it cancels out. That's both misleading and dishonest. Just give the reader all the imfo and let them decide if he's black or part black or multi-racial. We shouldn't censor information, especially first-rate science.--Whatdoyou 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, here's the point we're making. If we say Half his ancestors were tall, half were short, that's appropriate, just as we now say Half his ancestors are black, half are oriental. It's the attempts to say So it cancels out that everyone is objecting too (or at least, it's the part I find objectionable). That much fails both WP:NPOV and WP:OR in terms of elidgibility for inclusion. Beyond that, this is not the place to discuss what makes someone tall, that's an appropriate subject for discussion at Tall people. WilyD 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Incidentally, I agree with you that the smaller picture looks much better. WilyD 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but what some others here are trying to do is say half his ancestors are tall, and the other half comes from this part of the world (without allowing it to be mentioned that that part of the world is short, and thus dishonestly giving the impression that the billionaire is more tall than not). The reason this bothers me is that by withholding the fact that North East Asians are genetically the most distant from Blacks, we're allowing people to believe that Michael Lee-Chin could be Black, when in reality Blasians do no better with Black organ transplants than white people do, and indeed are hardly any more Black than Europeans are at the genetic and biomedical level. The reason this bothers me is because Bob Johnson has earned his place as the first and only Billionaire Black man in the history of capitalism, and people are challenging his title by giving the unscientific impression that Michael Lee-Chin could be Black too. I like the idea of keeping this article nice and precise and mathematically objective. Forbes defines you as a billionaire if you have a net-worth equivalent to at least $1 billion in U.S. dollars (the most universal currency) and not one penny less. Similarly in biology, your Black if your number of ancestors that stayed in Sub-Saharan Africa during the homo S. Sapians original out of Africa migration(s) reaches MAJORITY, and not a single ancestor less. Unfortuantely however we will get all these wishywashy editors who will argue that even though person X's ancestry is less than majority Black, person X is Black because he gets treated like a black man when he tries to catch a taxi. Next we'll have people arguing, even though person X is only worth $600 million, he's a billionaire because he lives the life of a billionaire, socially identifies as a billionaire, and gets treated like a billionaire when he shops at fancy stores.--Whatdoyou 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but this is just an opinion about what makes someone black - and we don't get to make decisions about what does (or doesn't) make someone black. Plenty of people would disagree. IFF some reputable source starts calling everyone with 500+ million a billionaire, well then it'll be tough shit for us, they'll be included. Similiarly if some reputable source identifies someone as black, we can't decide they're wrong - we can only say something like, others disagree. We can't even try to sneakily make the argument that they're wrong, that still fails policies like WP:OR. It's fairly obvious that in standard english usage you can be "black" whilst having a minority of black ancestors - you may wish this wasn't true, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox - it's an encyclopaedia. WilyD 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on the time, place, and individual. During the days of the one drop rule, someone who was 1/32th Black was considered Black, but in much of Latin America and Africa, terms like mulatto and quadroon frequently differentiate those who are part Black from those who are mostly Black. Even within the United States there are a lot of people who are half Black who are not identified as Black. Generally people who are half-white and half something else are defined by their non-white ancestry and that's probably because a lot of white racial traits are genetically recessive and so white ancestry is less visible in mixed race phenotypes. But when 2 non-white races mate, the offspring is more balanced-in someone like Michael Lee-Chin you can really see the Chinese, especially in the first photo, which is probably why it was replaced. Because I understand that different people draw the line in different ways, I redesigned the chart to accomodate those who take a one drop rule perspective vs. those who define Blacks the way every other race is defined (by preponderance of ancestry). My main point is that the truth about Michael Lee-Chin's ancestry should not be censored. Yes it's POV to say that his North East Asian ancestry cancels out his Black ancestry, but it's important for people who consider mullatoes Black to understand that Blasians are genetically much further removed from Blacks than mulattoes are. If this is not mentioned, Bob Johnson's legacy could be jeopardized and that would be an enormous tragedy.--Whatdoyou 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But we're not censoring information about his ancestory - we're moving the parts that aren't about him, but about blacks in general, to a far more appropriate article black people or something of that ilk. Would you call him black if he was half-white half-black, but not half-chinese, half-black? This seems unlikely (but not impossible, after all under the one drop rule, you can still have a bunch of indian ancestory and be white) - so that's not really on topic here. To not say anything about what his ancestory is would also be inappropriate, but we're delving deep into here for reasons that can't really be justified - there are better articles to do that (hence "see also:") WilyD 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just call him Canadian? Mapetite526 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson, but I think that the section on him right now is potentially libellous, in that it implies that he actually tried to spread the story that he's a billionaire, when as it came out in the media (and the Slate article demonstrates it), he was just the victim of an idiot reporter. Since everyone's freaking out about any changes to the article, I'm posting this to give 24 hrs notice before I try to rewrite the section again. --M@reino 15:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Given that the verbatium is right there, can you maybe be more specific about what you think is objectionable? WilyD 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• After looking at the evidence, multiple people (such as Barbara Walters) seem to have taken him seriously - it isn't our place to conclude he's not being serious. WilyD 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • He was being serious, it's just that "over there" doesn't mean "more than", it means "close enough". Read the Slate article. --M@reino 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides, I don't think we should list it everytime someone claims to be a billionaire. Open up a community newspaper, and you'll find all sorts of crackhead homeless people claiming to be billionaires or the King of Zaire. Doesn't mean they are. --M@reino 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, though if reliable third party sources are documenting it, then they may be ... in any event, a major news source seems to have taken Jackson seriously enough to investigate it - it's thus reasonable to address the issue - there's no reason to take the Slate article's view that Jackson didn't mean Over a billion any more seriously than 20/20 view that he did. I myself speak neither American nor British English and I would certainly say that Jackson sounds like he's claiming to be a billionaire. As for other cases, we can address them as we come to them. WilyD 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD/Article Purpose

I saw the AfD for this article and decided to give it a look. I made the following comment in the AfD discussion -- a response suggested a Move might be in order and that discussion might be more appropriate for this Talk page. So here's my original comment: If this article were only about billionaires who happen to be black (however you want to define that), it would be fine although the article title should be plural. However, most of the article is about other things: poverty rates, women, racism, rumors, claims, businesses, and people who aren't even on the list yet -- a list which currently has only one person on it. This effort would be better directed as something like Economic Advancement of Black People. Calling it "Billionaires" is too limiting for what the article is trying to achieve. HalJor 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't care much for the title, either. But the article is not really about poverty, women, or racism, at all, even though it refers to those subjects. It's more aptly titled "the richest known black people", but that doesn't sound very good, either. --M@reino 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• That seems to be a far more general topic than what the article is - it really only addresses the issue of black billionaires (of which the current number isn't really important - Wikipedia is more like a history text than a newspaper), and/or richest black people. Of course there's a strong theme of the economic position of black people, which is fairly relevent to the subject. WilyD 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think the title of the article is perfect. The words Black and Billionaire sound good together (both have that B and L sound) and virtually everything in the article relates to Black billionaires or people who may one day become black billionaires. Yes some people discussed in the article are not fully billionaires (P Diddy) and some are not fully Black (Michael Lee-Chin) but the general theme is Black billionaires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottoupload (talk • contribs)
  • First, the "sound" of a title is hardly an adequate criterion for its justification. Second, anyone "may one day" become a billionaire -- it's just a lot easier for those who have a head start (and those people are merely "currently wealthy"). And finally, please sign your comments. HalJor 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should change the title since virtually everyone discussed in the article is either a Black billionaire or resembles one (i.e. South Africa's first half-billionaire Black, Michael Lee-Chin is a half-black billionaire, Tiger Woods is a quarter-Black Quarter-Billionaire, Bob Johnson is a former Black Billionaire, Michael Jackson's a self-proclaimed Black billionaire). So Black Billionaire must stay in the title but if it really bothers people we could change the title to "Black Billionaires & centi-millionaires" or go even broader and call it "Black billionaires & millionaires"--Whatdoyou 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Ok, the old title was kinda iffy, but "Wealthy black people"? No, no, no, no, no. What sort of an encyclopaedia article is that? Nonsense. Guettarda 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that my rename was probably not the best, so I will revert and delete my suggestions. But this article needs to be renamed.--Ezeu 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I really am not sure what the point of this page is - I looked at the AFD debate and I couldn't make up my mind how to vote. But there are a few things to bear in mind

• Race is based on self-identification. Calling Lee-Chin "half black" doesn't make any sense unless that is how he considers himself. Most African Americans have substantial non-African ancestry, but "quadroon" and "octaroon" are terms that hearken back to the early days of slavery. Classifying people in ways they haven't classified themselves isn't acceptable.
• "Black" means different things in different places. It isn't a precise term. Be aware of that.
• "Billionaire" is a very US-centric expression - $1,000,000,000 isn't a billion is Britain, and J$1,000,000,000 is very different from US$1,000,000,000. Guettarda 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Most African-Americans have about 17% not-African ancestry. Michael Lee-Chin seems to have about 55%. It's equally offensive to describe him as Black because then we're promoting the one drop rule which is based upon the assumption that a drop of Black blood contaminates. The article simply reports the number of Billionaires who have predominantly African ancestry, any known African ancestry, and the total number of billionaires.

We're not promoting the one drop rule - Chin's ancestory is clearly explained, and then readers are invited to decide whether he's black, partially black, white, or whatever else, based on their personal racial classification system. WilyD 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Where do you get that 55% figure? Shouldn't it be 50%? Jamaica has a very large population that is 100% African, genetically. --M@rēino 22:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! No one's 100% African, not even people who live in the most isolated parts of Africa. People from the Caribean are 90% Black 10% White. Half Lee-Chin's ancestors are from the Caribean so to the best of our knowledge he's 45% Black, 55% non-African.

Jamaica is described as being 90% black, not Jamaicans. As for calling him black being insulting - that's your opinion, to which you are entitled, but blood quantum is meaningless. Most African Americans are a lot whiter than most Black Jamaicans (as opposed to mixed Jamaicans - after all, Bob Marley was rejected as a white man early in his career). Regardless, it isn't up to us to decide what constitutes "black enough". Lee-Chin has been described as a black businessman (I have not, on the other hand, heard him described as Chinese, though I'm sure he'd have been called "Chinee" in Jamaica).

If you really are insulted by mixed people being passed off as black, there are a lot of African Americans who are a lot less black than Lee-Chin - like Bob Marley. And while you're at it, maybe you should raise the issue of whether Beyoncé, Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X are "black enough" for you. Guettarda 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No there've been genetic tests on Black Jamaicans and they have 10% European DNA admixture, probably infused into the gene pool during slavery. Also, as we've argued about before, Blasians have a genetic profile very similar to pure whites who are actually 65% East Asian and 35% African on the genetic level because East Asians split off from Europeans who split off from Africans. So a mulatto is more Black than a Blasian. A Blasian is about as Black as a quadroon, and quadroons are not usually considered Black.--Whatdoyou 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional reasons why the race of Blasians is ambiguous is because hypodescent was used to assign people to the the race of their non-white parent. Both the parents of Blasians are non-white so hypodescent doesn't work on them. Also a lot of white racial traits are genetically recessive and so white ancestry is hidden in mulattoes causing them to be identified as Black. But Asian racial traits are not genetically recessive so you can actually see the Sinoid features when you look at Blasians.--Whatdoyou 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

contradiction?

