Talk:Black British people/Archive 1

Content
This page needs expanding by someone more qualified than me.

I'd suggest a bit on The Voice, perhaps the riots in the 80s and modern British rap. FreeMorpheme 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I think the the my fellow britons whom are black have made such a contribution to this country im just sad that there has been so much racism on the part of the Government in the past and as a white person there should be a apology for the Governments actions including the role we have played in slavery !
 * I hope this article will not be degenerating into a purely one-sided presentation of black british grievances. Although these are important, it is very important in an article of this kind to put forward all the alternative viewpoints involved. This will allow production of a balanced article with differing perspectives and analysis, which is the intention of a Wikipedia article.


 * You should sign your stuff if you're posting on a talk page, or people might not take you seriously. Of course, that still might be a danger. You deleted out the phrase unwilling visitors to the isles assuming it meant 'legitimate' slaves, and cite the Cartwright Decision as proof there were never slaves in Britain. (!) That decision was made before the colonies had even been discovered; as soon as the proto-Empire found out there were rich resources to be plundered any ethical niceties were completely abandoned. You can't deny Britain's involvement in the slave trade, and the notion that no slaves ever came here is laughable, as well as ignoring the evidence that there were plenty of slaves knocking about back then. A quick Google will provide that.


 * Anyway, I laud your attempts to provide a balanced view in the article, but I don't think you're quite as disinterested as you might like to be. What's all this 'most Britons', and 'many non-Blacks' stuff? Where's your evidence that most crime against Asians is perpetrated by blacks? If you've got it, great, throw it up here. If not... FreeMorpheme 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you never came back, so I've changed your stuff, removing the weasels and hopefully leaving it more balanced. It still needs a lot of additions, there is next to nothing on the actual culture the article references so much. I might tag it as such. Ciao. FreeMorpheme 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the notion that no slaves came to Britain is far from laughable. You can try to find an authoritative academic source to back your opinion.


 * Secondly, i did not say (a) most crime against Asians is perpertrated by Blacks, or (b) anything involving "most Britons". You should read more carefully.


 * Thirdly, i'm not sure what this not-so-disinterested stuff is about, but as long as the article is is adequately referenced and includes the relevant viewpoints, i am fine with it.

Link between Black and Asian
It was my impression that British Asians were included along with Afro-Caribbean people in a politicized British conception of the word "Black" (e.g. Southall Black Sisters) in the 1970s-1980s (somewhat like the way South Asian Americans are part of the larger Asian American movement). This isn't addressed in the article. Any comments? --Anirvan 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I've never heard "black" used in this way, for Britain or for other countries. I think very few people would think of Asians of you said "Black British". But maybe others have heard it used like this? Wxyzzz 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly true pre-Scarman. Indeed Lord Scarman was very keen to break up solidarity between people of Asian and African descent, and in many ways followed policies of ethnicisation used in South Africa.Harrypotter 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've certainly heard of so-called asians being called black - in fact i will be changing the Black people and other articles to reflect this - i think you are right Harry re: ethnicisation, i reckon that the UN policy of diferentiating between Arabs and African is similar. However the pan-African politics of groups like Ligali.net support that diferentiation - so a siference has to be made between family, tribe, village, race, nation and class. Paki.tv 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem a little too biased in trying to group all people who are not pale as black, Paki, which seems problematic. South Asians are usually Indo-European (such as the majority in Pakistan and India), and thus cannot be successfully group to Africans ethnically (closely, we are all related), however, they can be grouped with European people ethnically, thus Scarman had no need to cause people to differentiate between blacks and South Asians, they were different to begin with. If you want to group South Asians as the same people as black, then you'd have to do the same thing with Europeans, who are often even more related (due to interactions with Africans from early times) to black people than South Asians, who are more distant.

Maybe a terminology section would be better, with a mention of the fact that people erroneously used black for South Asians in the past too. But this article is about truly Black British people, who are the descendants from Africans (but also usually mixed too). 81.129.52.30 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IT is of course POV to say that a use of the term "Black" in a more inclusive way is "erroneous". It was used as a political term in a very deliberatively way. The notion of a truly Black people suffers from this too. Which why so many people of African descent nowadays prefer to be identified as being in some way African.Leutha (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain or UK? and ancestry
There are several problems here. . . 1) We are not refering simply to people "in" Britain/UK, but in some way "of" Britain. Likewise it is a matter of ancestry not where they are from themselves. 2) Are Black people in Northern Ireland British. Certainly "British" people, or people witha "British" identity, or people with a protestant identity are called "Black" as a term of abuse, which seems to have little to do with Africa or Asia - (but it might be a projection of heathenism as a non-European quality . . . So unless soemone is prepared to deal with this thorny issue let us leave it at Britain for now!!!!Harrypotter 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there is also the old term "Black Irish" which refers simply to distinctively dark haired Irish people! So it is a minfield. --Zleitzen 14:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added this info to the Black people debate page too
 * The Runnymede Trust and Radical Statistics Race Group, in the glossary to their joint book "Britain's Black Population" (London, 1980) define black as follows: "Generally used in this book to refer to the population of New Commonwealth countries and Pakistani origin, that is the population born in New Commonwealth countries and Pakistan and their children born here. When used this term does not imply a cultural homogeneity among the various groups to which it refers. (This corresponds to the definition New Commonwealth and Pakistani origin used by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys)."

In the introduction to the book, the editors Usha Prashar of the RT and Dave Drew of RSRG explain that: "What immigrants from New Commonwealth and Pakistan (NCWP) and their children have in common is the material consequences and, in very many cases, the direct experience of discrimination. Discrimination, as the studies by Political and Economic Planning (PEP) have demonstrated, is based upon colour. Hence, the reference to Britain's black population. It can, of course, be argued that some immigrants and their children do not want to be labelled as black. That is not denied, but the defence of this terminology in this context lies with the fact that, irrespective of their own particular beliefs, experiences and the wide range of cultural variations, racism and racial discrimintation is a crucial determinant of their economic and social situation." It may also interst you that the same glossary refers to race (racial group) as follows: "A term which was used in the late eighteenth and duruing the nineteenth century by scientists and public to refer to a supposedly biologically distinct section of homo sapiens. The scientific basis for such distinctions has now been discredited. However, the general popuilation continues to use the terms to refer to a group of persons who they identify as having different physical features from themselves. Because this usage has no scientific validity, the term is not used as a descriptive category in this book, except where usage by others requires." 62.25.106.209 10:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

South Asians
Sure, white people have occasionally called Asians "black". But that is something that should not be expanded on in the opening paragraph of an article about Black British people. The citations provided each refer to racist applications of the term. By that reckoning, we should go to the British African Caribbean Community page (which I wrote) and write in the opening paragraph "British African Caribbeans are also referred to as ******"(add insult), that would be citable and true but wholly innappropriate to an encylopedia. Asians self describing as black was a feature of civil rights movements during the 70's and 80's - that is of note. Correct me if I'm wrong but people seem to be suggesting that the view of bigoted/ignorant people should be represented in equal measure. --Zleitzen 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The citations do refer to abusive use, but that does not alter the fact that it was commonplace and remains familar. The citation is not for the abusive term, but for the use of black, and for the fact that this experience - in part - explains later self-identification. Also, it was commonplace from at least the mid-nineteenth century, as the reference to Salisbury (who is not trying to be abusive) indicates. Paul B 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you need to refer to back to Salisbury is evidence that this issue is far too complex to be summarised in one opening sentence of this page. There are many descriptions of black people that were "commonplace and remain familar" - yet certainly do not warrant inclusion in this form. This is one of them. Explore it in a section within the main article. --Zleitzen 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apart from mere assertion, I see no argument being made here. The summary is one sentence, and its truth is not even being disputed. Paul B 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Racial stereotypes or the opinions of people who lumped all dark skinned people together do not belong in an encyclopedic article about Blacks. That's like saying, oh Neo-Nazis commonly refer to black people as monkeys so lets go to the monkey article and mention blacks in the introduction.  Paul, don't be absurd.--Editingoprah 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What a silly thing to say. There is no analogy to "monkeys" except in the world of people who confuse species-differences with socially defined racial categories, which are typologies not immutable facts of nature. The latter is just the kind of belief that Neo-Nazis do have. Paul B 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Paul, monkeys are not a species, they are a broad socially defined category of primates. And btw my blackness is an immutable fact of nature, not the political prop you're trying to make it.  I know you're trying to be politically correct, but all you're doing is looking foolish. Did Neo-Nazis believe that race was biological. Yes.  They also believed that birds could fly.--Editingoprah 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My argument is clear. Do not refer to complex, highly charged and potentially offensive usages of words in one sentence of an introduction. It is very poor practice. And, as is clearly evident, unworkable. It should be removed and explored in full in the main body of an article.--Zleitzen 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument is non-existent. The sentence did not refer to "highly charged and potentially offensive usage of words" except in so far as the term "black" generally carried some negative connotations in mainstream/white culture (which would apply equally to anyone it was used of). The sentence merely states that the term often included South Asians in mainstrean usage. If you think that is "offensive" to South Asians then that may say something about your own unexamined prejudices. Paul B 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Paul, as a black person, calling South Asians black is very offensive to me because I don't enjoy my racial identity being used as a political prop. Blacks are not the race that everygone gets to run to when no one else will accept them.  But aside from whether it is offensive or not, it is fringe POV pushing.  Mentioning South Asians in the opening paragraph of this article elevates a fringe view to center stage.  It is a violation of wikipedia's no undue weight rules.--Editingoprah 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? It's "offensive" to Zaph to exclude non-Africans, and in the opinion of User:195.92.40.49 it's apparently "offensive" to Africans to be called black. There are too many people here being "offended" for completely contradictory reasons, all convinced that the others are "uncles Toms" or whatever. It's pathetic. But the truth is that the real offence here is your refusal to accept consensus and your dishonesty by using sockpuppets. Paul B 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that Editingoprah finds it offensive is not the point. The point he/she is making is that its a fringe view, a fringe definition of black so why are you so obsessed with forcing it down everyone's throat?  What is your motivation?  Are you a South Asian who wishes he was black?  Are you a black who wishes he was South Asian?  What's your motivation behind your passionate crusade to have South Asians recognized as Black?  You guys are using wikipedia as a political weapon and in a really pointless way.  Just stick to standard definitions of words not obscure ones.  The idea of South Asians being black is laughable.  I took a break from wikipedia hoping this idiodic debate would die down only to discover you pushing it in yet another newsgroup.--Kobrakid 23:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I must admit that I am getting a bit fed up with the continual reversions Editingoprah, not to mention some of the comments they have made on this page, which on occasions have fallen little short of bigotry. In fact this is the person pushing a fringe POV (as shown by the surveys quoted), whereas the article as I have reverted it, reflects the debate around this issue. Further more the insistence on regarding the governments census as determinant rather than another piece of New Labour social engineering is quite revealing. Clearly Editingoprah doesn't mind using this as political prop. Also the removal of the piece about historical texts further creates more confusion. Of course this refers to records which existed a long time before Editingoprah was born or had a racial identity, but when there were people described as Black in Britain. When we look at organisations such as the Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor and examine the names, we realise there were people of Asian origin amongst them, and indeed amongst those who went to found Sierra Leone. It is important that this is made clear, whether Editingoprah likes it or not. Having this some what trite argument obscures a deeper seated problem which has arisen when trying to assess the size of the "Black British" population - a problem which exists historically as much as in contemporary society. As more and more admixture happens in British society, is it possible to rigorously define who is or is not "black". In many ways this, and the problems which Editingoprah has in getting others to accept their view, have provided the impetus for the adoption of the term African British as an identity, and allowing the term Black British to have a looser more general meaning. I hope we can resolve this issue without a continuing edit war, as there are so many ways in which the page could be improved. I would hate to see the same sort of stalemate which has affected the Black People page spread here!Harrypotter 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What the hell kind of POV paranoid crap are you pushing? The census definition social engineering?  Yes all the census definitions in nearly every country in the world are all involved in a grand conspiracy to keep South Asians and Africans from realizing they're both part of the same race.  And the anthropologists are in on the conspiracy too, that's why they classify South Asians as Caucasoid and Africans as Negroid-all part of the social engineering to keep the dark skinned people of the world from rising up against whitey.  Oh and the genetic research by Cavalli-Sforza which shows that sub-Saharan African ethnic groups form a clear genetic cluster totally distinct from the Caucasoid cluster in which South Asians fall is part of the conspiracy also.  Oh and dictionary.com which defines "black perosn" as a dark-skinned person from Africa-also in on the conspiracy to separate me from my long lost South Asian brothers. And don't tell anyone, but South Asia's really in Africa. The maps were all redrawn as part of a New labour social engineering experiment.  Shhhhhhh.--Editingoprah 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