The oprah image caption states: "A year before becoming the world's only black billionaire, Winfrey became the first black woman billionaire." Out of curiosity, how can she be the world's only black woman billionaire before being the world's only black billionaire? Did all the richest black people die in that year? It seems logical that as soon as she became the "first black woman billionaire", she also (by logical necessity) became a black billionaire. So who died in that year? --Storkk 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• What's his face got divorced and lost a lot of money, so he was no longer a Billionaire. Bob Johnson? WilyD 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Table

If this article's going to exist, at least make it accurate. What about Ethiopian billionaires Tessema Dosho Shiffera (inventor of Bowflex), Noah Samara (inventor of XM Satellite radio), and Sheikh Hussein Mohammed Al Amoudi (who may be 1/2 Yemeni, but I haven't verified it; only one listed by Forbes and resides in Saudi Arabia)? There are some "half billionaires" too, I believe. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Iffen you've got some verifiable sources, please feel free to add them. I have none ... WilyD 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Most of those men are not billionaires. The only one listed by Forbes is Al Amoudi who is mentioned in the article and the chart even though he's only half Ethiopian (and Ethiopians themselves are racially ambiguous) Editingoprah 23:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopians are not racially ambiguous, and why do you say that the other two are not billionaires? Just because Forbes hasn't listed them doesn't mean that they cannot be billionaires. Just give me some time to get some reliable sources. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yom I already explained to you on the other board that Ethiopians are in between Blacks and Caucasoids, some argue that they're the first Caucasoids, or that Caucasoids are Ethiopoids if you prefer, but for now it doesn't matter since the fact that Forbes (the bible of the financial world) does not list them as billionaires is a reliable source that they are NOT billionaires. Many times people are described as billionaires simply because they own a billion dollar business, and people are incorrectly described as billionaires all the time. Editingoprah 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. All over the Black People article, you went on and on about how Black people should be recognized by the classifications of the US Census and what not. Well, they are black Census wise. Another thing you keep overlooking. Being Caucasoid has nothing to do with not being Black. Many Black people in the USA are caucasoid (DNA wise and cranium wise), we are not going to say "you're not black" Shall we go through all the American celebrities whose features are caucasoid or who are of a substantially White/European admixture and say "not black because they are caucasoid"? No. I thought not. We don't want to rob the black race now do we. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First the U.S. is unique in that it adhears to the racist one drop rule (countries like Brazil take the opposite perspective). Second, the Caucasoid features in African-Americans comes from race mixing, where the Caucasoid features in Ethiopians may be much more pure (i.e. some speculate they're the first Caucasoids who mutated off of Blacks instead of just a mix of Caucasoids and Blacks). In other words, unless Ethiopians are the product of racial mixing, the one drop rule and hypodescent doesn't apply to them. Not that we should be following those rules anyway since they're both racist and unobjective. Editingoprah 11:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just follow those rules when you feel comfortable right EO. Good objectivity! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anthropological wording is inappropriate

"Peoples of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry (formally known as Negroids in physical anthropology) are 8% of the world’s population"

Firstly the mention of "negroids" and then the use or the entire sentance worded as it is is inappropriate because it's speaking from an Anthropological perspective, totally uncalled for in this article. It distances the dignity and dehumanizes the people in question. It's unnecessarily anthropolgically worded. Need I elaborate with more clarity? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The word Negroid is used because the reference describing the percent of Blacks worldwide is based on the population of anthropological races so people wont no where the 8% figure is coming from unless we mention the term used in the article. Also the way you keep broadening the definition of Black in the Black people article to include Indians etc, we may have to retitle the article Negroid billionaires. People like you are the ones that force us to use such archaic terms. Editingoprah 11:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a tough choice. Either describe us in the article like gorillas and lemurs or use an archaic word. Hmmm.. what to do. Oh I know, how about you clarify and use the phrase "Black African Diaspora" There are so many OTHER choices. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm taking it out anyway, it's inappropriate. Let's do the 3revert rule and see what happens when the moderators get their hands on it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EditingOprah I added another for you

I had noticed how concerned you were about the recognition of black people in Africa being respected and since it's obvious that this respect is only earned by money, I decided to add a Black African whom surpasses them all. Mobutu Sese Seko. Seeing as how you find it humiliating to recognize black Asians as being truly black, I did you a favor on this article. If you want I can participate even further in this article and any other article you are involved in. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zaph, thanks for your help. I tentatively reverted your edit, only because Forbes was never able to confirm Mobutu's billionaire status, the article you cited claimed he was worth "up to $5 billion" meaning it wasn't for certain, and this article claims he's worth much much less [[3]]. Editingoprah 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't care about this article either way. It's not something kids are going to learn much from. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy

I do not think categorising billionaire lists by race is what Wikipedia should do. A section on African-American Billionaires would be fine, since they represent a nations ethnic group. The blanket term "Black" seems distasteful at the very least and irrelevant to the goals of an Encyclopedia.

--Eggman64 05:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent rise in the usage of the word "Black" is tied to the demise of colonialism in Africa. President Kennedy and his administration were interested in becoming involved in South Africa. He introduced the word "Black" at his press conferences. Radios, newspapers, magazines, etc., reproduced his words, and the word "Black" is now the standard descriptive, after having replaced various other words, particularly Negro and Colored. The Kennedy administration sent Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Attorney General Robert Kennedy to South Africa, even though the fighting of the Vietnam War was being increased at that time. After the slave trade died down, Americans had always avoided Africa until the Kennedy administration. I was a mature adult by the time of the 1960 Presidential election. I saw what took place. My "source" of the commentaries is my own memory. GhostofSuperslum 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

This article comes across as having the assumption that Michael Jackson is not worth a Billion. It has not being proved or disproved that Michael Jackson is not a billionaire. Ridiculous statements such as

"Barbara Walters was quick to set the record straight. "As for his claim to be worth over a billion dollars," Walters explained, "industry sources tell us that Jackson’s last CD was not profitable and that his actual worth is in the two or three hundred million range. That’s hardly bad, but it’s nowhere near a billion."

highlights my point. His last album isn't his only album by any means. This sort of infomation isnt strong enough to be added to an encyclopedia because it is speculatory in its nature, so I have removed it. --81.152.48.58 10:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hava made some changes as I thought it was not NPOV. I have made it has fair as possible. The fact that it had Jacksons mug shot instead of a regular picture says a lot on its own. --OnesixOne 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• One free picture versus another is not a big deal. But Walters directly says that her investigation showed Jackson is worth less than $1 billion, and this is backed up by Forbes et al. Furthermore, she doesn't connect the last album with billionaire status as you seemed to read into it, and there's actually no reliable sources claiming Jackson is worth a billion apart from Jackson himself. WilyD 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Superficial Billionaire

Oprah Winfrey lives in a nation which is owned by Caucasians. Her wealth is insecure (to say the least). She may be "rich" one day and then "poor" the next because the owners of American banks may confiscate her holdings, and she cannot do a thing about it. GhostofSuperslum 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That could happen to anyone in the world. Not Oprah only. Anyone could have their wealth frozen or their power taken away. Minorcorrections

Few people have a significant portion of their assets as cash in a bank. People buy shares and property, Oprah has a number of properties that she owns outright, noone can take those from her. And if banks took her cash away from her she could sue, like anyone else could —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.111.31 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to be delete/radically changed

You cannot make the argument that someone part black is "black", since techinically that would include everyone since humans evolved from a singular ancestor line. Only thing I can see this wiki working is that all persons in it either have identified **themselves** as being "black" or those who have a verifiable(more or less) greater than 50% admixture of persons of black african ancestory. Aside from that, this needs to be deleted.And this is all completely ignoring the fact that this "list" has a SINGLE black billionaire on it. Ridiculous, absurd, borederline racist trash.Ernham 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• This article has survived a bunch of AfDs - concensus is definitely that it doesn't need to be deleted. If you believe either that it does, or that it needs a major overhall, or that an article that documents racist ideas is trash, you don't really get the purpose of Wikipedia.

1. Who identifies the person as black is not important, as long as we consider them reliable.
2. Wikipedia endorses one of its three key pillars as a neutral point of view - that means that although you might think it's disappointing, we're not here to endorse or condemn racist ideas. Merely to report them, the same as any other idea from reliable sources. Forbes, for example, is a reliable source.
3. The article lists at least two black billionaires. By the same logic dictating that this list has a single entry, the List of Prime Ministers of Canada has one entries - an absurd conclusion. WilyD 07:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

what the hell do you mean "who identifies the person as black is not important, as long as we consider them reliable"? How the hell else are they going to be listed? How do you define "labeling blackness" reliable? Would a geneticist be the gold standard? Some random idiot on the internet? Your response is as much confused nonsense as the wiki seems to be. Ernham 08:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're unsure of what consitutes a reliable source, please see WP:RS. For an example, here's an article from the Belfast Telegraph that describes Oprah as The richest black person on the planet. That is something I would qualify as a reliable source, and generally uncontraversially. The Wiki isn't confused about reliable sources except where exactly the line is drawn, but there are plenty of sources that are always reliable (nature papers, BBC articles, et al). As for deciding if different reliable sources disagree, we don't pick a side. We merely dispassionately report all positions. Hence all the "Bullshit". WilyD 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed some political editorializing

I took this out but then it was put back:

An article by The Nation however suggests that the Black-White economic gap within the United States (the country that produces the most billionaires of any race) can be expected to widen if Republican tax cuts are implemented, especially if the estate tax is repealed. Columnist Dalton Conley writes:

The federal estate tax, which has been in place since 1916, affects only the richest 1.4 percent of the deceased. As the law currently stands, the first $675,000 of net estate value is exempt from tax for individuals ($1.35 million for couples). Because of a 1997 change in the law, this exemption amount will rise steadily until it reaches $1 million for individuals ($2 million for couples) in 2006. Exemptions are even higher for businesses and farms. Since the number of African-Americans who would benefit is infinitesimally small, Bush's goal of eliminating the tax altogether would exacerbate the already growing wealth gap between blacks and whites..

Bob Johnson however has expressed support for repealing the estate tax.