South Asians shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all
Certainly not in the opening paragraph. This is an article about black people. Create an article about British South Asians if that's what you want to talk about. But South Asians are not black. Never have been never will be.--Kobrakid 01:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes they have, and you know it. It's been demonstrated to you over and over and over. Paul B 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the Dravidian page.
 * Herodotus, Homer and other Greek authors called the Dravidians the Eastern Ethiopians. Greek writers sometimes identified the "Western Aethiopians" of East Africa with the "Eastern Aethiopians" of South India. Also the African and Indian geography were sometimes compared or identified with each other: Arrian (vi. i.) mentions that the Indus River was thought by some ancient Greeks to be the source of the Nile. It is usually assumed that by 'Aethiopian' Herodotus simply means 'black person', so that the term really only functions to characterise southern Indians as Eastern black people.Harrypotter 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the history lesson, but obsolete and unusual word use should not be in the introduction of the article.--Kobrakid 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I am glad you concede the pint. However as the term "Eastern Aethiopians" doesn't appear in the introduction, I am not sure what point you go on to make.Harrypotter 20:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is 72.1.195.5 one of Gormund's Vandals?
I note from the talk page of 72.1.195.5, that there is a history of vandalism, so the insulting comment here might be quite in character.Harrypotter 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Black used for South Asians in British society.
South Asians are an identiFICATION crisis! Referring to them as `black' is often considered unnacceptable and although there is substantial Caucasian (`Caucasoid') admixture among many of them as well as being able to claim Aryan heritage, they are almost never regarded as `white', even the fair European looking Pashtuns and Kashmiris from the north. Although statistically `Asian' in many societies, they are a separate race and culture to the Asians from the Far East. The Indian subcontinent, like Brazil, is a heterogenous melting pot of so many races and ethnic groups that they cannot be clustered as a `race unto themselves' as some anthropologists have claimed. There is no distinctive way of identifying them phenotypically. Even referring to them as being `Brown' is not always appropriate.

In Britain, I notice that when people refer to South Asians as `black', it is in a political sense. From my experience, when a South Asian is dubbed as `black' it has often been based on what the individual looks like. Without argueing fact, many South Indians are as heavily pigmented to the same degree that a Sub-Saharan African is. The term black may also be used in Britain in conjunction with a joke or an insult when used for a South Asian. On the other hand is the term `black' appropriate to use to refer to the likes of Asians with chiseled Caucasian features like Freddie Mercury, Imran Khan, Karisma Kapoor, and Benazir Bhutto? I have met many Southern Europeans (Italians, Portuguese, Greeks) living in Britain who have said that they have been mistaken for `Pakis' at least once in their lives, it is not uncommon that they can be indistinguishable, they look pretty swarthy to me. They, my friends, are statistically included as being `White British'!!!

Reality Check
Proper South Asians do not like Black people and they would never classify themselves as Black. South Asians were never slaves and South Asian societies were highly civilised.

Its hilarious to see Black nationalism disregard other non White races when in actual fact other non White races despise association with Blacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.82.37 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead
The lead of this article, an issue that appears to be unnecessarily contentious, still seems to me to be unclear. Here are the wikipedia guidelines from theLead section page.

Could Paul Barlow, who seems to be the main editor of this lead, take a look at the above guidlelines and consider whether our article conforms.--Zleitzen 17:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "brixton overcoat" section
Hi all, I deleted the brixton overcoat section because it read more like a philosophical text/political pamphlet than an encyclopedia entry. Also, unless there is an actual "brixton overcoat" article I don't think it should be put in. --Aliwalla 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Catagory edit.
turkedit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.220.3 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rio Ferdinand is not black, he is MIXED-RACE...
There is a picture of Rio Ferdinand as an example of a Black Briton on this page. However, when you click onto his page it reads "His father, Julian Ferdinand emigrated from St. Lucia. His mother, Janice Lavender, is Anglo-Irish." Does this not make him mixed-race?
 * Exactly, mixed race has there own category so why is Lewis Hamilton and Rio Ferdinand included in the photos...take them out; mixed race populations should not be included; they already have their own category, mixed British! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.78.7 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is the mixed race populations included for???


 * Seacole, Craig David, Shirly Bassey, etc are not black; they are mixed race. Mixed race British have their own article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it odd that the contributors here are unacquainted with the way the fact that:
 * many black people are mixed race
 * many mixed race people are black

. . . even Bob Marley!Harrypotter (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An important point - some mixed race people have black skin and look like black people. This is why they (we) are referred to as black or refer to ourselves in this way. Not all 'mixed race british' people are black (for exmaple they can be an asian-white mix). I can't think of any significant reason whatsoever to only include people who have no 'mix'. I'd also like to make you aware of the fact that many black people have 'mixed' origin that they may not be aware of despite their immediate appearance/immediate ancestry. I think these comments may have been made by people who are not mixed race and who don't quite understand our identity. If 'black' is a colour, we must be included. If 'black british' is a culture, we must be included because there has been no 'mixed race' culture to speak of. Many of us have grown up with this national identity (this has been the case for decades). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.19.50 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

White Grievances in the UK with respect to Black British
If this article is to be taken seriously at all it MUST be balanced.

As a white foreigner that has been living in London for the last two years I have been astounded and shocked at the severe racist behaviour I have experienced from Black British.

I've never met a race or group of people with sadistic violent tendencies and openly racist abusive and hostile behaviour as I have from the Black British.

I'm sick and tired of Black British complaining about how hard their lives are. I do not deserve to be treated this way by any peoples. The Black British need to realise Whites from many countries have lived in slavery, oppression, wars too.

Swear to god, I feel as if the Black British have declared war on white people in the UK regardless of their origins. So I leave this message to the Black British who are DETERMINED to injure and abuse whites: be careful with what you wish for - for this is not a tolerable way of behaving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.141.46 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When the HELL have whites been slaves?! shut the hell up, just avoid the black guys like all the rest of the white "foreigners" do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.11.231 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Guðríður Símonardóttir was a white slave. The evil of the slave owners is such that they were quite prepared to enslave who they could.Harrypotter (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we not have people posting with their personal gripes please? If you have a personal gripe, take it elsewhere. You can't say 'we must have a balanced view' and then say 'i've never met a race or group of people with sadistic violent tendencies... as I have from the Black British'. This is not a balanced view. Clearly you've had some kind of bad experience but that does not justify labelling all Black British people in this way. I don't see the validity of a 'black vs white' discussion here either (or anywhere, actually). You may be referring to British/English Xenophobia which I do think is a problem amongst all races and you have a right, maybe, to post a discussion there if there is such a page. I also don't think snide (and false) comments like 'avoid the black guys like all the rest of the white "foreigners" do' are relevant either (as well as also being an unbalanced comment judging from personal experience). - "anonymous". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.19.50 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

yeah, the pic's on the top with naomi campbell and the rest
that clearly isn't lennox lewis, could someone change that, i actually thought it was pretty funny though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.11.231 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographics Section
How can blacks have risen to 3.4% of the population by 2005, when just in 2001 they were only 2%? Also, this claims is not sourced. If the original author, or anyone else, has verifiable source please submit it before I fix it. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ==TheMoors, Queen Philippa and other blatant historical errors= I have deleted Queen Philippa of Hainault from article as the article on her in Wikipedia clearly proves that her ancestry was not African-black or otherwise. As for the Moors, this article implies that they were black, This is incorrect as the Moors were a Semetic people of mixed Arab and Berber origin. Remember this is an encyclopedia and one cannot insert unsourced claims about the ancestry of historical personages to meet a certain agenda.jeanne (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can someone help clarify the correct black British population numbers? Anon IP editor 82.35.82.81 made unexplained, unsourced changes to the main numbers, so I reverted it only to find out that this user has been slowing increasing this number over time.  According to the 2001 UK census information, the black British population is 1,148,738 (2%), which includes black Caribbean, 565,876; black African, 485,277; black (others), 97,585.  The total in the article about a month ago was 1.5 million, but where did this figure come from? Kman543210 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Black on Black violence
Have edited this part relating to this, since it seemed to be implying that black on black violence is not significant, through very dubious use of statistics. Since black people are a significant minority in Britain, one would expect (all things being equal) that aproximatly 3% of the murders of black people would be commited by blacks. The fact that the actual number is 56% indicates that this is a significant problem and the wording of the paragraph should reflect this. Furthermore the fact that "only" 10% of murders of white britons are commited by non-whites is statistically insignificant given the realative sizes of the populations. Binboy69 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This article seems Afro-Caribbean-centric...
I thought that this article was supposed to cover both Afro-Caribbeans AND Black Africans, but that doesn't seem to be so. For example, the section on music only covers Afro-Caribbeans, with no mention of Africans.