This really has nothing to do with billionaires, black or otherwise. It also makes the article look like it is biased towards a political point of view rather than just giving the information on an interesting subject. You will turn off a lot of readers if they think you are trying to preach to them. Steve Dufour 04:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I restored the information, and here's why:

1. Being politically biased doesn't matter - a neutral point of view allows us to report biased viewpoints if we properly attribute them. Not only is this what NPOV means, it's also impossible to write an encyclopaedia without it.
2. The material is well sourced. Which means this information passes WP:RS and WP:V. Flying colours - no issues.
3. I'll admit my gut reaction to a deletion of sourced material with an explaination that includes wholly invalid reason is just to restore it. Your This is somewhat tangential argument may have merit - this I'm not so sure about. WilyD 16:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

black people

Using the def of black people as a base for this article so please stop deleting Al Moudi because his father is from yemen, most Yemen people are "Black" you wouldnt look at them and say they are Arab, esp since Arab isnt a race, see Arab hence you can be Arab and black people. So Arab + Black = Black. I dont know how someone can say they have more "black blood" than him and arnt black, this shows they have "issues" and are in some sort of denial, but we understand this hatred of Blackness and the denial syndrom, had Al Moud been a criminal and a racist they would be no debate about his Blackness.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Most Yemeni people are black? That's an incredibley misinformed comment. Yemenis are predominantly of Arab origin. True African admixture is present among some inhabitants, especially in the Yemen Hadramawt, but even here the population's DNA is only 35% Sub-Saharan, the highest level in the Near East. However, this is only on the female line, and Sub-Saharan admixture on the male line is virtually nill in the Arab world.[4] So his father is Arab, his mother is Ethiopian which means she's nearly half Arab. Arab + half Arab = Arab not black. And by the way I don't appreciate your personal attack telling me I have issue, in denial, and suffer from self-hatred simply because I don't consider myself and other mixed race people to be black based on some U.S. centric slavery based one drop rule. As discussed above we decide who is black based on reliable sources not blogs...Vexperiential

His mother isnt half Arab, Arab isnt a race go and read more and see the definition. I dont know why people dont read more go to Arab the people in Sudan are Arabs but they are 100% African. the source is valid. I said people have issues and are in denial, this is a condition of being oppressed where one is trained to hate Blackness, it is the legacy of slavery. If the cap fits wear it, but it is a general statement i have made long before you showed up here. We see it all over the place. Black is a curse it is offensive to call people "black" see the debate on Al Moudi. To continue see the definition at the head of this page, see the definition of black people by this definition we are free to add anyone fitting this def into this article. I am sure Oprah has non-African blood so what is she? And being from Yemen doesnt make you non-African, how many thosands of years have African lived there? have you seen his father? it is like saying he is American so he cannot be African!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

His mother is Ethiopian. Ethiopians are nearly half Caucasian from generations of mixing with Middle Easterners. His father is Middle Eastern. He is far more middle Eastern than black. I don't consider him black at all and neither does any reliable source. And no, blogs are not reliable sources. Vexperiential

Ethiopians are not 1/2 caucasian. There is very little Arab blood in Ethiopia according to genetic research, actually. Nazret.com is a newsite first, by the way. Just because it has a blog run by its members doesn't mean that it's unreliable. Is CNN's Anderson Cooper 360* Blog unreliable, too, just because it's a blog? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is 40% Arab blood in Ethiopians according to cited comments made on the other discussion board. The Ethioblog on Nazret.com is NOT a reliable source. I've posted articles there myself. Anyone can post anything. Vexperiential

There isn't, actually. The source is based on outdated autosomal DNA estimations, which cannot find the source of similarities, but only recognizes when two people have similar autosomal DNA mutation patterns. The shared DNA is due to Ethiopians being the direct descendents of the population that first left Africa and populated extra-African territories, not due to back-migrations into Ethiopia. Paternal (Y chromosome) and Maternal (mitochondrial) sex chromosomes are the only way to establish the origins of certain mutations and admixture in populations. These more recent genetic studies have not bore out the old autosomal estimates. Also, it does not accept contributions from readers in that section. There is an opinion and commentary section that does, but the other sections are written by Nazret.com authors. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But the cited sources on the other discussion page were based on sex chromosomes and were in agreement with the older autosomal studies. Also I know quite a bit about Ethiopia's history and there was massive interaction with the Arab world. Some Ethiopians look indistinguishable from Arabs. I posted an article on Nazret.com as part of a university project so I know it's not a reliable source. Vexperiential

In addition wikipedia clearly outlaws blogs as sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Blogs are not allowed as regular sources on regular topics so it's absurd to use it as a source for a living person discussion (which must meet higher standards of reliability) especially on a subject as controversial as race. Vexperiential

and what about CNN? read what you wrote. Anyone, but not anyone can run for control of CNN, only a few own the book houses, the same people that work Africans out of history, not anyone can work for BBC only white people or their puppets, not anyone can disucss slavery except a collection of white people because they have oppertunity and privallage. What about Harverd and Yale Uni, expert what? expert racist. J.D. Fage and Mr Gates what is the difference? So which one is it, anybody or the expert racist? people tried this same madness with the sites i cite www.africanholocaust.net and Rice N Peas, you see if Black people write something the above is true, "anybody can", when white write something it is expert. Racism. Now what makes me laugh is the Wiki quote the Cnn and the CNN quote the likes of Wiki, its a white mans world, Most Ethiopians dont have nice websites to discuss their issues like Arabs and Europeans have so they inherit a disadvantage. then they say the few sites we have are not credible, extream sources etc. its like Malcolm said the fox and the wolf, the rabbit doesnt have a chance.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia clearly states that blogs are not credible and I think that's wise policy. Blogs are not held to high editorial standards and when dealing with issues as controversial as the race of a living person, we must never be reckless. It may be true that Ethiopians have less access to the global media, but compromising wikipedia's standards (which are already low enough) just creates new problems Vexperiential

Can we lighten up a little?

(If you will pardon the expression that is. :-)) This is an interesting article but it is mainly about celebrities. I think the people who will be reading it will want to find some information about certain individuals. There must be be better places on WP for serious discussions about racial and ethnic identity. Steve Dufour 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• The reason it keeps getting put into here is that it gets rejected at more appropriate articles ... for various reasons. WilyD 14:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article on "racial identity" or something like that? Steve Dufour 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is probably black people or maybe race? WilyD 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Checked them both out. Much interesting information. Steve Dufour 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sub Sahara Africa moved

The issues of a few editors have no weight in determining encyclopedic content. The section black people is the source of the def in this article. thus we cannot invent new terms and definition just because of issues and confusion. Google search shows no concept of part black and hence it is not a valid term in the way it is being used. The correct term would be of African ancestry, Vesperiential has been blocked for his/her inablity to discuss before reverting, lets home this pattern has changed. part-black isnt a valid term, there is no article in wikipedia for a part-black race, it also contradicts the def on black people which it references. if you add it the quality of this article wil get a OR tag and may be deleted, as a editorial construction with no encyclopedic value.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since genes are not really black or white we cant say someone is half-black. They can have dual heritage, they can be "mixed race" and i dont like that word, they can be multi-Ethnic (although most African-Americans are, as well as (Hausa and Fulani mixes, Oromo and Amhara mixes) the most accurate def is heritage or ancestry--can we agree on that. Putting Not everybody agrees with the def is a POV as the def of Black people deals with this and this is not the place for this debate, thus i think this article is a child of the Black People article and we have to repect the hard work done there to establish a def.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan is not a good word either because many African live in North Africa, or many Black people are native to Morocco, so this term is very poor because it discounts people, see the issue with the African who was called white because he was from Egypt, Africans live all over the continent they always have, so you cant say Sub-Saharan because the Tureg live North and South of the desert.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Black people living North of the Sahara is a recent phenomenon. They're not indigenous to those areas and were frequently brought there during the slave trade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vexperiential (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Have you ever taken a DNA test? I have. sub-Saharan is the term they use when describing black ancestry and they can tell the exact percentage of sub-Saharan ancestry you have. A lot of the black people you think have always lived in North Africa would show up as sub-Saharan on a DNA test. As for the Egyptian who is suing the U.S. government to prove he is black, I read they want a DNA test to show he's of sub-Saharan descent and is not a typical Egyptian Vexperiential

I am happy to hear about your dna, thank Q, this article is not the place for the debate about Black identity, that is [black people]], Black people from North Africa are not Sub-Saharan, see pervious debate, see the term Sub-Saharan They didnt walk up to North Africa in 1981 for passports they have always been there, so the term excludes millions of people. again this article is not for debating blackness, see Black people for that and make your argument there, it is enough to refernce that article to discuss this one. You have one large POV, raw opinion, how do you know when "black" people got to Algeria? This is a serious claim which is outside of history, do you know the Turag? and teh Hausa and the Fulani? prior to Arabs and People from Rome and Greece and Spain.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be pushing some sort of Afrocentric agenda. I'm just going by mainstream science. When the FBI finds a DNA sample that is more than 50% sub-Saharan they start looking for a black suspect. If the black people in North Africa are indigenous to that area don't you think the climate would have made them lighter over all those generations? Vexperiential

[[5]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

This is not a forum, limit debate to improving this topic!

Let me remind users that the head of this page states clearly to limit the debate to improving Black Billionaries, not running off and discussing a topic which is not relevant here. The topic heading is clear and wiki is clear on using these pages as forums for debates and POV not related to the topic.Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you that it was you who started the sub-Saharan discussion in the first place over a content dispute you created. This discussion page is for discussing disputes that are started on this article. Just because the dispute concerned the Sahara desert doesn't mean you move it to that discussion page. That discussion page is reserved for disputes concerning THAT article, not a general discussion page about the Sahara. I don't appreciate you removing the posts of other editors from this talk page and putting them on other talk pages. The discussions here exist as a matter of record and you really shouldn't be editing them. Vexperiential

If you read the wiki policies the ranting of any editor who continues to go off topic violates the policies regarding what should be discussed here. This is not a place for personal egos and what you like or dont like, the rules are for everyone not for the sensitivity of editors. I started by quering a term, we resolved it, the debate went into another area which became a forum like debate,(only the section dealing with improving the article can be allowed) it doesnt belong here. Not my rules the rules of topic.Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The debate must not cross into another topic, it offers nothing to this discussion, regardless of why or who started it. There is no need for a record on Sub-Saharan African and gentic relevance of Ethiopian Amhara people and sand dunes terrifying Negroes on this page, this is for a forum or another page--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition it lowers the quality of the topic and it has already been nominated for deletion because it is almost an editors paddling pool of POVS of POVS, basically dont give them another reason to try to delete it for being a talk shop.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• A little off-topicness is not the end of the world on a talk page - and talk pages can be full of NPOV statements and the like. It's better to let someone vent some steam on the talk than have an edit war in the article. Ultimately, the article survives AFDs because it's good ... WilyD 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Also if the dispute came up once it could come up again and we need a complete record of the discourse for people to read through so they can avoid the same disputes in the futures. If he feels it was off topic he should have just disengaged. It takes two people to have an off topic debate. But editing other peoples posts off talk page is a completely inappropriate response Vexperiential 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Or because we fight, it wasnt a little off topic it was a rant of sterotypical views on mother Africa. We need to follow policy take the steam out on a forum those places r full of everybody is an expert.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are far too politically correct to be an objective neutral editor on a subject as controversial as race. There are a lot of different views out there. Censorship is never the solution. Vexperiential

We don't need to be objective neutral editors - we need to make objective neutral edits. There's a subtle difference, but it's an important one. I mean, I may not give a fuck about Black Billionaires but I do edit subjects on which I'm not neutral - I can still make neutral edits. WilyD 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Better a rant on the talk page than a rant on the main page. In the end, why do you really care what ends up on the talk page? All kinds of garbage can be here - what difference does it make? WilyD 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he's afraid someone will read it and agree with me. It's bad enough that all the race related articles on wikipedia are heavily censored by the political correctness police, but now the talk pages too. I love reading all the rich discussion on talk pages. It helps people understand where different editors are coming from, gives insight into why people edit the way they do, so it really bothers me when people remove stuff from discussion boards Vexperiential

Ha Ha Ha, You are so funny. I moved it for that exact reason so that people who know would see what you were saying. plus it doesnt belong here, i left the relevant stuff. Lets see that content on a page where academics edit. Vanity ego blind our ablities and arrest our development to learn. This is why i dont talk on forums anyone and everyone is a scholar. WilyD this is an encyclo let me tell you about racism and perception of Black people, since coming her i have cleaned up many Black interest pages which read like jokes, and people continue to see us as jokes when they see the quality of our work, look at African Slave trade prior to my arrival. must we live up to the sterotypes by representing poor adherence to policy and content? I CARE, follow the rules!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you'd indent your paragraphs, it'd make for a more followable conversation. Lots of articles are poorly written, including those that cover topics people care very little about. Following the rules is important, but building good articles is more important (and hard) and so we sometimes have to follow rules like this: WP:IAR. It's just good sense. But you still haven't answered the question: Why do you care what appears on talk pages? WilyD 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

u either follow all policy or no policy, the rules built wiki, they work, follow them, clean up and be professional I am exhausted of the Black pages being dust bins. Go to Jew or other ethnic pages and see the quality. I dont have to explain why i ask for rules to be followed you have to explain why you want to put junk on a talk page. u can always create junkpedia and create your own rules--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• The rules actually allow you to say anything on pages WP:IAR when appropriate. And the rules didn't build Wikipedia, Wikipedia built the rules. If you're concerned about the quality of a page, do something about it. Go find some reliable sources and add some information. Reformat and rewrite. Making lousy pages is easy - making good pages is hard. Removing someone else's comments from a talk page is highly rude and aggressive - it's not something to be done lightly. In the end, you've made edits to this talk page that have no apparent purpose and are provoking a conflict - question why you'd do this seems like an appropriate action. WilyD 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He's telling us to follow rules while violating them himself. It's against wikipedia talk page poilcy to remove comments of others. Policy states: Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards. Vexperiential

Rename to Black Millionaires

Mostly millionaires listed. Rename is needed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.49 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

The only millionaires mentioned are half-billionaires or people who've been predicted to become billionaires. Vexperiential

This is the most useless article on wikipedia

Honestly, and it looks like people spent a lot of time writing this. Those people should be ashamed for wasting their time on this piece of rubbish. It should be delelted immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.197.8 (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

"sub-Saharan"

The word "sub-Saharan" is used as a euphemism in the article. Like many such, it is a lie.