Demographics Statistics are WRONG and inconsistent
The figures for each region and city should be taken out until accurate information is gathered. (93.97.78.171 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Incorrect demographic statistics
I feel that a major change is due to the demographics of this article. The black population in this country is, clearly, much larger than the 1,900,000 figure says. There is even an article that states, in clear terms from the Foreign Office, that there is between 800,000 - 3 Million Nigerian British in the country.http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/sub-saharan-africa/nigeria?profile=intRelations&pg=4.

With this in mind, the actual figure is likely to be around 9,000,000, or something similar, and the percentage of blacks a lot higher, as a consequence of that.

Give me your opinions on how we can fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.177.5 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed I believe this figure is probarbly lower than the actual numbers, the 2001 Census showed around 1.3 million Black Britons, and to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia I only used official estimates for England and the census data for Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland for an official number. Any other more recent source would be appreciated. Stevvvv4444 talk 21:02, 8 January 2009.


 * Sorry but there is a big gap between 800,000 and 3 million, using information from the most recent census seems to be the safest way to proceed aslong as it makes clear the date of the figures. I would also strongly suggest you seek to change the figures on UK demographics before just changing the number on here, otherwise its going to lead to alot of confusion when with those figures almost 10% of the population of the United Kingdom is black, which is simply not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please ask about a possible change on Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom or Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom. Otherwise all the figures will be completly out of sync and confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why has the demographic box been changed, once again, to a highly unlikely figure? This also provides no source, justification, or qualification for where the figure actually came from. I will delete this at once, and until we come to a consensus on what the real figure is, shall be reverted back to the 2001 census figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeroAxis (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Living in Britain, can one really say that 1 in 10 inhabitants of Britain is Black. I agree with British Watcher, an estimate of 800,000-3 million Blacks in Britain is a brutal estimate. Why cant you just follow what the statistical office of Britain says. There are 1.4 million Blacks in Britain which seems very appropriate. And this article is not about mixed race people; they should not be included in these figures. If 9 percent of Britain was black, in 2001, the census would not reveal that Britain was 2 percent Black. - Galati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.207.146 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course mixed race people should be included if we are of black ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.19.50 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone has got their facts wrong about the black population in London. 15% seems too high and also on the Greater London page it says the black population in London is 41% which is ridiculous.

Black Roman soldiers?
John O'Farrell writes in "An untterly impartial history of Britain": "Recent DNA studies have revealed that black African soldiers were stationed at Hadrian's Wall". I don't know which studies he refers to and it isn't clear whether these were studies on living Britons or on some dead body and what remained of them. Although the firstsaid seems more likely. Is there someone who knows more about this? This web side argues partially against O'Farrell: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/blackhistorymap/arch.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahTM (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found this; via Google just now which also makes reference to Roman soldiers of African origin serving in Britain, and some staying after their military service ended. Also mentions other early events, such as "According to the historians Fryer, Edwards and Walvin, in the 9th century Viking fleets raided North Africa and Spain, captured Black people, and took them to Britain and Ireland.", has a list of further reading at the bottom as well which would be handy for reference purposes. Also some interesting and useful info with scanned documents, about African presence in Britain, relating to James IV. For example; "To celebrate Shrove Tuesday in 1505, several Africans including a 'taubronar' (drummer) and a choreographer were present in Edinburgh." Mayhaps some of this could be incorporated in this wikipedia page?Number36 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

North Africa does not equal Black people, since the people there are definitely NOT black and in the past were not black either. South of the Sahara desert - YES they are black there. But viking raids in North Africa most likely captured caucasian people, who look just like the people who inhabit those lands today. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of Blacks in Britain
A 2006 estimate by National Statistics Online reveals that there are 1.4 million Blacks in Britain. Why are we including mixed race people as well? We must not inflate numbers. Could it be justified that the white British population inflate their numbers because another 400,000 people are half white? I think not. The mixed race population has their own numbers and their own article. The numbers should be changed from 1.9 million to 1.4 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Black British population merger proposal
In the AfD discussion for Black British population, a number of editors suggested merging the article with this one. As it stands, the population article is turning into a directory of statistics. I think that it would be better to summarise the information and keep it to the main Black British article. No other UK census-defined ethnicity group has a similar population article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it really matter that no other UK ethic groups have a similar article?? There is definitely enough information to make this a stand alone article, there is nothing wrong with keeping it at all. A lot of effort has gone into it so far, and it isn't as if it lists every single ward in the UK, just locations with sizeable populations, and usually percentages of 5% upwards. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And actually there is another such article: Demographics of British Bangladeshis, maybe the Black British population article could be expanded further to include more than just population distribution. I stick by my opinion that it is an important article. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be better to maintain the population statistics as a separate page, as it is quite long and extensive.Harrypotter (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

it really does not matter if "no other UK ethic groups have a similar article". The reason for this article is the extremely rapid growth of the Black British population. Apparently by as much as 4% per year over the 2000s. Demographically, a 35% increase over eight years is effectively a step function. Such growths cannot be sustained for long, and what the article does is document an ongoing demographic transition. It will be possible to summarize it in retrospect, but at present the best we can do is collect data. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox population statistics
I think something has gone wrong with the infobox. The footnote on the 2001 Census figure says it includes figures from 2006, and there is no indication of where the 2008 figure is from. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted changes, someone changed the 1.9 million figure to look like it was the census figure and not 2006 estimates and added a more recent estimate. 20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

there is an incredibly detailed breakdown at Black British population. I daresay some sort of rough estimate can be produced for the purposes of the infobox. The 1.9 million figure appears to be a 2006 estimate. Of course, with a 4% growth per annum (!) it is difficult to give any current estimate, because the population grows more rapidly than data can be reliably collected. 1.9 million as of 2006 still seems a reasonable best estimate. If the 4% growth of the 2000s held good since 2006, there will be about 2.1 million today. Stating "roughly 2 million" will be near the mark. This is about best estimates, it isn't in any way an exact science. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Calculating our own estimates is original research. We need to stick to published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Politics
Is there any information on how black people vote in the UK? I would imagine that the majority of black voters choose Labour or the Lib Dems, but it would be interesting to know. BillMasen (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Crime
I recently edited the article to include both statistics and comments from prominent members of British society. These comments, for the most part, expressed concern about the high rates of criminality amongst the black residents in the United Kingdom. This was promptly removed, the person who removed it citing that it didn't actually state that, when it clearly did, and in nearly all of the case studies the words 'black crime concern' appeared on the headline.

You can see here clearly that these articles should form the basis of a 'crime' section:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6753695.stm http://uk.altermedia.info/immigration/black-crime-in-britain-a-%E2%80%9Cserious-crisis%E2%80%9D_1636.html http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100019154/by-talking-frankly-about-black-crime-rod-liddle-is-combatting-racism-not-causing-it/

Anyone who wishes to remove my edits should scan through these articles carefully, as I have done, and show that they don't provide statistics and also commentary from prominent individuals; they do contain these things, and are therefore verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSDR (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained my reverts on the talk page of the IP address you used to anonymously edit the article (please make sure that you sign in in future). To recap, the material you added was not supported by the references provided. For example, you added "Members of the Black community in Britain are often stereotyped as criminals, something which is reflected in crime statistics". The source you gave for this included the line "Committee chairman John Denham said there was no evidence young black people committed more crime than other groups", which contradicts your statement about crime statistics. Secondly, you added the material under the culture heading of the article, when crime is already discussed under social issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that http://uk.altermedia.info does not appear to be a particularly neutral and reliable source. A browse of its homepage reveals it to be little more than a blog, with headlines including "London – whites are gone" and "‘Global Warming’ Zionist Hoax, Planned In 1961…!". Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mid 1700s population figure probably wrong
The museum of London - Docklands - gives a figure of 15,000 black people in the whole of Britain in the 1790s. If you assume the majority of them, maybe 8 or 9 thousand, would have been in London, at that time with a population of close to 1,000,000, you get a percentage of less than 1%. And that is in the 1790s, not 1750. Of course it all depends by how you are defining 'black' and the article seems to suffer from some confusion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.117.231 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the source given confims the 1 to 3 per cent figure. Of course, the source could be wrong, but then so could the Museum of London. I think what I'll do is to more clearly attribute the figure to its source, to suggest that it's only the view of one writer. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Chapeltown
How were the statistics for Chapeltown in Leeds calculated? There is no ward/authority called Chapeltown on the website given in the link. Chapeltown is a tiny area: I doubt that it has 10,000 residents and I doubt that statistics exist on such a small scale. Google Maps doesn't even have Chapeltown in Leeds in as a place. Epa101 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) LI have no idea. It's quite possibly been made up. I also tried to confirm the data for Aston, but while the source has data Aston, I can't find anything from 2005. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This comment by me is more than a year old now. I recently read this article on a book about Chapeltown, which states that the community is 39% White and 26% Asian, so it couldn't be 61.6% Black (the figure given in this article for Chapeltown).  The article is 8 years old now so things might've changed, but I doubt it.  Unless someone provides a source within a week, I'm removing that line.  Epa101 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusion between defining Black and Black British
The intro seems to have got in a bit of a muddle with definitions of the term Black and Black British. Black British - the subjective of the article - is a relatively recent term, and can't be applied to people living in former colonial Africa, since they aren't British.

Is there evidence than other ethnic groups call themselves Black British? Certainly some people would include themselves under a "Black" political banner, but would they describe themselves as "Black British" - again, the subject of the article?Gymnophoria (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I presume that whoever added the bit about Africans intended it to apply to those who migrated to the UK. The introduction could do with a re-write. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually when the Black Poor from London settled in Sierra Leone in the eighteetnth century, they only agreed to proceed with the settlement if the British government - and more importatntly the Royal Navy accepted responsibility for them as being British.Leutha (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1st blacks recorded since the 12th century
FYI... BBC has the article, written by Dr. Sukhdev Sandhu, author and professor.

IMO a 12th century section should be added to document this. MDGx &#9785;&#9786; 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland statistics flawed?
The Northern Ireland census did not have an option for "Black British" - since people of NI are by birth both Irish and British citizens, shouldn't this be altered or at least mentioned that black people there may not view themselves as "British" at all but rather Irish or some other nationality (as it isn't broken down like in England)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.91.248 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Children of Black British people are excluded - seems bizarre...
What is to be done about the children of Black Britons?

Pictures and citations of Shirley Bassey, George Bridgetower and Mary Seacole are included as examples of prominent Black British people. All have a 'white' parent. Yet the 'statistics' area excludes 'mixed race', and apparently, at least one editor above was mortally offended by the inclusion of Rio Ferdinand in the pictures at the top of the article.

Yet, the page 100 Great Black Britons has a large proportion of people with 1 white parent, such as Daley Thompson, Miss Dynamite, Paul Boateng. Presumably, to the immense frustration of the Rio objector. Ackees (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase in the opening section that attempted to alienate the children of Black British people from their parents. It is perfectly clear that many British people with both black and white parents self-identify as 'black'. This article is not about a phrase on the census form, but a social phenomenon that is fluid and complex.Ackees (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Table in the Demographics Section
Someone who knows HTML should fix that code so the table doesn't consume the rest of the article and make it difficult to read. I know this isn't about the content of the article directly, but people won't read it if it looks like that, so it's indirectly related. 75.24.115.90 (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism on the Unemployment statistics?
I just went to quote the unemplyment statistics and they're way different to how I remember them. I think someone has tampered with them. Black and white unemployment have been drastically inflated, especially black. KillerBoogie (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

African British
'African British' redirects here. Africans are not all blacks. I'm looking for information on African British people. Isn't there an article for British people of African ancestry? FonsScientiae (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"contributing to the crime problem in these countries"?
Who on earth added this utterly ridiculous statement? I have removed it. - guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.81 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Are British Somalis Black British people?
Join in the discussion about this edit. One editor thinks it shouldn't be there because, in their opinion, British Somali people are 'not black'. What's your opinion? You are invited to participate in these discussions about Somali people living in the UK. Should Somalis in the UK be included as of the many different communities that identify as Black British?   Ackees (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual facts can be found here. Middayexpress (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Black African
I think the more academic and sensible term is Sub-Saharan Africa, having Black Africans which links to Black people is ridiculous because it is circular. Moreover the very term Black is so nebulous it fails to be any valid way to define a people. Sub-Saharan African, or even better Native African ancestry, Indigenous African. All far better describe people. It is strange that in the UK (or maybe not so strange) the only people who have a color-continent identity Are African people. Imagine Brown-Indians, Yellow-Chinese. But beyond that my main point is we quote the stats--true, but we should write the article for clarity. so Black British are people of black people African heritage that is what you practically have right now. --Inayity (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. 'Sub-Saharan African' is not a social identity term with which most black people self-identify. 'Native African' is likely to get you run out of town in former colonies (bad memories). Indigenous African is a bit WP:OR. If necessary, black people prefer 'black' (including French, Spanish, Portuguese translations) or 'African' or 'African-hyphen', or a specific national or linguisitic/ethnic identity - or local variants. Plus, there are white people (who really do socially identify as 'white') that live in 'Sub-Saharan' Africa. Take the Afrikaners, for example. Do they identify as black people? Nope. Do they live in and have ancestors in southern Africa? Yes. They and others have been in the region a long time. Plus, some commentators take offence at the use of the term 'sub Saharan Africa' as it has all kinds of derogatory connotations. The social identity 'black' IS nebulous, shifting and certainly does not 'define a people'. Black in Brazil means something different in the US and different again in Trindad and Tobago. Black is social identity that is adopted, rejected or conferred in a variety of ways (see  Talk:Nadifa Mohamed. To use 'black' in an essentialist, pseudo-scientific 'racial' way would be to give credence to WP:NPOV racial ideology of the Carlton Coon segregationist type.Ackees (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

2011 census figures
The new figures on ethnicity from the 2011 census have been released:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-ethnicity.html#tab-Ethnicity-in-England-and-Wales

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/11/census-england-wales-maps-religion?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Showing the Black British population has grown to about 1.8 million, and about 3.3% of the population of England and Wales (although no figures yet for Scotland and Northern Ireland)

I thought I'd leave someone else to update it, cause I'm not totally sure how to do it myself. G-13114 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Are any of the editors for this page from the Black British community?
There is information needed from within the community for added insight and a variety of points of view. Numbers shouldn't be all based on censuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.92.123 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 18 December 2012‎
 * Please note: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

So the black community needs to publish their own official statistics for them to be put on here. I still think some one fro me the black community should be one of the editors on here. I take it there isn't. Also http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/settlement-uk this shows that just in 2011 the reported Africans granted settlement was 25% of settlements granted.Most of which was from Nigeria. This is a indication that it has defiantly grown since some of these estimates. Black Caribbean estimates were at 495,000 in 1988 therefore by 2012 it must be at around 1 million which is what community leaders also say. http://web.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CRER_RC/publications/pdfs/Research%20Papers%20in%20Ethnic%20Relations/RP%20No.15.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBCjj11 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 19 December 2012‎
 * Well then, use those references rather than adding unreferenced information. And. Please. Learn. How. To. Sign. Your. Posts.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Except, of course - having now looked at them - that those sources are very limited in what they show. One dates from 1991, another sets out figures for one specific aspect of demographic change. To make assumptions about their wider implications would be unacceptable synthesis.  It's quite possible that good published sources for what you're suggesting do exist - but it's up to you to find them, to justify whatever changes to the text you think should be made to the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Also I think it needs making clear that to make assumptions as you have about the ethnicity of the current editors or that there should be a quota in operation on the particular qualifications required, is clearly out of line with the principles under which Wikipedia works. One of the strengths of this encyclopaedia is it encourages people with the broadest diversity of backgrounds, experience and expertise possible to contribute to articles. Also as Ghmyrtle has already pointed out above, Wikipedia works on the basis of verifiability through use of reliable sources. Implicit in this is that the evidence they support is not owned by a particular group as this undermines the credibility of this evidence. I have read through the articles. One of which is now only of historic relevance. Regarding the more recent report, I cannot see any contradictions with census data. However regardless of this there is nothing in it on which supports your personal assumptions about the level of increases in population of one group over another either at the date of the census or for the period subsequent. Tmol42 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ghmyrtle for your reply. I am new to wikipedia editing and have not read through all the guides on how to use it so if I do make mistakes thats why. I will read through them and attempt to use it in the correct way.I have also been using it on a ipad which hasn't helped. I will try and find these other sources and get our findings and interviews officially published. - To be continued. - BBCjj11 (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand about being a new user - we were all there once. What is most important is that you read up about reliable sources - for instance, it would be no good having your "findings and interviews" published in, say, a blog - they would need to be published in a reputable source, such as a newspaper or - much better - a peer-reviewed academic journal.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Thank you for signing your last message! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Montage in infobox
Unfortunately the image of Jocelyn Jee Esien used in the montage was a copyright violation  so will need to be rplaced. Hopefully a suitable replacement image can be found but in the meantime I've requested that part of the image to be blanked at WP:GL/P. January ( talk ) 19:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Blanked out for now. When a replacement image is found, please leave a note at the Graphics Lab. – JBarta (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaced blank square with PD image of British Black composer Ignatius Sancho (c1729-1780) who is mentioned in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To whoever is interested, there is a going on about this image in the Graphics Lab. – JBarta (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the centre image with Sade Adu so that the montage shows only living 'celebrities'. The general consensus seems to be that the image in the infobox ought to be replaced, as the current montage doesn't reflect the subject of the article. nagualdesign (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clearly there has been no discussion on the subject here - the issue raised was simply the replacement of one of the images for copyright reasons, not redesigning the whole montage.  And, equally clearly, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to suggest that there is a "general consensus" in the other discussion here - which is absolutely the wrong place for a content discussion anyway - to replace the image.  That may well be a good idea, but it needs to be discussed here first.  My view is that the current image is far too large (in terms of number of images), and there needs to be a greater proportion of historical images if they can be found.  Ignatius Sancho was and is an excellent idea - why was he removed?  If there is no further discussion here, the least bad option would be to return to the image with Sancho rather than Sade.  The subject of the article is all Black British people - including those who are dead - not just current celebrities, and the montage should reflect that as far as possible (given the availability of suitable images).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignatius Sancho was removed because he was out of place. If you had read the discussion we were having you would know this. And while the discussion originated at the Graphics Lab, I did leave a note letting folks here know. At any time someone was (and is) more than welcome to either jump in over there, or continue the discussion here... or not. – JBarta (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion should be here, not there, as it is about content not about technical graphics. So far as the content is concerned, the image of Sancha was only "out of place" because there are far too many images of current celebs in the montage.  Most of them should be removed, and the number of images in the montage should be fewer, in my view.  The montage should try to reflect the article content, which is about all Black British people, alive or dead, not current celebs.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't mean to imply that there was any consensus in the Graphics Lab discussion. I said the general consensus seems to be that the image in the infobox ought to be replaced, as the current montage doesn't reflect the subject of the article. And as everyone here has also proffered a similar opinion I stand by that statement. To put it simply, it's easier to make a new montage than fiddle with the old one, and when we're finished we'll have both images. Make a list of usable images and pop into the Graphics Lab sometime. nagualdesign (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the entire discussion here. You'll find what we discussed below. – JBarta (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Article(s): Black British Request: Please could the image in the centre of the third row be blanked (unfortunately the image it was derived from was discovered to be a copyright violation). January ( talk ) 19:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):