It actually refers to the black race, when the Bushman-Hottentot race also lives South

of the Sahara. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.50.244 (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Bushmen and Hottentot are also considered black. They are considered part of the negroid race. Vexperiential

Requested citation for unsourced claims

Two claims keep getting added to this article despite the fact that they are not sourced and contradicted by reliable business magazines like Forbes. The first is that Donald Watkin's net worth has reportedly increased to $2.5 billion. Reported by who? What is the source for this statement? The second is that Donald Watkin's wealth would have predated Bob Johnson's and Oprah Winfrey's. Again, where is the source for this statement? I have added citation requests to both of these statements. If we can not get references we need to remove these claims because unreferenced claims of an extreme nature damage wikipedia's credibility and violate wikipedia policy as outlined in WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Pacingcar 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reginald Lewis.jpg

Image:Reginald Lewis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

CATHY HUGHES

CATHY HUGHES FOUNDER OF RADIO ONE ALSO NEEDS TO BE ADDED

NET WORTH AROUND 5 BILLION. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.121.4 (talk) 00:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Al-Amoudi

Mohammed Al-Amoudi is Arab actully , but with race mixture via his mother side . He is still Arab not black . Is it by race or by color ? :)  A M M A R  02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ali Al Amoudi

Why does the article say oprah's the richest blk person when that's obviously false? she's the richest blk person IN AMERICA, not the world....that would be mohaammed hussein ali al amoudi. al amoudi is the son of a black african mother and an arab african father. He is a black african in appearance. If ppl consider Barack Obama to be black who has a white american mother, then surely Mohammad al amoudi who has a BLACK AFRICAN mother and is black african in appearance should be considered "black". The fact is, mohammad hussein ali al amoudi is the richest black person in the world with an estimated net worth of about 6.9 billion usd, not oprah winfrey. 71.120.11.173 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Al Amoudi is mostly Arab. His father is Arab and his mother is Afro-Arab (Ethiopian) Irongood (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have messed up the page while updating the graph part of the "Black Billionaires" section. If anybody can, can they please fix this for me. Sorry and thankyou.  :)

Yemeni

Michael Lee Chin is definetly mixed race. Mohammed Al-Amoudi may not be mixed race at all and wikipedia is liable to be sued for stating that someone is multiracial when we have no proof of it. We don't even have pictures or comments from Mohammed Al-Amoudi about his race. I have no objections as him being mentioned as an arab because he is. Anyone who lives in arabia and speaks arabic is 100% arab. Do you think that arabs are all one race? White Syrians and black Sudanese? How can Kuwait or Jordan I can't remember, which had a black king in the early 1990s, if arab is a race. There is a lot of bickering about arabs race but most academics will agree they are a mixture of the blacks who first left africa and populated those areas and the whites who basically took over everywhere south of the caucaus from india to egypt and made racial mixing in all those places. The race of Yemenis is a total random. His Yemeni ancestor can be anything from black, white, asian, or typical middle eastern(which is mix race) or even Indian. It is not like Italian or Nigerian or Greek where race can easily be established by nationality. Think of saying someone is half Yemeni as llike saying someone is half New Yorker, it can be any race basically. So why should Mohammed Al-Amoudi be listed as black. Well it is the only one of his races that can be confirmed (arab is not a race, thus you can't say he is multiracial), you'd have to prove, where white, asian, or someother ancestry, which I couldn't find to claim him multiracial. For example we can say Chin is multi racial b/c it is safe to say that Chinese are not black, not so for Yemeni. Remember that Ethiopia also colonised Yemen for a very long time, so there is a big black presence there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.27.30 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more likely to get sued if we say Al-Amoudi is black, as there is a huge stigma against being black in the arab world. And the black presense in Yemen is very small according to genetic tests; also Ethiopians themselves are mixed race (60% black, 40% Arab). Vexperiential (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And btw, you can't be both black and Arab. An arab is someone whose ancestors are mostly from arabia. A black is someone whose ancestors are mostly from sub-Saharan Africa. Vexperiential (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this guy talking about? I am an Ethiopian and also proud Black. My skin color is light but i am black and same with Al Amoudi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.88.81 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is NOT based on facts

Well if we are talking about Black billionaries, i know for sure that Mohammed Al Amoudi has much more money than those people mentioned here. According to Forbs 2008, Al Amoudi's net worth $9 billion. He was born and raised in Ethiopia, Africa. He is no different than any other Ethiopian except that he is the richest. If we are talking about citizenship, then he is now Saudi but that doesn't matter as he is still black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.88.81 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for conversion into proper list, and/or substantial rewrite

This is a peculiar article: absurdly slanted towards an American POV, written in a largely essay-ish style, clearly polemic in places, and almost certainly inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It seems to be the only race-based billionaire page, which is not surprising considering how vague the criterion for racial inclusion here seems to be ("with sub-Saharan ancestry"? Really?). It does not seem to me to be meaningful to consider the wealth of Mobutu Sese Seko on the same page as the wealth of Oprah Winfrey, solely on grounds of their blackness, which in any case means substantially different things in sub-Saharan Africa and the United States of America.

Some of the information in the piece is certainly valuable and interesting, but it seems to be presented in completely the wrong way. Notably, the Pioneers section has some excellent info, but it is completely US-centric and implies a historical cohesion between the black billionaires mentioned which is not evident and smacks of original research. It would be much more appropriate on the List of Wealthiest African-Americans page, or on the individual pages of the subjects concerned.

To be honest I think this article should be deleted, but it seems to have survived severed deletion proposals so I shall not propose it again. Instead, I would like to know what other editors here would feel about the prospect of converting this article into a more credible and encyclopedic list. What this would mean is removing and rehoming the Pioneers section, and removing the very unencyclopedic Allegations of Racism section (or transferring it to a page where it would sit more appropriately, such as Racism in the United States or individual biographical pages). -- TinaSparkle (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

How exactly does this article make any sense? 1. How do we know that oprah or bob johnson are any more or less or black than any of these mixed race people? 2. Are not all people in the world mixed race? 3. How is a sudanese nubian guy from africa classified as mixed race but an american who is far more likely to be mixed race classified as black? 4. I don't understand this subject way of calling race or full black or half black. Is it not enough to call anyone who looks black, black? Michael lee chin looks black, maybe he is mixed, but 1/3 of women lie about the baby daddy anyways so what do we really know? 5. There is no way to prove any of these people who are black but not born in africa are of sub-saharan african ancestry and there is no correlation between sub-saharan africa and black. Many blacks are not sub-saharan, some come from north africa or south west asia or places like papua new guinea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.154.174 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"but forensic accountant John Duross O'Bryan testified that the total value of Jackson's assets was $130 million"

This is not correct information-it has been debunked in cross examination (see the actual Jackson trial transcripts and Aphrodite Jones book "Conspiracy")O'Bryan was not specialized in music industry and he had no idea about these things, as he admitted on the stand. Also he didn't have access to all Jackson accounts and assets, he was allowed to see only a specific part of them. He had to admit on the stand that if Jackson wanted to, he could solve any financial problem in one day. Finding the actual source is reliable, while reporting selective false information that made headlines at the time it's not such a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.176.32 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts of vexperential reverts

To explain the reverts on vexperiential's reverts: vexperential reverted to a time when the article had a number of spelling and grammar mistakes and a lot of irrelevant, mostly US-centric information that was better left in another article without explanation. This made the article an embarassment, very difficult to read, and largely difficult to decipher. These reverts of mine restored it to its earlier point today as a tight, clean and really good Wikipedia article about a specific topic. Anyone can see the before and after and judge. Anyone can review vexperential's history, and specific history with this article and judge (banned for his edits, reverted for his problematic edits). But I thought it would be fair to make clear what was going on, especially as I had received constructive feedback from a former administrator on another page and it is best practices on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Otherperson2011 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why only Americans?

Forbes publish a list of the world's black billionaires. Shouldn't this article be broadened to include them? SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Americans. Vexperiential (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson?

Wouldn't Michael Jackson make the hip-hop list?

Could someone please edit the second paragraph on the topic of Michael Jackson. It reads like it was written by someone with schizophrenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason there's no white/asian/hispanic section?

Isn't it a little racist to have a black section, but no other sections? Isn't wikipedia supposed to be open and politically and racially non-biased? someone could kick up a big stink if they wanted to with this...

81.171.251.202 (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very Racial. It's kind of weird to separate wealthy people by race at all, but if there is pages added for Asian-, Arab-, Native American-, and European-American Billionaires. Joesolo13 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, why separate by race? This article must be nominated for deletion. (Esterhase (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

I agree 90.24.141.96 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The racism is in the above comments. If you think some other page is missing, go write it. -- Jibal (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Black billionaires is a self esteem page