Maybe it would be better to replace the image rather than simply block it out? If so, go ahead and find a replacement picture. – JBarta (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Blanked out for now. When a replacement image is found, please leave a note here. – JBarta (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaced blank square with PD image of British Black composer Ignatius Sancho (c1729-1780) who is mentioned in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend finding another candidate for inclusion. While Mr Sancho may be historically significant he has been dead for over 230 years and isn't particularly well known (though still notable, obviously), whereas the rest of the pictures are contemporaries who are all very much alive and easily recognisable to any British person. nagualdesign (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nagualdesign, Ignatius Sancho is both specifically mentioned in §2.3.1), and the total article itself contains far more material about the history of Black Britons (including many who are long deceased) running all the way back to Roman times with far less emphasis on currently living persons. To properly reflect the article encyclopedicly with a montage in the infobox, a majority of the images it contains should really be of historic Black Britons with perhaps just a few contemporary ones and not the other way around. (Only two of the eight images of people within the article itself are of living persons while the other six are of those who have been deceased up to three centuries.) As it is now, the montage actually constitutes a misleading representation of the article's overall topic, not an accurate one. Centpacrr (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I too would suggest that all the rest of the photos, being of modern individuals with a heavy tilt towards popular entertainers shows a noticeable lack of depth. Surely there were British blacks of accomplishment before 1990. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more of an issue for the article as to what picture to use in the infobox. And perhaps the current image doesn't reflect the article well. But I would suggest that Notable British people of Black African descent.jpg be left as it is (but with a different person in the centre) so as to show living or currently notable people. I do agree that someone (wink, wink) ought to create a new montage for the article that's more appropriate. Good idea. (wink, wink) nagualdesign (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us know what you come up with (wink, wink). – JBarta (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nagualdesign, I was only responding to your comment that "In certain circumstances a dead person is no longer considered a person" and that this did not seem to comport with the historical approach of the article. Centpacrr (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. And you're right. I was really making comments about the picture rather than the article. Perhaps if the image was titled Famous British people of Black African descent.jpg or even British celebrities... (yeuch! foul C-word) it would make more sense, as 'famous' (and perhaps moreso 'celebrities') kind of implies living people. ...I haven't actually checked that all of the people pictured are alive. If not then perhaps I'm talking rubbish.nagualdesign (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the centre image with Sade and altered the image description page. If anyone wishes to compile a list of historically significant British people of African descent and can source some images I would be happy to make another image more suitable to the article, but I haven't got the patience to look for 25, 16 or even 9 images. nagualdesign (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging by the lack of activity on their own talk page on this subject, no one over there seems to give much of a shit either way. – JBarta (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've marked this (copyright issue with the image) as 'resolved'. If anyone wishes to use a different image for the infobox they can discuss it on the Black British talk page. *tumbleweed...* nagualdesign (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The lack of discussion there may reflect the fact that no-one knew there was a discussion on replacing the entire montage here - which is completely the wrong place to have such a discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I left a note for y'all letting you know there was a discussion here. So if no one knew about it then no one was checking that talk page... or more likely, no one really cared about the issue or didn't think anything was amiss. But now that you've stumbled by you are more than welcome to continue the discussion on the Black British talk page and maybe even lead the charge in doing something about that montage (if you're so inclined). Happy trails. – JBarta (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please try not to make too many assumptions. The original discussion was about replacing one of the images in the montage, not about redesigning the whole thing - and a comment saying "To whoever is interested, there is a bit of a discussion going on about this image in the Graphics Lab" did not really help to clarify the matter.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with Ghmyrtle that a better discussion to allow as full a range of people from as many historical periods should be included here. One point that occurred to me was what criteria one would want to use to decide whether someone was a member of the "Black British" group. For example, I think if we could include Mary Seacole, that might be a good thing, though it could be that some might object on the grounds of her mixed genetic history. I think her perceived origin, and the unacknowleged importance of her might outweigh any objections to her that could be made. Any comments?  DDStretch    (talk)  10:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. If someone is perceived as (or identifies as) black, they should be considered for inclusion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * *African. nagualdesign (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Further Comment: (e/c) Having read the above, collapsed, discussion, I must say that I agree, again, with Ghmyrtle that Ignatius Sancho is an excellent choice for this infobox. Being "well-known" does not equate to "notable", and the fact that he died a long time ago is simply irrelevant. Also, it matters little that any image available is not a photo (just in case that is an issue). The last point I wish to make in this message is that the title of the montage does not use "currently living" in its title at all; it just says "Notable British people of Black African descent" which allows for people from all historical periods to be used.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you folks decide to put together a new montage, just get together a list of images and make a request at the Graphics Lab. We'd be happy to put it together for you. – JBarta (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks I am sure we all appreciate the work you have done, and, it seems, with insufficient input from others. I (for instance) would not be able to do a montage, so you do deserve our thanks. We may, I imagine, tweak it a little and get back in touch with you.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right - some earlier comments (about "no-one giving a shit") were a little wide of the mark, but we'll move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. I suggest that the montage should comprise no more than 4 x 4 = 16 images, and that at least 4 or 5 of those should be of historic figures.  Mary Seacole and Ignatius Sancho are both good ideas.  Of the current images, I suggest that Naomi Campbell, Diane Abbott, Lennox Lewis, Dizzee Rascal, Idris Elba, Baroness Scotland, Christine Ohuruogu, and Sade, are perhaps the most widely known and/or notable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. We also need to try to get people active in a range of areas represented as well. How about another contemporary person, Mo Farah who was quite successful at the last Olympics? A less certain possibility (for me, because I'm not sure of his notability compared with other ideas that may emerge) could be Charlie Williams (comedian), though I believe there may be a prior black football player who could have a slight priority here.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Other possibilities include Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, and (as probably the most prominent black British politician at the moment) Chuka Umunna.  The list at 100 Great Black Britons suggests many other possibilities.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 16 images (4 x 4) sounds good. Might I suggest starting with the people mentioned in the article? nagualdesign (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but it depends if usable images are available for them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's the rub. It took me 2 weeks to come up with Sade! :-D But if a job's worth doing it's definitely worth you doing it. Not really my area of expertise you see. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you. Instead of trying to decide who should be in the montage or calculating ahead of time how many people should be in it, why not build a gallery with as many images as you can find... then pick and choose from them. It will be a WHOLE lot easier if you actually have something to work with instead of tossing around random ideas. Below are three galleries. The first is of people already in the montage. Do nothing with that. The second are suggestions of other people who could possibly be in the montage. Add to this freely. The third is a gallery of a proposed new montage taking people from galleries one and two. – JBarta (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are all the images freely available for use? That's helpful, thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Charlie Williams image was non-free. I removed it. Sorry. – JBarta (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - are the ones you show as not in the infobox, people who are currently mentioned in the article? Presumably we could use File:Seacole - Challen.jpg - if Mary Seacole is not mentioned in the article, she should be.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some are mentioned, some maybe not. The job here is to first gather images of potentially suitable people so there is a pile of images to pick from. Which of those is or isn't mentioned in the article (or should or shouldn't be mentioned) would be part of the discussion of course. But for now, let's concentrate on getting images to work with. And maybe start copying a few that you definitely want into the third gallery. – JBarta (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I think that, procedurally, it may be best if editors start off by having their own separate sections of preferred images - to avoid a lot of changes to a single section.  We can then discuss and agree them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That's gonna get messy really fast. Just start editing and arguing over the images like proper Wikipedians. I definitely wouldn't start littering this page full of galleries or lists. Just start with some that you're pretty sure no one will argue about and take it from there. Keep it simple. – JBarta (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no rush, and my way will lead to less hassle and mess. My first proposal is below, as a basis for discussion.  I've added some new ones - someone should check that they are OK to use, as copyright policy is not my strong point.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are specific policies in place which were designed to ensure that such collages/montages are formulated as objectively as possible. WP:MUG instructs that "images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light[...] this is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." Incidental, non-posed shots are therefore discouraged. Since the folks in the collage essentially serve as representatives of "Black British" people, it's important that their own ethnic community actually broadly identifies with the label. On this point, WP:ETHNICGROUP, which contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities and tribes, stipulates that "how the group self-identifies should be considered[...] any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Also, please note that mixed race is a separate category in the UK Census from Black British; so is Arab. This would rule out several of the individuals proposed, including Mo Farah (his community generally does not identify as Black British, and Farah is considered an athlete from the Arab world ). Linford Christie or Ian Wright would therefore be more appropriate representatives here. Given the foregoing, regarding the general question of who is notable enough in a Black British context for representation, the most neutral course to follow is to simply adhere to/pick from the published 100 Great Black Britons list. Middayexpress (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The montage is intended to be illustrative of the article content, which includes references to people of mixed race, and to people of Somali origin. Mo Farah is certainly British, and most people would categorise him as black - hence, it is appropriate to mention him in this article, and in the infobox.  But I have no objection in principle to either Linford Christie or Ian Wright.  I agree with looking at the 100 Great Black Britons list, but the image should not seek to identify those who are most notable - it is only meant to be illustrative.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Farah is mainly categorized as Somali; beyond that, it varies. In any case, according to Movinghere, the term "Black British" refers first and foremost to British descendants of first generation Caribbean migrants. Only where necessary does the term refer broadly to all people of African or Caribbean descent living in Britain (c.f. ). If the purpose of the collage/montage is to be illustrative, then it should instead focus on notables that are actually most representative of said Black British identity. Especially ones that helped shape it, like Jazzie B (c.f., ). Middayexpress (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most categories overlap, rather than being exclusive - there is no conflict in being both Somali and black British. Personally I'd support Jazzie B, but we don't have a photo of him.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Black British" refers mainly to UK-born Afro-Caribbeans, not first generation immigrants from Africa. On the term's genesis:
 * "Young Caribbean migrants took advantage of the fact that sport was the one arena where it was possible to compete on equal terms and, from the 1950s onwards, many played a prominent part in Britain's sporting life. Music, on the other hand, presented different opportunities but also problems. In the days before reggae gained general acceptance, young migrants forged their music into a tool of self-expression and used it as a career opportunity. They created their own market for the music which, in turn, gave them a platform from which they influenced British youth culture. In the process, the music created its own market: clubs, small recording companies and, notably, DJs. It was this music culture which helped to create a new, cohesive identity among young migrants, and one which everyone began to recognise as 'Black British'. Jazzy B, for instance, one of the most prominent of recent Black British musicians, went to school in Islington, and spent his spare time learning to be a DJ and creating his own music to give voice to an emerging Black British culture."
 * "In the aftermath of the Second World War, nationalism and the effort of nation building began changing attitudes in the Caribbean. The migrants who arrived in Britain in the post-war years were making their journey at the beginning of a new cultural and political ferment, which was to redefine what it meant to be Caribbean. They brought with them the ideas which were sweeping the Caribbean region and Black communities generally - Black nationalism, a renewed interest in ethnic origins and a new assertiveness about racial justice and equality. These ideas were the basis of new forms of self-expression which new Caribbean migrants began developing in Britain. The result has been a culture which we now call Black British because it draws its identity both from the migrant background and the specific experiences of living in Britain and becoming part of the mix of cultures in the UK."
 * The montage/collage should illustrate the most representative exponents of that distinct identity, like Jazzie B, Ian Wright, etc.. Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. The infobox should reflect the content of the Wikipedia article, not the statements made at one source.  If you think the article should be partly rewritten to give greater weight to that source, that is a different matter - but logically you need to revise the article content before saying that the infobox should reflect that view.  I'm not disagreeing with what the source says, but it is only one part of the picture.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That source describes the genesis of the distinct Black British identity, which is what this article is about. Per WP:OI, Wikipedian-created images are likewise subject to original research restrictions: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." Middayexpress (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The article is about the Black British - however that is defined - not "the distinct Black British identity".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We will clearly have to agree to disagree on this point. Middayexpress (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Somali British community is not categorized as "Black British", so it is quite logical not to put someone who doesn't belong in the corresponding group in the infobox, e.g. putting Kenji Kawai in the Han Chinese infobox. Runehelmet (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the source for the statement that "the Somali British community is not categorized as "Black British"? I see extensive discussion on this at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom, but no consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a whole lot of images now, and more if you tap further into that list of 100 Britons. Instead of getting hung up on the merits of one person you can't agree on, why not just go for images that you BOTH agree on? (or images that ALL can agree on) If someone takes issue with a particular person for whatever reason, then choose another. Surely you can come up with 16-25 images that everyone can agree on. – JBarta (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great advice. There are plenty of alternatives; no sense in choosing the least representative. Middayexpress (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So after a whole lot of talk and bluster, this thing has ground embarassingly to a complete halt. Talking is easy, talking is fun, talking makes one feel important... but talk doesn't get much done. I was hoping that if I got the ball rolling y'all would take over. Sigh. I was chided once for suggesting that editors over here don't give a shit one way or the other (about having a better montage). Still want to argue with that? – JBarta (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There has not been "a whole lot of talk and bluster", there has been a discussion. I don't understand why you, or anyone else, should feel "embarrassed".  Two weeks is not a long time.  Chill.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle, I would not pay too much attention to the complainant's remarks. Based on his/her claimed previous occupation they are not all that surprising and should probably be ignored. Centpacrr (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What does being a porn star have to do with anything?? – JBarta (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, plan B would be to put together a montage on the basis of my proposal - and then see if anyone opposes its inclusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that the current montage is lacking (and other editors seem to agree), a new montage can only be an improvement. Again, I would stay away from images that other editors have a problem with. There are enough candidates available to make a montage that's acceptable to everyone. And of course, it can always be changed in the future. – JBarta (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that excluding Mo Farah might give the impression that we are acquiescing to the POV that Somali British are not Black British. I haven't seen convincing evidence to support that position.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? You're going to swing that around again? That's no way to get things done. Right or wrong another editor has a problem with an image. Let's say you're right and he's wrong. Fine. Pick another one anyway. You're not supporting or rejecting anything. You're leaving minor disagreements behind and getting the job done. If you and he ever resolve the issue maybe we'll swap him in. Until then, let's just say he's out. – JBarta (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

People currently NOT in montage
(Those marked * are featured in the article text)

Nigerian website
The http://canuk.org.uk/uknigerians.aspx website believe there is at least 1.5 million Nigerians in the UK today. This should be located on the page. Also shows that estimates from others are maybe too low. BBCjj11 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about Black British people. Even if it were about Nigerian people or Nigerian people in Britain regardless that some random website states it 'believes' what the population is this would not meet the policy requirements of Wikipedia for reliable sources and verifiable data. Suggest you go and look at the ONS site which is currently releasing 2011 census data. In the UK this is the primary source for both large and small scale demographic data. You have been flogging this horse for several months now and I think its fair to say this horse is well and truely dead, so please just let it rest in peace!Tmol42 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of the "Roman" section
I propose deleting this section, because:

1) Whilst it is true that there were Africans in Roman Britain, they were North Africans... and North Africans aren't typically considered black. "Black" and "African" aren't synonymous - it is misleading to assert that they are. 2) The only reference supporting this section is a link to nothing.

Deeseroft (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, North Africans aren't typically considered "black". Berber people are indigenous to North Africa. Deeseroft (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, User:Deeseroft. Please do not delete this section again. You are engaged in an edit war and you may be bloced from editing if you continue.


 * Also, I followed the link provided, but was not allowed to see the content, though it seems that the book is about Berbers. In any case, it is not clear that even if your statement that "North Africans aren't typically considered 'black'." is accurate, that is not necessarily a reason to delete something that refers to people 2000 years ago.


 * Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 00:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point. This section is currently asserting that black people were present in Roman Britain. It is not accurate to say this. It is, however, accurate to say that there were North Africans in Roman Britain (albeit only a few!). If "black" is synonymous with "African" (it isn't!), then it would be accurate to say that there were black people in Roman Britain. But as "black" is not synonymous with "African", it is not accurate to say such a thing. Deeseroft (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The only current reference is a dead link. That could be overcome by other sources such as this, this - both of which refer to "a mixture of 'black' and 'white' ancestral traits" - and this - which asserts that "In Roman times, Black troops were sent to the remote and barbaric province of Britannia, and some of them stayed when the Roman legions left Britain." - but doesn't contain any scholarly references.  This looks to me like a better source, and says: "There is an on-going debate regarding the presence or otherwise of black people in Britain in antiquity...."  Whether or not those north African troops would be called "black" today is uncertain.  It would be best if the current paragraph were rewritten to reflect the uncertainty, and with up-to-date reliable sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, those links are hinting that North Africans are "black".
 * "The most celebrated example of black Romans in Britain, is the case of the Roman military garrison at the fort of Burgh-by-Sands, on Hadrian’s wall in Cumbria. A fourth century inscription tells us that the Roman auxiliary unit Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum was stationed at Aballava, modern day Burgh-by-Sands. This unit had been mustered in the Roman province of Mauretania in North Africa, modern Morocco."


 * There's no hard evidence that the black community had arrived in Britain by this point. Speculation has no place in an article like this. Deeseroft (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, it depends on what the sources say, not on your opinion as to whether they were "black" or not. If reliable sources describe North Africans as "black", so should we - but we should make clear in the text what meaning is given to the term in the sources.  If, on the other hand, they only describe them as "African", it is not up to us to say that means they were "black" in the modern sense.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing much in the way of reliable sources confirming that there were black people in Roman Britain. The "Black Presence" site can hardly be considered reliable, it's a politically motivated black history website, and is trying to push across a specific opinion (that black people have "always" been in Britain).


 * The articles on the Ivory Bangle Lady are much more reliable, but they clearly state that although the woman had "a mixture of ‘black' and ‘white' ancestral traits" (i.e. not black!), "it seems likely that she is of North African descent, and may have migrated to York from somewhere warmer, possibly the Mediterranean".


 * Also: it's not "my opinion" that North Africans aren't black; it's common opinion, whether you're familiar with it or not. The vast, vast majority of North Africans are descended from people unrelated to Sub-Saharan Africa - they have their own ethnic identities. Deeseroft (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's your opinion that people who have "a mixture of ‘black' and ‘white' ancestral traits" are not "black". Many societies would consider them to be "black".  In any case, this article does not call the Ivory Bangle Lady "black".  It simply describes her apparently mixed heritage, and cites the sources.  The question is whether it's appropriate to include that paragraph in this article.  Given that sources about the Black British do refer back to the Roman period, at least as background, I would say that it is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * i do find the studies of north africans in britain to be ambigious when referring to black people in britain because many of them would not have been black and 'making a meal' of their numbers from the 17th century as africans (sub-saharan), when large scale migration had not yet began, seems odd.86.27.130.13 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Other ethnic group census option
Regarding Pincrete's edit, it's correct that anyone can write in their ethnicity (as discussed earlier today on another page). Actually, I suggest that we remove that sentence entirely. We don't need to discuss how people who don't consider themselves black can categorise themselves in the census on a page that is about black people. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Cordless Larry, Fine by me, I was only remedying the implication that ONLY certain groups could choose 'other'.Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I didn't have a problem with your edit, Pincrete - I just think the material is redundant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the categories are ultimately based on self-designation, but only the "Black British" and parallel entries are relevant here. Middayexpress (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, but if someone doesn't consider themselves to be black, why are we discussing them in this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the current wording doesn't make much sense. "In all of the UK censuses, individuals who do not identify as "Black" can instead write in their own ethnic group under an "Other ethnic group" heading". Well, I don't identify as black, but I don't need to use the write-in option either, as there's a different box that I can tick. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While "Black British" and parallel self-designation entries are available, many individuals that those entries are aimed at don't identify as such. The "Other ethnic group" and "Mixed or multiple ethnic groups" passage lets readers know what are the alternative self-designation census entries for those folks. Middayexpress (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I get what you mean, but surely if someone doesn't consider themselves Black British, then they're not Black British. That's the whole point of self-designation. Maybe there's a different wording that would work, but we could also do with a source that specifies that people who might be considered (by others?) as Black British, don't consider themselves as such if we want to include this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is already explained on the ethnicity main page. The "Black British" and parallel self-designation census entries must be accompanied by their counterpart "Other ethnic group" and "Mixed or multiple ethnic groups" self-designation census entries lest we give the misimpression that no other self-designation census entries are available to the many individuals who don't identify as such. Middayexpress (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should also mention that people can tick "White". If people don't consider themselves to be black, why should they be covered by this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that we merge Other Black into this article, as suggested here. As of 2011, that precise term isn't actually used on the England, Wales and NI census forms. Rather, the option is slightly different: "Any other Black/African/Caribbean background". The article has also remained a stub for many years and it would be better to cover the material here, where it is more likely to be maintained and updated. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should remain separate, as "Other Black" is still a separate self-designation entry from "Black British" on the Scottish census. Middayexpress (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that justify it having its own article though? If not, an alternative would be to merge it into Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse (either) merge proposals, especially as 'other' is a write in option (not a single distinct group). Additionally I suggest that part of the purpose of this section, was to act (very briefly) to 'define' these categories, where their meanings are not self-evident and not partial duplicates or linked to other articles.Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It does because those are two separate entries per the Scottish census. At any rate, the ethnicity main page would indeed be a better place to redirect the stub. Middayexpress (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally think that there may be some point of interest in regard to the other Black classification. I know that contributors can fill forms in any way they like but the information in this article and in Other White (recently moved) may be seen to have relevance to issues such as immigration.  The UK already imports food from countries from which people are leaving and the more people come to the British Isles, the more food we will import.  There is value in monitoring related situations.  GregKaye 15:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, I think the argument is whether a 'none of the above' group justifies an article (which may well go unmaintained) a term which isn't in general use, nor even the actual wording of the present EngWalNI census form.Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly the main issue here is maintenance and, in this case, the decision should really go with the people who have the interest and will do the work. I was just expressing an opinion.  GregKaye 17:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maintenance is a consideration, but the primary consideration is usefulness as a seperate article.Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding as to any direct relationship of the 'Any Other Black/African/Caribbean background question at least in the format that it appears in the England & Wales and the Black British higher level census category. Those who ticked that box were totalled and appear as part of the sub group 'Other Black'. There is nothing in self classification which links them to be part of the higher level category 'Black British. Furthermore the information provided on the 'write-in responses' was seperately analysed to produce sub-totals for each of a extended list of more descrete ethnic groups though some might be lumped together under the Black British heading, most are stand alone ethnic groupings. The same argument can be made for the other 'Any Other....' choices e.g. White/ Asian/ Mixed / including the Any Other Ethnic Group questions. If any merge were to be done (though I am not pushing that here) it would be more efficient (for maintenance reasons as well) to merge all the 'Any other....' articles and provide a generic intro that will apply to all in terms of their use as a category and then sub headings for each of these sub groups describing their unique features etc.Tmol42 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the people who select options under the "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British" heading (including write-in responses) are often added together in statistics, as in the ones used here. I take the point that the more detailed statistics report totals for different write-in options, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that Tmol42's points amount to an argument for merging info into a 'census classification' page.Pincrete (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is this discussion taking place without there being a 'Proposal to Merge Template' having been added on both article pages? - Have main editors of this page and the other under discussion been notified?Tmol42 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently because I misunderstood the instructions and placed the templates on the talk pages instead of the articles themselves. Apologies - it had been a long time since I'd proposed a merger. I'll fix this now. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The term "Black British " is ridiculous!...No one says red British or yellow British. Lets face it the origins of these people are "mostly "native Africans" or "Afro-Caribbean" and im sure if you check their DNA most can trace their ancestry back to African roots....so I propose the term "black British be REMOVED and replaced with "Afro-British" or "African British"...the term "Black British" and "other black" can be incorporated or merged with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.109.174 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that you consult WP:COMMONNAME, 86.167.109.174? Wikipedia has a policy of using titles that sources most commonly use, and a quick Google search suggests that "Black British" is in far more widespread use than "Afro-British" or "African British". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic?
Middayexpress, I'm sorry I don't understand the logic of this edit:. (line 64)