The page itself is OK. This page exists for (low) self esteem reasons. Other groups of people didn't feel the need to create such a page about themselves. Semaint (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Why is there a whole section devoted to Michael Jackson who a) is dead and b) was never a billionaire? That material should be deleted. -- Jibal (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Black billionaires → African billionaires or List of billionaires from Africa (and, split out, if desired, a separate List of African-American billionaires) –
Note before !voting Please do not oppose the rename just because this rename would change the scope. I'm well aware that this rename will change the scope of the list, that is the _purpose_ of this rename. I'm proposing a rename since most of the names on the list are from Africa, and I believe the encyclopedia would be better served if we focused this list on African billionaires and bring in all of the other African billionaires to add to this list.
This is essentially a race-based list, but we have no way of defining "black" as a race that will be objective here - as you can see people are currently disputing whether someone can be here who is multi-racial, or whether one drop of "black" blood suffices, etc. This is not becoming of wikipedia and it directly illustrates the problem with this list - black is not an ethnicity, it is a racial designation and biologists will tell us that race as a biological concept does not have any meaning. What exactly is "Black african ancestry" anyway - and how much suffices? Are there genetic markers? Is it based on identifying as "black"? What about people who have one African-American parent, but who "pass" as white - can they be on this list? There is no good way to answer this in an encyclopedic fashion. Instead, Forbes has a list of "African" billionaires, which will capture most of the people on this list, plus additional ones with more fair skin (I hope that's ok), and thus this list would include anyone from the continent of Africa who is a US dollar billionaire. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As an example of the problems of "black african ancestry", read the following from Race_in_brazil: "Genetic research on ancestry of Brazilians of different races has extensively shown that, regardless of skin colour, Brazilians generally have European, African, and Amerindian ancestors. According to a genetic study about Brazilians, on the paternal side, 98% of the White Brazilian Y Chromosome comes from a European male ancestor, only 2% from an African ancestor and there is a complete absence of Amerindian contributions. On the maternal side, 39% have a European Mitochondrial DNA, 33% Amerindian and 28% African MtDNA.[77] This analysis only shows a small fraction of a person's ancestry (the Y Chromosome comes from a single male ancestor and the mtDNA from a single female ancestor, while the contributions of the many other ancestors is not specified).,[78] but it shows that miscigenation in Brazil was directional, between Portuguese males and African and Amerindian females...." and later a quote from an expert who says: "Also, regardless of their skin color, the overwhelming majority of Brazilians have a significant degree of African ancestry." But this would mean we would have to consider placing most of Category:Brazilian_billionaires into this list, which would be ridiculous - even if, genetically speaking, it was true. If, on the other hand, the inclusion criteria is not what is says, eg. it's not really "black African ancestry", then we need to update the inclusion criteria, to be something else, perhaps "List of people who self-identify as black, or using the term "black" in whatever native language they speak, with the exception of Brazilians for whom the terms pardo (brown) or preto (black) are acceptable, except for Indians and other South Asians, for whom the self-use of the term Brown does not apply, and except for people from Tamil Nadu who refer to themselves as Black, they don't count either, but we do count people from the Andaman islands, even if they don't self-identify as black, but we don't include those from Australia who use the term black, and we also don't include those in South Africa (such as persons of Chinese or Indian descent) who are sometimes classified as black under black empowerment laws... and so on and so forth". Or perhaps it's "List of people who have dark skin, and tightly curled hair, but also including those who have lighter toned skin and straight hair and potentially mixed race parentage but who nonetheless self-identify as being of black African descent, but excluding anyone who does have African parents but who looks white, but including those who ..." and so on. You get the point, I think, no? If needed, we could also build a separate list of African-American Billionaires, which also wouldn't have the same problems as a race-based list, as it could be focused only on those who self-identify as African-American. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move from ethnicity-based "Black" to completely different "African". I don't think adding non-black people to Black billionaires is the right thing to do at this time. I also don't think removing Oprah or Black people who happen to be British is very helpful either. Your essays seem to be saying that reliable sources have no idea who's black, or that from your assertions, they couldn't. This is generally not true. We don't need Original Research questions about genetics and racialist theory here. Any demand that we consider the DNA purity of Wikipedia subjects as one approach is an abhorrent concept. I'm surprised you're nominating something based on the idea it's unworkably difficult to know who belongs to an ethnic group, especially after some of these concepts were explained to you by Montanabw and Uyvsdi in the last ethnicity nomination we worked on. It's just better to go with what sources say. Also, switching to a continental system is really just as subjective a criteria for this topic. Billionaires often live in multiple countries and hold multiple citizenships (see Rupert Murdoch). We're still beholden to sources or the subjects themselves for more primary identity issues. The other issue is that this is a very select group. If there's something less than ten subjects globally a year, then your suggestion to split the list to even smaller groupings isn't practical and, I have to say, not very well thought. The idea that the list would be larger with more white Africans and less Oprah seems to go against the sense and value of listing exceptional cases of interest, as we currently do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry EQ "black" is not an ethnicity. African-American is an ethnicity, but black isn't. It's a racial descriptor. And no, we can't trust reliable sources here, since every culture defines 'black' differently - so we'd have to perform some sort of original research to determine how the term 'black' is meant in sources. Black is a race, and any definition of black ends up being a race-based description - it's not an ethnic group. Continental groupings are objective and totally normal here. Race-based ones on the other hand need to go. Can you imagine a list of yellow billionaires? Or mongoloid billionaires?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Black people have nothing to do with ethnicity in your personal philosophy, but that's not how others see it. And I'm really not interested in a drawn-out discussion based on tedious ethnographical cocktail napkin theories or the idea that Black can only ever be defined by single racialist philosophy. It's not strictly "race-based".__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, write down an definition of "black" that can be used as an inclusion criteria for this list. Good luck. You're going to end with dark skin and curly hair, even if you don't start there, or you'll end up including lots of people who aren't considered "black". "Black" within a single country, as referring to a single ethnicity (eg. in the US referring to African-Americans) can be an ethnicity, but when the term is applied globally, like in the article Black people it is absolutely not an ethnicity. Do you really think all of the people listed in that article form some sort of Ethnic group? Nice try.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As for self-identification, if you're a dark-skinned Nigerian, surrounded by other dark-skinned nigerians, you are unlikely to identify yourself as "black"; instead you will identify with your particular tribe or ethnolinguistic group. Grouping wealthy people of color from places where people of color are the majority with places where they aren't is silly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And right back atcha, do you think Black people is describing a single "race", as you were suggesting? Of course not. And forgive me, but I find it difficult to take you as an expert on what a Nigerian would say about themselves.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that you're not purposefully following me around the wiki and opposing anything I do, but whatever, stalk away. Why don't you engage with the problem, EQ. if "black" isn't a race, and it isn't an ethnicity, what is it? What exactly holds this list together from an enycyclopedia point of view?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you get up to all kinds of things every day that have nothing to do with me. Your framing of the issue is off. I don't think the mainstream view among sources is that Black people simply don't exist because it's objectively impossible for them to. You keep insisting that when people say "Black" that they could only be asserting something about a biological dna-related "race". You then ridicule the idea that no one is saying. "Black" can mean different things in different contexts, and centuries, but this is a list of Billionaires, a recent phenomenon, and an intensely limited population of humans, of whom a small percentage are generally considered by the usual sources to have some overwhelming, or at least strong connection with the idea of African ancestry. You might find general mainstream sources not objectively rigorous enough, but welcome to the club. That's what we have.__ E L A Q U E A T E 06:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose in that "African billionaires" means people who live in or were from Africa. That said, I also have issues with "Black billionaires" as it sits, as we seem to have no equivalent category for "white billionaires." On one hand, perhaps these race-based categories have no real use and should be minimized. On the other hand, I also could see value to a possible category of "African-American billionaires" as that is both an ethnic and a national category combined, and many people in such a category would self-identify that way and for a person of color to become a billionaire in America, with the racial prejudice that is still a part of our society, is notable. Likewise, I suppose there could be a case made for "Billionaires from Africa" is that is the actual classification sought. I am not sure how black folks in the UK self-identify, but a similar classification for that nation's people of African ancestry might be appropriate. "Australian aboriginal billionaires" might likewise be appropriate. As for people of color worldwide who happen to be billionaires, that's actually rather silly, though, as people in an ethnic group who are the politically dominant power in their nation would, normally, also have the most wealth, so what is nearly miraculous in one nation might be de riguer in another. JMO Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'm confused Montana. You oppose and yet you suggest splitting this to African-American and African, which is what I'm suggesting - although for African American I think there's only one, so no need for a list. I realize that renaming it also changes the scope, but the simple fact is most of the people on this list are African, so most of the edit history would remain. Anyone who is not African would be moved off to other lists accordingly. Otherwise the list as it stands is race based and you have people edit warring on whether someone with 'mixed' blood can be added. It's farcical.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it's so small a group, better to leave it at the status quo for now, rather than hairsplitting.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The list of Africans would have around 25 members.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Elaqueate. This article should not be moved to an even worse title, even if the current title is a bit problematic. Is Barak Obama a "black" President? Yes, at least as far as he views himself and others generally view him. (Certainly his opponents often use his race against him) But that was, believe it or not, an issue in the 2008 election; if he was "black enough" to be supported by African-Americans. So yes, race is a pretty fuzzy concept, and a precise definition has little to do with genetics - as someone put it, the litmus test in America seems to be "whether security follows you around in the store." Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about "black" as in "African-American", but that's not what this list means. Also, why is it a worse title? We already have List_of_female_billionaires and List_of_South_East_Asian_people_by_net_worth and List_of_South_Asian_people_by_net_worth - in other words, basic continental groupings, we also have country-based groupings. This list is the only race-based grouping, using this vague "Of black african ancestry" as a criteria for inclusion. What is "black african ancestry"? How do you measure this? Is it DNA markers for sub-saharan african characteristics? Is it based on the phenotypes displayed when you look at their face? Is it based on how their own society treats them, or is it based on how American society would treat them if they walked in a store? The whole grouping is original research. African is clear, objective, and without dispute, and Forbes has a list on that. We shouldn't have lists with such fuzzy/sketchy/race/skin-color-based inclusion criteria, especially ones that group people together.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If Montanabw is talking about ultimately splitting it up between different things like Black Africans and other ethnic groups of exceptional note, I would support this as well. I'm thinking that it might be better if and when the total number of subjects was greater. For now, while it's not perfect, the list is showing something interesting about the increase of total black billionaires.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I understood Montana was talking about "Billionaires from Africa", which is my proposal - not "Black African Billionares" - how do you decide if an Egyptian is black? What if his mother was Nubian? is that black enough? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Identification combined with sources. It sounds like if we left it up to you, we'd never be able to say anyone was anything.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Are any of these folks "black" enough for your list? "Black" egyptians? Remember, we're an encyclopedia, not a web forum. Again, if you want to keep this list, provide clear, objective inclusion criteria - and it's got to be better than "Of black african descent" - because that's just a meta definition - you're black if one of your ancestors was black... Are you suggesting that everyone on this list must self-identify as black? Then we can remove most immediately, I really doubt you'll be able to find sources of Nigerian billionaires saying "Yes, I'm a black man". @HelenOnline: may have some thoughts about the South African context here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

EQ, don't get all slippery slope on me. Just provide clear inclusion criteria. Which sources are you talking about? If a tamil source calls a tamil man black, can he be included? What about if a brazilian source calls a man pardo. Can he be included?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"Slippery slope"? I'll have to remember that's something you're opposed to. Borderline cases are inevitable in lists. You classify what sources are generally more sure about. Your own push to have "Africans" has similar problems in that many Egyptians do not self-identify or consider themselves African, even if you assert they have to. Look at this which contains the fun phrase "African refugees living in Egypt". Some Egyptians would think of themselves as African, some wouldn't. It doesn't mean there's no possible Africa, or no possible understood general idea of what Black people means in a set of cases.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about. I'm sorry but that's a terrible example. Egypt is part of Africa. The rescoped list isn't about identity, it's about citizenship from African countries. Also, I don't know which Egyptians you're talking about, I know several Egyptians, and they all consider themselves to be African, you realize that Egypt is part of Africa, right? That reporter was obviously misunderstanding how the word "African" was used in the Egyptian context -e.g. sub-saharan, vs 'from Africa' - in any case I've provided an option above, List of billionaires from Africa if you prefer that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No. The people of the world are grouped by other things than just postal codes. And I'm sure you think that reporter who disagrees with you is wrong, the sociologists who disagree with you are wrong, the people who consider themselves Black that disagree with you must be wrong, and that "Black people" don't exist because it doesn't make objective sense to you. But you're not convincing me, and you're bludgeoning the process instead of coming to terms with the idea that people don't see it entirely your way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 06:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people are grouped by race, ALL the time. Black is a race, so is white, so is red, so is yellow (Mongoloid). And real life people and real life sources group real people in this way. Who cares? It's not encyclopedic. Of course there is a concept of "black people" but it's different in every country and it differs across time, and when you try to apply that nuanced, local understanding of "black" to a list that is global in scope, there's only one way that they are all tied together, and that is based on racial characteristics. our Black people article is one of the few places on the internet that actually makes this grouping that I've found, and I've also found plenty of places that make all sorts of different claims about "black", like that melanesians aren't black or samoans aren't black or papua new guineans aren't black etc. etc. There's no clear consensus on what black means in a global sense, so ultimately this list comes down to skin color + hair. I seriously doubt you'd find someone on this list who had stereotypical "white" features even if one or both parents were from sub-saharan africa. You haven't provided any inclusion criteria, and you will continue to NOT do so, since they don't exist. It's rather typical of your arguing style - you dodge and avoid the difficult questions and move the goalposts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose it sounds like a deletion request. File an AfD if you would like to delete this article. African is an entirely different scope. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No point to delete, we can use the existing material and rescope the article. If you want to keep, please elaborate clear inclusion criteria. Who is considered "black" enough to be on this list? Who isn't?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As it is a redlink, you could just create a new list. List of billionaires of sub-Saharan descent with prominent darkened epidermal melanin concentrations versus List of billionaires who have acquired residency documents for African jurisdictions. Though cladistic analysis of human populations do show a definite separation between sub-Saharan population groups and those that are outside, there being more genetic variation in those sub-Saharan populations, and considerably less in those that are not. Though it would be a polyphyletic grouping, and the non-"Black" would be a paraphyletic grouping. As paraphyletic and polyphyletic groupings exist in various other levels of classification, it certainly can be used as a grouping method. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you're joking - but I'm serious. What are the specific, objective, inclusion criteria for this list. Is it

a) self-identification as black

b) evidence of some ancestor who was considered black (how far back?)