While I see the importance of recording that individuals may identify as 'Black' on the census, but not as any of the the 'pre-set options' and that similarly other individuals may identify mixed/multiple identities, I don't understand why in an article about Black British, it is necessary to note the mechanics by which the census allows these choices. Doesn't that kind of detail belong on the census article?Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you've linked to the correct edit there, Pincrete? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, it was prev&old I needed.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede suggests that citizens of mixed ancestry among others may be "Black British". "Other ethnic group" and "Mixed or multiple ethnic groups" as self-designated census entries are thus relevant as the counterparts to the "Black British" and parallel self-designation census entries. Also please note that these are separate or preset self-designated census categories in their own right (see the ethnicity main page). Middayexpress (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is the same issue as discussed above, Pincrete. I agree with Middayexpress that it's worth mentioning the mixed ethnicity point, because "White and Black African" and "White and Black Caribbean" feature amongst the tick-boxes on the census. However, I don't see the reason for including the "Other ethnic group" option, which has no clear relation to "Black" category. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Other ethnic group" is relevant for the same reason. Per the General Register Office for Scotland, "Black" is a polarizing term that many individuals don't identify with; many instead choose the "Other ethnic group" write-in option . Middayexpress (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, well it might be worth wording it exactly like that then. I still think that if people aren't identifying as black, we shouldn't necessarily cover them in an article called "Black British", but that at least explains the link between the two categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit Conflict, but I'll add it anyway. My main point is that this is primarily a 'Black British' page, the mechanics of the census don't seem to belong here. It is of course noteworthy WHAT the census categories are, noteworthy that some don't see themselves as belonging to any of those categories and that some choose multiple/mixed ancestry. Bedtime,ttyl.Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we should just include the briefest of mentions of the different categories, and leave it at that. Readers interested in reading more can go to Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the brief passage already does that. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And is it really necessary for this to all be detailed in the introduction too? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. ""Black British" is one of various self-designation entries used in official UK ethnicity classifications" seems adequate there. Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the 'intro' and other sections express quite well that 'Black' is not objective and not necessarily a description of skin colour or features and has been used/is used more inclusively in anti-racist and 'political' contexts, and also by those of mixed ancestry. I think these are the proper places for such clarifications. This section should stick to covering broadly WHAT the census options are and (where not obvious), how those options are generally understood to be defined. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried to take your comments into account, Pincrete and Middayexpress, and have made these changes to Middayexpress's additions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. What the available census options are should be noted. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Larry, per the General Register Office for Scotland, "Other ethnic group" is one of the alternative census options for individuals who don't identify as "Black". It's not just the "Mixed or multiple ethnic groups" write-in option and tick boxes. These options are also available in all of the UK censuses, not just the ones in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, but if someone doesn't identify as Black, then why are we including them on the Black British page? It seems a breach of their right to self-identify to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pincrete indicated above that we should cover broadly what the census options are and how those options are generally understood to be defined. Per the General Register Office for Scotland, "Other ethnic group" is one of the alternative census options for individuals who don't identify as "Black", including many Caribbeans et al.. Why is this option a problem for you, Larry? Middayexpress (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because, as I've said above, I think we should respect people's self-definition. If people don't define themselves as Black, we shouldn't include them in an article about Black people. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Agreed, but that applies to populations as well first and foremost. Middayexpress (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is definitely worthwhile to mention the details of the census questions in any article about the demographics of any country based on census data. No two countries in the world divide up these categories in the same way, and many countries change over time during our lifetimes how they ask these questions, if at all. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, WeijiBaikeBianji, but I think that in an article about Black people, we only need mention the categories that feature the word "Black", no? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It may indeed not be necessary to mention all details of the census categories in an article that focuses on only some of those categories, especially if the cited reference provides a full description of the census procedures for an interested reader. To revise the article English language, I had to look up United Kingdom census figures, and of course the especially hard issue for dealing with "British" census figures is that the Scotland census is not identical to the England and Wales census. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be easier if the census was identical across the UK! Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom and Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom provide what I hope is a reasonable overview of all of the census categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress, just to clarify what I was saying about 'Black other', Yes it should be noted that the 'other' options exist (for everyone), but 'Black other' isn't an identity or a group (except in the sense that some people see themselves as 'Black', but outside any of the pre-set options). Only the write-in info would tell anybody anything about what these people identify as (Black Americans, Black Brazilians etc.). I still feel there is a danger of going 'off-topic' into the mechanics of the census, rather than recording that the census exists and what it tells us.Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the current version, with the unnecessary detail now removed from the introduction, is a reasonable compromise, providing some detail of the process without going into too more depth. Perhaps it could be improved, but I'm less concerned about it being off topic now than I was. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Pincrete. Note that "Black other" is different from the "Other ethnic group" option. The former is a tick box under "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British" in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland and a tick box under "Caribbean or Black" in Scotland. However, "Other ethnic group" is a separate heading in all of the censuses, with its own write-in area. Besides the "Black" entry, "Other ethnic group" and "Mixed or multiple ethnic groups" are the other entries aimed at the individuals. Technically, though, all of the self-designation entries are available to them. Middayexpress (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Larry, that present wording is a reasonable compromise between comprehensiveness, conciseness and clarity. We are after all linking to pages where the census itself and ethnic classifications are explored in depth.Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Scotland census figure
The article states, based on this ONS source that the number of people identifying as Black in Scotland in the 2011 census was 36,178. I was interested to find out if I could find a more detailed breakdown of that number. I found this National Records of Scotland table, and it seems that the ONS got the 36,178 figure by adding the "African" (29,638) and "Caribbean or Black" (6,540) categories together. I find this a bit odd, because some people may well have seen ticking "African" an alternative to "Black" (see the question format, right), and it may well have been ticked by some non-Black Africans. I don't know how we should deal with this though! I've tried to explain the situation a bit in the article, but suggestions are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This discrepancy is noted and discussed by the ONS here: "Differences in the terminology and data collection of the country specific Scotland question make these categories difficult to compare. The 'African' category in the Scottish question is presented in a separate section to the Caribbean or Black category, however under the harmonised output these two categories are output as part of 'Black/African/Caribbean/Black British'. The African categories used in Scotland could potentially capture White/Asian/Other African in addition to Black identities". Maybe we could note this in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. The ONS explains that in order to compare UK-wide results, it harmonised the "African" and "Caribbean" entries at the top-level . However, the General Register Office for Scotland, which actually devised the categories and administers the Scotland census, does not harmonise the "African" and "Caribbean or Black" entries, maintaining them separate for individuals who do not self-identify as "Black" . Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reflecting this in the article, Middayexpress. That's a clear summary. We could perhaps add the quote that the "African categories used in Scotland could potentially capture White/Asian/Other African in addition to Black identities", or summarise it, to drive home the point that the ONS version of the Black population in Scotland is a bit dubious, but I don't think it's crucial. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No prob. That works well; something along the lines of: "According to the ONS, "Other African", "White" and "Asian" ethnicities as well as "Black" identities could thus all potentially be captured within the "African" categories used in the Scottish census." Middayexpress (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added something to that effect. Feel free to edit it. I also replaced "harmonise" with "combine" as that is less technical, and what they're doing is combining categories with the aim of harmonising results across the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, it works alright. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable omissions in 'Notable black Britons'
Just to note that the 'Notable black Britons' sports section lists NO athletes (Linford Christie, Daley Thompson, Mo Farah and countless others in between). While the TV and actors section has few notables (the actors section covers specifically those notable in the US market). Someone who knows athletics better than me, and who is a bit more up to date than me on UK stage and TV might want to take a look. In athletics in might be a good start to mention Olympic medallists (or equiv. notability).Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The other celebs might work. However, Mo Farah is Somali, was not born in Britain, and comes from a community that generally does not identify as "Black" let alone as "Black British". It is also culturally and ancestrally different, and aggregated within British Arabs . Middayexpress (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a bit of an omission. Incidentally, that section as a whole is lacking in references, which is a WP:BLP issue. As for Farah, I would only classify him as Black if we have a reliable source that establishes that that is how he identifies. It may well be, as Middayexpress suggests, that he identifies as Arab. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just how an individual sees himself/herself, but the self-perception and actual ancestry of the community he/she belongs to ("wiggas", for example). Mo Farah was also named among the World's 100 Most Powerful Arabs in 2014 by Arabian Business . Middayexpress (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Race is a social construct though, so "actual ancestry" is a bit of a problematic concept. Who is and isn't considered "Black" has varied significantly over time, for example. There are clearly conflicting sources about Farah, as in addition to that list of powerful Arabs, he's been described as one of sports' most influential black figures. That's why I think we should rely on his self-identification (which is also more consistent with BLP). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's some random list compiled by a journalist in a local BME daily, not a major global honour like the 100 Most Powerful Arabs. It's not comparable. The fact is, +90% of material on Farah describe him as "Somali" only. He is also married to a Yemeni woman and his mother in-law is Yemeni. Most importantly, he hails from a community that traditionally does not identify as "black", and is indeed genetically/ancestrally distinct . That is what I mean. Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. I just meant that if there was evidence that Farah himself considers himself Black British, then we might include him here. As far as I can see, this evidence doesn't exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this is quite an interesting study of media discourse on Farah, which shows that he is only very rarely described as "Black" in the press. I think that's another reason not to include him here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. However, even if Farah had been more often described as "black" by some writers, there would still be his own most common self-designation to consider as well as that of his actual ethnic group per WP:ETHNICGROUP ("How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided."). His actual ancestry would also not be any less distinct than it already is. Middayexpress (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a guideline about the naming of articles on ethnic groups, not on whether a person is listed as belonging to one, which is a slightly different issue. Nonetheless, I think we agree that Farah shouldn't be included here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It applies to the naming of ethnicity and tribe pages in general, as well as their actual contents relative to their respective names. But point taken. Middayexpress (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