c) reliable sources which use the word "black" to describe you

d) reliable sources which use the word "pardo" to describe you if you're in Brazil, but "colored" counts if you're speaking about South Africa

e) Results of some sort of genetic test?

f) Original research based on a picture of their face?

g) Something else?

My feeling is, since all of the above attempts at definitions are problematic, we're much better of dividing by continent and country if necessary, it's objective and encyclopedic, whereas skin-color based groupings based on long-discounted 19th c. race theory? nyet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It only seems to be "based on long-discounted 19th c. race theory" when you describe it. Others seem to understand that the term "Black people" is more than a DNA analysis.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You're amazing at dodging the question. Please provide clear inclusion criteria. Hell, I'll even take fuzzy inclusion criteria - but what are they?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, you keep linking to our black people article. I wonder, have you actually read it? Right there in the lede, it says "Different societies, such as Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa apply differing criteria regarding who is classified as "black", and these criteria have also varied over time. In some countries, social variables affect classification as much as skin-color, and the social criteria for "blackness" vary. In South Africa, mixed-race people are not considered to be "black", and in other regions, such as Australia and Melanesia, the term "black" has been applied to, and used by, populations with a very different history." So if it's not a race, and it's not an ethnicity, what is it? Shared use of the word black? I'm sorry but it's completely unencyclopedic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I get that you don't think it's a affiliated grouping of ethnicities. Maybe you don't believe Black is a legitimate term because it covers people in different situations. But you're not going to convince me of that by personal assertion. I don't recognize the idea that Black people when viewed as a total group are unencyclopedic. You're demanding a tighter definition than we have for "Scottish", for "European", for any of the world's social and ethnic groups that have fuzzy edges. It is true that it would be much easier if we could exchange all of the world's actual social and ethnic groupings for a definition system based solely on postal codes, but that isn't encyclopedic. Sources treat the word Black as a word that is understandable generally in its application, even if the term can sometimes require negotiation on a case by case level. Your proposed solution takes a list of about ten people described as Black or mixed race people with significant Black ancestry, throws out about half, and adds twenty non-defined-black in any way people.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And another dodge. EQ, for the final time, WHAT exactly are the inclusion criteria that these "sources" are using? I assert that they are using racial/phenotype based reasoning, which is unbecoming a serious encyclopedia. You can even see it in your phrase "with significant Black ancestry" - what the hell does that mean? 20% sub-saharan African admixture? Scottish is quite different - if someone is from Scotland, or a citizen of Scotland, they are scottish. How many of these people are from "blackland", or identify as "black"? Perhaps the Americans, but I doubt the rest of them do. If you want the inclusion criteria to be "self identification as being part of the black race", then that's fine, we'll remove everyone until you find sources that attest that these people self identify in this way. How do you think Forbes built their list? They probably looked at pictures. Its the only real way people tell if someone is "black" or not - but ultimately that's a race-based classification which we shouldn't be doing here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I get that you don't think it's a affiliated grouping of ethnicities. Does this mean that you think that Black people IS an affiliated group of ethnicities? Are the Andaman islanders and the Philippine negritos and the Papua New Guineans and the Ethiopians and the bushmen all "affiliated"? Do they meet regularly or share a common language and/or culture and/or ... ?? I can tell you're studiously avoiding providing an inclusion criteria since you know anything you write down will be poked full of holes, since "black" cannot be defined objectively in a way that creates the grouping you'd like to have, unless you just resort to "I know a black person when i see one" type of logic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You are the only one that insists it's strictly race-based. You can't somehow insist that I'm not allowed to say it's based on a grouping of connected ethnicities while also insisting that people are saying it's all about racialized theories of race. Stop it. Your ideas about Black people are not likely to help the encyclopedia and you've descended into bludgeoning yet again. If there's a huge influx of Andaman Islander billionaires to this list of ten people, I will fully support a new sub-heading or article split. __ E L A Q U E A T E 06:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

EQ, as expected, you are DODGING THE QUESTION. I'm not bludgeoning, I'm asking a simple question - what is the criteria for "black". And you are avoiding it, since you know it's an unanswerable question. Humor me - give it a go. If you want to say "black people" is a "group of connected ethnicities", please do so, and bring in the reliable sources that link all of those ethnicities together, but it's besides the point - since you haven't provided any criteria for this list yet!!!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, you started this nomination already bludgeoning. You have at least two responses for every other person's single response. I've made about eight or nine edits in this discussion while you've made over 30. It's great that you can't contain all of your wonderful ideas, but you hammer people. You admit you're both asking (and trying to get me to answer) an unanswerable question, as well as a question that is not relevant to this handful of people. Mainstream sources describe some billionaires as black people or people who (again, recognized by sources) have a somehow significant mix of African heritage. Does it cover all possible scenarios? No. But it's a legitimate criteria for ensuring a very small list of very few people, backed by sources. Demanding that I account for every conceivable situation and finding a bright line rule that would eliminate any borderline case is the dodge. Demanding a mathematical definition of who is Black is ridiculous, and ignoring that people are sometimes grouped as Black people is also ridiculous. Your proposal doesn't eliminate the need for editors to assess individual cases. There are plenty of people that editors would consider "sort-of-but-maybe-not" African much the same way Eduardo Saverin is sort-of a variety of possible nationalities.__ E L A Q U E A T E 07:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dodging the question again. So, I want you to state clearly, that either 1) No objective inclusion criteria can be written for what "black means" or 2) Such criteria can be written, I'm just unwilling to. You seem to suggest that it's about sources describing someone as black. Is that your criteria? A source calling someone black, and that's enough? Be very clear on what you mean.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I should warn you that I'm not going to seriously engage when you're obviously in full bludgeon mode. You've made it very clear that you're not then interested in the actual content of my responses as much as placing two responses for every one of mine and I believe that behavior is poisoning the process. I know you have the capacity to understand that switching something to African entails broadly similar and ultimately unsolvable-in-all-cases "objective inclusion criteria" problems too, but I don't see you admitting it. You seem to be claiming that "being African" is somehow an easily derived "objective fact" in any conceivable case. Do you have hard-and-fast rules prepared for every: "When is a person truly African?" What if they left the country when they were two? Six? Twenty-two?" What if they never had a passport? Or actual citizenship only lifelong residency? What if they moved there when they were forty? Fifty-two?" The answer to those hypotheticals is to check what sources generally say. As you know, there's no ironclad scientific process for determining if the world sees someone as "Black", AND YET we still have reliable sources that assure us that certain people are black. You know this, yet demand a cooked up test beyond the idea that we should follow the sources. It's the same subjective/objective problem as "Writers from Iowa" and the same solution. We roughly get it right, and we come to consensus for the borderline cases.__ E L A Q U E A T E 08:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

there is absolutely no comparison with a race-based list - with very unclear inclusion criteria - and a nationality-based list. The criteria for that is simple - anyone who is from Africa by birth or citizenship, or who self-identifies as being of a nationality in Africa- and by Africa I mean one of ~54 defined countries in Africa. A race-based list on the other hand would exclude a fair skinned moroccan whose roots in Africa date 700 years while accepting his darker skinned cousin only on the basis that one reliable source in some debatable 'list' called him 'black'. As suspected you again avoid the question - please state for the record the inclusion criteria you would apply - is it just a reliable source calling you black? Is that enough, or it's not enough? If it's not enough on what basis do you decide whether someone is black enough to be on the list? There's a debate about a Jamaican Chinese - is he black? If so, why, if not, why not? This question is unanswerable unless you say 'fuck reliable sources and DNA and skin color, we're just going with self identification" which is how we handle most ethnic groups - but if that's the case, then you won't protest if I remove people who don't self-identify as your mythical pan-global-ethnic-group called 'black'? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I seriously looked into AfDing this much along the same lines of the nomination. However, it is not just Forbes, but an abundance of real world use of the unscholarly, undefined use of "black" to subcategorise billionaires. Looking at this anthropologically, it is clearly the case that people in reliable sources refer to "black billionaires", and so it is a topic to be expected to be found in Wikipedia. I don't see an alternative title changing much. I suggest steering the article somewhat to cover the commentators who cover "black billionaires", hoping to introduce some scholarly perspective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but people refer to "white actresses" as well, but we wouldn't create such a list, would we? People use all sorts of fuzzy terms in reliable sources, including race-based terms, but we don't categorize on a race-basis and we shouldn't categorize billionaires here either according to their skin color. If you look at the edit history there is an edit war going on as to whether a Chinese/Jamaican person can be added to this list. Do we really want to base encyclopedic content on how "black" someone is allowed to be? If this was "African-American billionaires" it would be quite different, but it's not, it's a global "black".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick googling turns up less reliable sourcing for "white actresses", and even if there were none, this (otherstuffdoesn'texist) is unpersuasive at AfD. I share your dislike of this topic, but I'm afraid that it passes the objective tests, and does so as titled currently. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

But no-one has yet been able to provide inclusion criteria that aren't based on race! If you look at the history of this page in the archives, it's full of discussions about how much % of DNA someone has and so and so isn't REALLY black, etc - it's all race-based thinking, and almost never references self-identification with the "black" race or EQ's unsourced notion that "black people" is some sort of loosely affiliated group of ethnicities. It's ridiculous, and makes a mockery of encyclopedic work. This is something for the gossip blogs, but to build an encyclopedic list of black people you need a definition of black people. If black people is indeed "sub-saharan ancestry", then the question becomes, how much sub-saharan do you need, and how do you establish this? Most Brazilians have around 20-30% sub-saharan DNA markers - should they be included? No? So then you might say "It's not just sub-saharan ancestry, you have to self-identify as black" - but as I noted elsewhere, there are people who self-identify as black but who wouldn't qualify for this list since they don't "look" like black people (eg. certain tamils, etc); conversely there's no evidence that most the people ON this page actually self-identify as black; if you're a Ethiopian/Yemeni living in Saudi Arabia I'm sure you have lots of identities but "black" probably isn't a primary one, so find me sources for these people calling themselves "black" and you might have something. Think about how Forbes built the list - do you really think Forbes went through and checked the family history - parents/grandparents and statements of self-identification for each of the people on the list? No, they went through and picked out people who had faces that looked black. See this for examples of people who are, technically, "african-American" (I suppose we don't really know if they identify as such), who don't look like black people at all. So we have to do away with this list which is based purely on skin color.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete on the basis that none of the sources are reliable for one of the two core attributes that they cross-reference? Maybe supportable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I expect article titles like "African something" to be about things that are currently in or about, or people that are currently citizens of or reside in, countries on the African continent. This does not include African Americans, African French, etc., and would exclude current subjects like Michael Lee-Chin and Oprah Winfrey. I don't think there's any problem with the article's current title. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's sort of the point. It's a race based list, and we shouldn't do that here, as there are no good objective inclusion criteria for who is black.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how changing "Black" to "African" really makes the inclusion criteria any simpler. Charlize Theron and Dave Matthews are African. Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are African if you go back far enough. Sure, there may be some mixed race billionaires that may or may not fit the criteria for inclusion on the list, but we can hash that out on the talk page if there is some dispute. Whatever ambiguity is added by the descriptor "black" is only multiplied by applying the term "African". People will think it is about people who were actually born there. Bali88 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - yes, Blackness is socially constructed (as are all other racial groups, and cultural groups for that matter), no, that doesn't make it fake or undefined or anything. It nonetheless remains important, which is why the sources treat it as such. Regardless of how we feel the world should work, as an encyclopaedia we need to describe the world as it is. If sources exist for African billionaires (and it seems they do), or whoever else, such articles could also be created, I don't see why not, but that's not really our business here (except that we'd probably link it under "see also" or such). WilyD 09:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@WilyDID:, the way we deal with ethnicities - which are socially constructed - is we look for self-identity. Would you accept changing the inclusion criteria of this list to people who self-identify as 'black' or the equivalent in whatever language they speak?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not really true that we look for self-identity. Except for a very, very, very small minority of people, we have no idea how they self-identify, or even if they self-identify. Racial and ethnic markers are assigned to people at birth (more or less), and they're unlikely to be familiar enough with this kind of distinction to self-identify/be identified by others/whatnot. (But in some cases it's clearer - I obviously don't self-identify as "White-other", but I tick that box on forms because that's how the race the British government assigns to me). If there's a specific case to consider, I'd be open to considering it, but we shouldn't impose our own preferences over what sources are saying. If Forbes (or whoever else that we deem reliable) says someone is Black, we should represent that, unless there's a reason to believe the person doesn't consider themselves black. WilyD 09:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't true. If there was someone who did not identify as African American, we should not classify them accordingly. As for an example, just see the edit warring on this page Michael Lee-Chin. Some say he is black, some say he isn't (b/c he's bi-racial). Forbes didn't call him black, but BlackEnterpreneurProfile and several other sites did. I have no idea how he considers himself. The problem with going by reliable sources is that there is no clear definition for "black" that these reliable sources are drawing on, so they are therefore NOT reliable sources for the claim that someone is "black" - which I maintain the ONLY encyclopedic way to capture is through self-identity. There are people who LOOK very "black" but who don't identify as such, and there are people who DON'T look black at all, and yet identify as "African-American" or "Afro-Brazilian" etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it's a good thing he's not on this list as a black billionaire instead of as a "mixed race billionaire with significant Black ancestry". And as Wily says, and you have had trouble acknowledging, we go by sources, not "the racial theories of Obi-Wan Kenobi". This would be true under any scheme, whether it's for Black people, South Americans, or Welsh people. Sources seem to think there are some black people in Africa. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The list is called "Black billionaires", so everyone on the list is presumably "black". This '"mixed-race" section is an example of the OR people get up to here - what exactly does mixed race mean here? The whole thing is based on phenotypes not on self-identity. If we changed this list to be based on self-identity it would be workable, but it's 19th-century racial groupings as it is now - mixed-race, zomg... Almost every single Brazilian person is, from a DNA/admixture perspective, "mixed race", as well as every single African-American person. We should not further these 19th century concepts of race by reifying them here with a list divided according to how much "black" blood you have. It's ridiculous!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the DNA/blood test offensiveness. Nobody is sourcing DNA tests, nobody says DNA tests are required. You're the one who keeps bringing it up to smear everyone else as 19th century thinkers. You're actually using OR the other way; the idea that these people aren't black because you have your own racial theories about what "Black" means. And "Multiracial" is not a somehow outdated idea. Your rejection of it (and the idea that Black people have no claim to be an ethnic group) is much closer to an unhelpful contribution here than what I've seen from anyone else. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing offensive about saying that Brazilians and African-americans are all of mixed heritage from a DNA perspective. The point is that the "mixture" in ones blood has little to nothing to do with self identity, and yet here we have claims that someone on this list is only half-black because one of their parents had Chinese blood, but no-one is saying Oprah is half-black just because one of her ancestors was white. It's race-based thinking, and you're so steeped in it you don't even realize it. EQ, once you've found a reliable source that says "black people" - and I mean the global "black" as used here - is an ethnic group, please bring it to my attention. I will be waiting a long time, as it's an idea you seem to have created in your own head. I don't have racial theories about what "black" means, there are plenty of sources that demonstrate that "black" (and, for that matter, WHITE), is a locally negotiated and created identity that is different in every context, and thus as a global "black" it is unencyclopedic to group people accordingly, but whatever, if it makes you feel better to think that's my invention go for it. You wimped out by refusing to provide inclusion criteria for the list, so you aren't even willing to put your own ideas to the test.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, in one of the more detailed books written on the subject, Who Is Black?: One Nation's Definition by By F. James Davis, he goes into detail around the one-drop rule applied to "black" identity in the United States. Davis notes that "Other nations define and count blacks differently, so international comparisons of census data on blacks can be extremely misleading. For example, Latin American countries generally count as black only unmixed African blacks, those only slightly mixed, and the very poorest mulattoes... if Americans used their definition, millions in the black community in the United States would be counted either as white or as "coloreds" of different descriptions, not as black...In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition." We see the fight over this very issue on this very article, where people have been edit warring to include or exclude a Jamaican/chinese, as being either black, or not black enough - and the arguments all come down to the mixture of "race" in his blood, which I maintain is ridiculous, and listing the so-called "mixed-race" people on this list separately is also ridiculous - why is a Yemeni/Ethiopian mix considered "mixed" but an Ethiopian/South-African mix not considered mixed? It all goes back to concepts of the so-called negroid race! If we apply the "American" one-drop rule for black here, then everyone on this list would be termed simply black, and we'd likely add many more. If we apply a Latin American rule for what black means, then several would be removed. It is impossible to generate reasonable inclusion criteria since the social definitions for "black" vary dramatically across different countries, and as a neutral encyclopedia we have no good reason to prefer South Africa's or Brazil's definition of Black to the American one, and in order to avoid systemic bias we should certainly not just take the American definition for granted. thus, if this list remains, the only reasonable course is to go by self-identification, since "national" definitions of black vary so widely. Alternatively, we could create a List of black billionaires (as defined by American one-drop rule) and List of black billionaires (as defined by a Brazilian race classification of either negro or pardo). The lists would, obviously, be different. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If we apply the "American" one-drop rule... This. This is hooey. Absolutely no one is suggesting we use this. You keep setting it up as a strawperson argument. No one is mentioning "blood" except you. The book you cite is clear that an ethnic group may be a racially distinctive group, while still not requiring any test or proof of DNA "purity". It criticizes outdated racial benchmarks that weren't based on an understanding of ethnicity. You can't use it as evidence of what sources mean today when they describe black people. At the bottom of your smoke-and-mirrors confusions lies the idea that sources shouldn't be allowed to say that there are black people in Africa. You also haven't described how you would eliminate all arguments about who was "African" and who was "not African enough". We won't be looking at passports. We'll rely on sources. That's all that's required here or on any page that has any amount of subjectivity that need to be decided by sources (read: all Wikipedia pages).__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is mentioning "blood" except you Bullshit... the talk archives are littered with people talking about blood. Additionally, it's impossible to argue with you if you continue to refuse to give inclusion criteria. If you want this list kept, state your inclusion criteria clearly - otherwise you're just blowing smoke. I know what you stand against, but what do you stand FOR? My guess is, your inclusion criteria is "reliable sources describe the person as black"- is that correct? If so, let me ask - reliable sources in what language? If a Brazilian source describes a Brazilian as pardo, or if that Brazilian self-identifies as pardo, should we add them here? Or do we add them only if they identify as negro? A pardo Brazilian, if they show up in New York, would easily be accepted as "black" here, but would not be accepted as "black" in Brazil, and would likely not be accepted as "black" in South Africa. So, are they or aren't they black? It depends where you're standing. What do we do when sources disagree? For now, we end up with an edit war, some people claiming one guy is black, the other people claiming he isn't. There's no easy compromise here, since "black" isn't something one can determine objectively - and thus "black" makes a terrible title for a list - and the compromise of marking people as "mixed race" is even worse - talk about 19th century thinking! (Ah, he's only half-black) If a reliable source identifies a Tamil man as "black", should we add them here? What are the parameters of "black"? Please stop trying to claim that establishing "blackness" is equivalent to establishing whether someone is from a country in Africa or not. It's a really silly argument and makes you look daft. The book makes the point, that I've made before, that "black" is defined differently in every culture. "From Kenya" is not defined differently in every culture - it is much less subjective. You seem to believe that there is a global concept of "black" and that if any reliable source anywhere uses the term "black" to describe a person, we should just go with it. But that's a great demonstration of systemic bias, since you are prioritizing here an english language source (Forbes) written from an American point of view, and Americans have a very specific and rather unique conception of "black" - the book points out that some of the greatest "black" leaders were actually mostly of "white" extraction. You keep on saying that I disagree with sources that say there are black people in Africa - no, that is not my point. My point is, it is unecyclopedic to group them together in this way, and then exclude non-so-called "black" people from Africa, since "black" is an adjective, not an ethnic group (I hear crickets on my demand for sources... will you provide them? I suppose not...) and as such is an inherently subjective classification that varies massively across countries. If the wiki was written from the POV of American sources, there would be many more "blacks" on this list; if the wiki was written from the POV of Brazilian sources, there would be many FEWER blacks on this list. If you disagree, please provide me with a reliable source that lists all of the "black" tribes/groups of Africa, and all the tribes/groups that aren't "black". You'll have a very hard time finding such a list, except from the 19th century. The fact that you believe we can trust sources which purport to divide the world into "black" and "non-black" people means you completely misunderstand the concept of reliable sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In ambiguous cases, or where sources disagree, we'll do the same thing we do in all the other cases where something is ambiguous, or where sources disagree. This is a common problem, not particular to race, which we have a reasonable approach to. And while "from Kenya" is not that ambiguous, "Kenyon" certainly is. A person is likely to be called Kenyon if they were born in Kenya, or perhaps they were born in Hawaii with a parent born in Kenya, or a grandparent, or a great-grandparent, or whatnot. "African" billionaires would be suffer from the exact same "Who is African?" problem. Someone who lives in Africa is probably African (unless they're there temporarily? How can we decide? But maybe they don't self-identify as African (or worse, they contextually do sometimes and sometimes don't), and someone who was born there might be (or maybe not?) Someone whose parents were born there? They might be identified with that group (or maybe not). A Spaniard living in Melilla? It's also messy. Fortunately, if we don't try to use this page as a SOAPBOX, but as an encyclopaedic reference, it's not a tough case. "Someday a case might arise that could possibly potentially be difficult to deal with" is no an argument that there's a problem. WilyD 08:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would assume that African billionaires are billionares who were born in Africa and still live there. If there is some issue with the title as stands, like people are confused as to what "black" means, we could change it to "Billionaires with African Ancestry", but I really doubt there is any real issue. "Black Billionaires" is fine. Bali88 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