These were names that just 'came into my head' from someone who knows very little about sportspeople, obviously it needs to be established that (any of them) accept the description 'black' and I apologise for not researching properly before naming them. One individual shouldn't contradict the basic point that an awful lot of VERY notable names are missing. The only reason for a 'Notable black Britons' section is to give some sense of the breadth and scale of achievement of some black Britons. At present we have mention of Frank Bruno's pantomine career, but not a single black British Olympic athlete.

Not being born in Britain is not a reason for exclusion (L Christie wasn't, nor is mixed parentage such as Daley T). I agree with Larry that general perception and ultimately self-identification are the only possible criteria, otherwise we are constructing our own definitions. Pincrete (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, Pincrete. One place to start might be the list of 100 Great Black Britons that was voted on in 2004. Yes, it's a bit old, but it's worth a look. It got quite a lot of media coverage at the time. Linford is on it, naturally! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal, as long as it is consistent with those individuals' most common self-designation and that of their respective ethnic group. Middayexpress (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Larry, I'd already seen that list and also thought it a good starting point. We can always describe people as 'listed among etc.' to avoid any claim that these are/are not black.Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The official 100 list would be ideal, as long as it is consistent with those individuals' most common self-designation and that of their respective ethnic group. Middayexpress (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Romanised North Africa

 * "Black British" most often pertains to individuals that were actually born in Britain. As pointed out, an individual's most common self-designation to consider as well as that of his actual ethnic group per WP:ETHNICGROUP also matters ("How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided."). But point taken. By the way Pincrete, per WP:TALK, can you please fix the "Romanised North Africa" formatting you accidentally duplicated? Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how place of birth matters as long as the person is a British citizen. Very few people would deny that John Barnes is British, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Citizenship is transient and artificial, but actual ancestry is not. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Trace it back far enough, and everyone in Britain's ancestry is from overseas. British is a civic identity and naturalised British citizens are British. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, I'm assuming the "Romanised North Africa" formatting and errant hyphens were accidental. Middayexpress (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, it's just some errant formatting. If you could remove the two small dashes per WP:TALK (i.e. the "− −"), that would be sufficient. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Should the "Romanised North Africa" header also be removed? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind it; the errant dashes were more distracting. Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought this part of the discussion related to the above section, though? If not, I'm very confused! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Empire
Romanised North Africa appears to be off-topic. North Africans aren't "Black British", nor did the identity exist back then. Middayexpress (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, yes, although one of the sources states: "The ancestry assessment suggests a mixture of 'black' and 'white' ancestral traits". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one individual and way before any "Black British" identity existed. There are similar North African and ancient Israelite ancestral origin theories for the local British population; that doesn't necessarily make it so either . Middayexpress (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that 'Roman Britain' is off-topic, or more correctly I'm not sure why it is anymore off-topic than most of the early 'History' section. 'British' itself did not exist at the time of Catherine of Aragon, let alone in Roman Britain. Most of the people referred to who settled in Britain prior to 19th/20th century were probably not British in any formal or legal sense (though there off-spring might have been), since I doubt if any legal mechanism existed for 'becoming' British until modern times. What we have at the moment is a 'History of black people SETTLED in Britain', which leads into the development of the notion of 'black British'. I personally don't object to that, and if that is what it is, the 'Roman' lady isn't off topic.Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is on the distinct "Black British" identity. While Roman Britain did exist at the time, that identity did not. Also, one possibly mixed individual does not a population make. Especially since it was apparently gauged by individual rather than population DNA. Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That argument could be made right up to 19th (20th?), century, by which logic we have an identity and communities spontaneously coming into existence with no pre-history of settlement. The page isn't solely about that identity btw, it's also about the people who have that identity or who were instrumental in it coming into being.Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A very rough and ready search suggests that the term "Black British" has only really been used since the 1960s, and even then quite rarely until the 1980s. Just because identification with such a term is recent, doesn't mean we can't discuss the context of the development of Black communities in Britain before then. Where else would that history be covered if not in this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By the 19th century, there were some local populations antecedent to the distinct "Black British" identity, but not really in Roman Britain. The ancient individual's ancestry was apparently hypothesized through craniometric or skull analysis. Isotopic markers suggest that the person came from a warmer area than Britain. So the ancient individual, whatever their actual ancestry and provenance, was a visitor rather than part of a settled local population. Middayexpress (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my comments above weren't necessarily about Roman Britain so much as the period before the term "Black British" became common more generally. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, there are quite a lot of potential sources on this period. It's clear that, if nothing else, many sources consider there to have been Black people in Roman Britain. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. However, the scientists themselves note that there were only a few actual records of settled individuals (not populations) at the time. The ancient individual, whatever their actual ancestry and provenance, was just a visitor . Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly in her case, yes, but not all of the sources are about her. I haven't had a chance to look through them in any detail yet, but will try to in time. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That 1,000 year old Gloucestershire skeleton was apparently the oldest. Middayexpress (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, actually the Reading paper you quote does refer to evidence of N.African communities in England. How permanent and 'settled' these were is unclear and proofs are indicative rather than conclusive. Given that Britain was part of the Roman Empire, the probability is that someone of the 'Ivory woman's' wealth was part of the Roman political or trading elite, and therefore, in that sense 'a visitor' (not born here), but in that sense, so were many of the Roman elite. How 'settled' is 'settled'? Many of the individuals named prior to the 19th century were also not part of established communities, and in many cases not British in any legal sense, simply residing in Britain. I don't see how the 'Ivory woman' is different from Catherine of Aragon's trumpeter.Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) … … ps the term the Reading paper uses for this woman is 'incomer' rather than 'visitor', isn't that what we would call an 'immigrant'?.Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another article by the same authors discusses evidence of there being second generation migrants, so I agree that it sounds like these people were more than temporary visitors. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The scientists actually have no idea where she came from, and they indicate as much. They just hypothesize that she may have arrived from North Africa because of ties with the area and because isotopic markers suggest that she came from a warmer area. However, her apparent skull traits make this origin theory unlikely. It is more probable that she was part of a small group in Yorkshire that was gradually absorbed into the local population. Scientists apparently found the rare paternal haplogroup A1 in several living British men with Yorkshire surnames. This clade is today almost exclusively found among males in West Africa, and even there it is rare. So that circumscribed area is likely instead where the original clade bearers came from . Middayexpress (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Balance in social issues section
The social issues section of the article is heavily dominated by material about crime. I think a more balanced approach would be to outline a range of issues faced by Black British people as a group. One thing that springs to mind, which is mentioned in passing several times in the article, but which arguably isn't given the prominence it deserves, is the problem of racism. I'll see if I can start something, but ideas for exactly what to cover would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Other things presently covered in passing are un/employment and relations with police. In fact might it be better to deal with these 'sub-issues' rather than 'racism' per se?Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is obviously an overlap between issues such as those and of racism, but I think it's worth having at least a short summary of the history of racism faced by black people in the UK. I've tried to make a start - let me know what you think. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is a brief mention of 'Rachmanism' appropriate in the early 'slum housing' text, I'd put it in myself but don't have access to a ref to support it.Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of Rachman, who is actually discussed in one of the existing sources. Thanks for the suggestion. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

British Arab
The North-East Africa populations are borderline groups. They are not necessarily "Black British" per the UK government, but also possibly British Arab depending on self-designations. Under the older "Black British" usage, which pertained to all darker non-European populations, even South Asians were "Black British". However, now they too are more typically a "Black and Ethnic Minority" group. Soupforone (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The majority of people who wrote in their ethnicity as Somali in the 2011 census in England and Wales did so under the "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British" heading (see results here). That said, we don't know how many ticked the Arab box rather than writing something in. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but it is still ambiguous because that is also where the "African" designation is located . As an analogy, North African entries in the US census were until recently automatically tabulated as "white", although few North Africans actually identified as such. The NA populations consequently obtained an analogous, separate new "Middle East and North Africa" designation . Soupforone (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. By the way, I presumed that you were referring to Somalis because of this. Part of the reason I originally added the section Black British was to try to convey some of these complexities, but it could probably be expanded. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Detail, but my understanding is that all UK census designation is 'self-designation', though Govt. does decide which 'standard' categories to include, it does not define them and everyone has the 'write in' choice. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's complicated. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities has a good explanation of the multiple ambiguities of "Black and Minority Ethnic" and "black", and recommends instead more neutral ethnic terminology . Soupforone (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Black British. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tuc.org.uk/welfare/tuc-10172-f0.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070413203821/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071027143334/http://www.sussex.ac.uk:80/Units/alumni/notable_alumni/interviews/Fuller_interview.html to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/alumni/notable_alumni/interviews/Fuller_interview.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Image of slaves at Liverpool
The image of six African slaves at "the port of Liverpool" must be somewhere else, probably in Africa, as it is highly unlikely that the African seller would be in England. I tried to find the original of this image but it seems to be used with many different captions so I've no idea which is correct. (Incidentally, are there records of slaves being brought back to Liverpool and if so, how many were there?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.15.246 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP appears to be correct, the original image caption says in Africa and bound for US, therefore no connection with UK at all.Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)