yes that's precisely what it means. The proposal is to change this from a skin-color-based list to one based on being from the continent of Africa, no matter what color your skin. Since most of the contents are Africans we'd just have to add some other African billionaires to the list - but black would have nothing to do with the new list. EQ, your attempts to equate the problems with this list with problems determining who is from Wales are ridiculous. They're not the same kettle of fish, in any way shape or form. We dont allow categories based on race here, but we do have oodles based on nationality and ethnicity. Why is that so?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the massive distinctions between the two articles, why don't you just create the new page and nominate this one for deletion? Bali88 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

since there is a longer edit history here worth preserving as well as some text, and because the majority of the current list would be in the list of billionaires from Africa, so this is essentially expanding the scope. It seems people are keen to recognize when 'black' people have been successful, but as is the list combines too many unlike things with inclusion criteria which is subjective and most likely based on photo analysis or some other racial criteria. An expanded list would have all of these Africans on it plus some other Africans who don't have skin which is as dark, for example there are a number of Egyptian billionaires, and many Egyptians have sub-saharan admixture if DNA/subsaharan descent is important for some reason, and yet they aren't usually classified as black so they wouldn't qualify for this list. If you want to keep this list, can you give clear inclusion criteria? Must sources call the person black, or does the person have to self identify as black? Or does it depend where his parents were from and what color skin they had?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is as big as you're making it in terms of inclusion criteria. Can you provide some sources that detail the problem with determining who is Black? If there is someone whose race is questionable, we can look at what the sources say about it and discuss it on the talk page. Honestly, I don't think there is enough semblance between the two topics that we can take this article and make it into something that is completely different. I think wikipedia can even handle two articles: one for African billionaires and one for Black billionaires. If you feel strongly that this article shouldn't exist, I think that is the proper channel for this. That is my suggestion. Bali88 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

race is a purely social construction - any biologist worth their salt will tell you that any notion of human 'races' has no basis in science. I've read that the genetic variation amongst random 'black' people might be greater than the genetic variation between black and 'white' people on average. Since race is a social construction, it manifests itself differently in different societies. Thus, if you're American, you may have no difficulty with the word 'black' and say 'it's easy to tell who is black', since black is more or less synonymous with 'African American' and that is a strong and well known identity in the US. But what does 'black' mean in South Africa, or in Brazil, or elsewhere in Latin America? People who are NOT black in some of those countries come to the US and realize that here, they ARE black , or seen as such - or, alternately, that where they are from they are considered 'black' but they're not 'black' in America. Thus a global definition for 'black' does not exist, at least no consensus version, some claim Andaman islanders are black (they are from India), some Tamils call themselves black, some Sri Lankans have African ancestry - are they 'black'? Black is not a skin color nor a scientifically describable race, it is instead a concept that is invented and rengotiated in each society and country often very differently. Thus while country-level ethnic groups actually have a lot more binding them together - eg common histories, language, culture - and if such an ethnic group was a minority then it could be proper to group them together - this is why we have categories for African American novelists but no categories for black novelists. On the other hand, 'black' is not a worldwide ethnicity, or even a likely grouped set of ethnicities which is the claim of Elaquate - no such global black exists for people with dark skin worldwide. The only reasonable inclusion criteria for this list is self-identification as black, but you are unlikely to find that outside of Americans I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support exactly as per nom. "Black" is not a very ... umm ... please forgive me... "black-or-white" term. "African" is a lot clearer, a lot more WP:PRECISE. Red Slash 23:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear from your response if you understood his view on this. He wants to make it a list of people who hail from Africa who are billionaires (black or not) and remove everyone else who isn't a citizen of an African country. My suggestion was to create the second article and nominate this one for AFD as I don't feel it's right to change an article completely from one to another when the two topics have nothing at all to do with one another. I don't know if there is any wikipedia policy that deals with such an event, but changing the scope in such a dramatic way...I don't feel like this is the correct route. How do you feel about that? Bali88 (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ehh, that'd be okay, too, I suppose. But this is cleaner. Red Slash 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I admit that I didn't read the entire list of comments, but shouldn't this article simply be deleted? ALL we need is a list of Billionaires and that's it. This endless debating (while interesting), seems to be going no where, and heaven forbid if a so-called ALBINO African-American suddenly became a billionaire overnight (lol). If you wanted to, you could simply make a mention on the list of billionaires as to whom has black ancestry or whatever. End of story. AnimatedZebra (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be deleted, but that was my suggestion to the nominator. If he feels strongly that this article shouldn't exist, but "African Billionaires" should, he should create the other article and nominate this for deletion through the AFD page. I don't feel it's appropriate to change one article to another that has zero relation to the first. Bali88 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Billionaire couple?

Should we give a mention to special situations such as Beyonce and Jay Z who are estimated to in the billion dollar range as a couple? Bali88 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Reason for Page Move

This page was moved to "Billionaires of African descent" because "Black" is not a widely accepted term; even in countries where the term is accepted, it has significantly varying and controversial meanings. It's even more important to move this article to a more appropriate title, since many subjects mentioned in this article come from countries where "Black" is not defined. For instance, there are several Nigerians on this list; in Nigeria, not only is "Black" not defined, it is considered a derogatory term by most of its population (more than "Nigger" is considered derogatory in America in fact).

A user reverted my move, stating "obviously not appropriate". I don't understand how it is inappropriate to move an article to a title that's already present as a note at the top of the article. Wikipedia is not a place to impose terms of specific countries on everyone else, and especially not a platform to insult people! Wikipedia is supposed to use more widely used terms, especially in articles that are not country-specific. Per WP:COMMONALITY, "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia. Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles". This is the closest and most appropriate title that can be used for this article, and has been used for other articles like it.

This article is clearly listing billionaires with African ancestry, so there's absolutely no need to give it a hideous title, when you can just explicitly state what the article is about in the title. I've seen the previous discussion; Ofcourse, "Billionaires of Africa" is obviously inappropriate, and it has a completely different meaning from "Billionaires of African descent". If the users want to retain "Black Billionaires", then subjects who are from countries that do not define "Black", or do not recognize racial classifications should be removed. No one is going to disturb you if the article is about American people, since the term is a regular accepted term in the United States.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is your own opinion, and your own synthesis of the data. Read the sources, follow the sources. The sources say "Black" because they mean "Black". Of course, the definition of "Black" varies from place to place, though so does "of African descent" (starting with the obvious fact that everyone is of African descent, and probably ending with that most North Africans (and Boers) are of recent African descent and generally not considered Black). Using this article to promulgate your own ideas of how to talk about race (rather than those of the sources we're summarising) is an obviously inappropriate thing to do - one of the five basic principles of Wikipedia is that it's written from a neutral point of view; for you to advance your own agenda, consider Wordpress or Blogspot. If anyone is included on the list where there's reason (from reliable sources, not your own ideas about how to socially construct race) to believe they don't identify/are not identified as Black, by all means remove them. WilyD 12:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• This has also been discussed numerous times, in AfD, requested move, etc. Look at the archives. WilyD 12:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jamie Tubers how do we know that your claim of "Black" being unacceptable to most Africans and not being widely used for description is not just your personal view? Do you have multiple reliable sources where this is discussed? Stanleytux (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• The point is it is not a widely defined term, with controversial meanings across different countries. And not defined at all in other countries. There's no worldview of what "Black" is, but we can easily make the title of the article more explicit to show what we mean.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get all that from? which countries? please can you provide reliable sources where all these are discussed. If you can't then there's no need to move this page. Stanleytux (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• No, I'm not going to provide sources to you. They are available all over the internet, maybe you need to read more.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I found it very unnecessary to move the page if no reliable sources support the proposed title. I think I would have to agree with Stanleytux on this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: there were no reliable sources naming those personalities "Black Billionaires" either. I wonder whose idea it was to compile the list and create the article in the first place, which isn't needed. But even if there are reliable sources from some countries calling one or two people on this list "Black Billionaires", then WP:COMMONALITY, clearly makes an exception that a more widely accepted term is preferred to country specific terms.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Your contention is that Forbes is not a reliable source? (Since they're the main source to have taken an interest in Black billionaires, although there are a few others). WilyD 12:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• And you carefully ignored what WP:COMMONALITY states about naming conventions. The fact remains that, a generally accepted, more explicit, and uncontroversial term used globally is "people of African descent", not "Black" which has been subjected to several definitions in different places, and not defined at all in other places in fact. Your point about "everyone being of African descent" is such a joke to say the least! So, that matters now? last I checked, there's a note on top of this article saying the article is about billionaires of black African ancestry; using the same scientific reference, is everyone in the world not of black African ancestry? Contradictory much? This is not the first time I've seen some blatant double standards in here...and I'm not even gonna push it, because I know many others here would think as you do; which is okay, since you all reside in the same regions. The systemic bias here would probably not be over until there is a balance in the proportion of editors from other parts of the world.

And btw, Forbes is an American magazine, so the reason for their use of word isn't far fetched....I pointed that out in my earlier post. Anyway, I'm not giving personal opinions on which "racial construct" is appropriate (cos I know little about racial construct and all its ruckus), rather I'm saying there should be no racial construct on Wikipedia pages that are not talking solely about countries with racial construct, since it is not a global phenomenon. I'm the one who is trying to make the article more neutral and balanced, while you are doing exactly the opposite. I'm done with this discussion. Enjoy! :)--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Black billionaires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080519060424/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/10/2002/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&uniqueId=7TE8&datatype=Person to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2002/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&uniqueId=7TE8&datatype=Person
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110101155118/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=O0ZT&datatype=Person to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=O0ZT&datatype=Person
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070821195311/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=7TE8&datatype=Person to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=7TE8&datatype=Person

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Black billionaires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110316115034/http://thenationonlineng.net:80/web3/news/30610.html to http://thenationonlineng.net/web3/news/30610.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061028090905/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/10/2001/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2001&passListType=Person&uniqueId=7TE8&datatype=Person to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2001/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2001&passListType=Person&uniqueId=7TE8&datatype=Person
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060428014940/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/10/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&uniqueId=AQ88&datatype=Person to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&uniqueId=AQ88&datatype=Person

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Mohammed Al Amoudi

The table says Al Amoudi has no wikipedia page, which seemed bizarre for someone worth 8+ billion dollars. I checked, and there totally is one, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Hussein_Al_Amoudi

I tried to fix the table myself, but after looking at the edit page, I was afraid I might break it worse if I tried. I hope someone else has time to put in the right link. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.107.34 (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Why is there a section on Michael Jackson? So he suggested to an interviewer that he was worth more than was fact. I'm sure that happens all the time. Don't see any reason to highlight this case, especially since there doesn't seem to be any coverage of "OMG MJ bragged he was a billionaire but he wasn't" --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reginald Lewis

American black billionaire. He was the first, not Robert Johnson. Enigma^msg 21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

The Michael Jackson section is completely unnecessary. His estate is worth billions now but not when he was alive, a little joke he made in an interview doesn't mean anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.69.43.114 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Michael Jackson section, which not only seems like an afterthought in this article, but also delegitimizes the rest of the page because the content simply does not meet the criteria. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed. His unsupported claim is not encyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)