Talk:Black people/Archive 15

Black isnt only Africa
The term "blacks" has often been applied to indigenous Australians. This owes rather more to racial stereotyping than ethnology, as it categorises indigenous Australians with the other black peoples of Asia and Africa, despite the relationships only being ones of very distant shared ancestry. In the 1970s, many Aboriginal activists, such as Gary Foley proudly embraced the term "black", and writer Kevin Gilbert's groundbreaking book from the time was entitled Living Black. In recent years young indigenous Australians have increasingly adopted aspects of black American and Afro-Caribbean culture, creating what has been described as a form of "black transnationalism."[2] (i dont know if this is in the article but it should be)--HalaTruth(????) 11:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It goes back further than that. If you have ever seen an aboriginal, especially from the north, you will understand that black can a very appropriate descriptor for skin colour.  "Black fellow" was a term used by both Europeans and Aboriginals themselves.  Here is an primary-source example from 1832. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trishm (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Population Estimate
This article clearly asserts that there is no agreed upon notion of who is Black and who is not. In that context, a population estimate table does not make sense. Perhaps the numbers for individual, identifiable groups would be ok. Just perhaps. Jd2718 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I guess we can use it if they explain exactly who they are counting as black. Iseebias


 * But then they are counting something other than "Black People" and the numbers belong in the appropriate articles, not here. Jd2718 02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They're counting whoever THEY consider to be black people. The world population of black people will vary depending on what definition they use.  For example they might be limiting it to people of sub-Saharan descent in which case they'll get a lower population then if they include people of Oceanic descent and still more if they include South Asians and/or North Africans.  And then there's the question of how they define descent.  Do they go by the one drop rule, or does the person need most of their ancestors belonging to a black ethnicity.  And how do they define most? More than half? More than three quarters? Or maybe anyone who self-identifies as black is considered black by their count.  To me their figures are not of much interest unless we state how black was defined for the purpose of their study.  But if we can provide their methodology, I see no problem in keeping it in the article, just so long as we make clear that it was how THEY defined black people.  Iseebias

Some numbers are necessary to add meaning and context to the article. Without them we could be talking about 2 people or 6 billion people. Being "black" is subjective and there is no agreed upon definition, but that should not stop us from making estimates. The US government takes statistics on black people so it is not an impossible task. Basically by breaking down the table further it is possible to arrive at different numbers depending on one'e desired interpretation.User:Muntuwandi 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but the chart as it is now gives only 1 interpretation, provides no explanation for that interpretation, and appears to be based on original research (that is your interpretation of who is black that creates those numbers which imposes your POV on the article) Iseebias
 * Iseebias's edit (descriptive paragraph instead of a table) is an improvement, mostly because it is less specific. However, it still includes only 3 or 4 of the possible interpretations of who is Black, and the numbers are a little soft (I enjoyed reading the source, however, it appears a little wacky). In the end, an article about a social group in one country could make some attempt at definition to use for a count (census definition in the US, perhaps trickier elsewhere). For this article, however, we have social constructs in 200 countries, many of which are not legally defined, many of which use words other than "Black" which we are taking the liberty of assuming mean "Black." There is no way under these circumstances to have anything approaching sourced population estimates.
 * One could get the number of sub-Saharan Black Africans, and put that in an article on sub-Saharan Black Africans. But that is not the article we have. I'd happily merge the content from here into several specific articles, and then put this up for deletion, but that's already been tried. So it is going to stay, but that makes including any population estimates a mess. Even the improved paragraph should go. Jd2718 14:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think my edits are an improvement but there aren't that many possible interpretaions of who is black. The main populations that have historically been considered black are peoples of sub-Saharan ancestry and in some cases also peoples of Pacific Island ancestry and in rare cases peoples of South Asian ancestry.  My summary covered all of the above.  The only real uncertainty in the numbers are how multiracial people are assigned in different cultures, however multiracial people are still relatively rare so the numbers should give a very rough and ready estimate.Iseebias
 * Multiracial people are relatively common in the Americas and the Caribean, no? And there are, as you note, whole countries that cannot be automatically assigned. Jd2718 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No exact figures are possible, but I think it might be reasonable to provide a range (i.e. Depending on which which ethnic groups a culture considers black and depending on how mixed race individuals are socially assigned, the global black population is anywhere between half a billion and 1.5 billion people) I've now found 3 independent sources all converging on the idea that blacks are roughly a tenth of humanity (true, one of the sources uses the term negroid, and the other 2 take the POV that sub-Saharan = black) and although none of the sources acknowledge the ambiguities created by admixture, the fact that the ~10% idea keeps getting alluded to is notable Iseebias
 * I am not convinced, but it appears that there is at least some consensus in favor. As well, I want to be carefully not to just rehash my arguments in favor of deleting (as that failed). With those two givens, I support what you have done and advocated in relation to the population section. By the way, you mentioned "Pacific Islanders" above, and I would guess that you were talking about natives of Australia and New Zealand and a few other places, and not Polynesians. I think it is the wrong term. Jd2718 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your reservations to the section but if there have been attempts to estimate the global black population (my latest source even used the term "global black population") I think that's interesting to note, just so long as we put it into context and make clear it's only one of many alternative figures based on alternative definitions. It's also important to document that several sources are converging on one figure because this implies that one definition of black is more mainstream than the others which is important for readers to know.  I, like you though, am against putting in a chart,  (unless it's a very flexible chart like I'm advocating below), because it gives undue weight to a single perspective. As for Pacific Islanders,  it probably was the wrong term.  It's hard to pin down a precise location for what is commonly described as "australoid ancestry" as this group includes not only the australian aboriginals but probably also the aboriginal tribes that were pushed to the fringes of India and South East Asia Iseebias

The article asserts that the population of black people is half a billion. This is not possible as the the population of sub-saharan africa is $767 million. Though ethnically heterogenous is almost entirely black. The exceptions include about 4 million whites in south africa and about 1.5 million peoples of Indian descent. Sub-saharan africa should be the least controversial when it comes to defining who is black. There will definitely be some controversy in the americas as not everyone of african descent there will define themselves as primarily black. The information in the new chart does not include the distribution ie where black people are to be found. Without it we could assume that there are a half billion black people living in russia or japan. As mentioned earlier a table is useful because if a reader decides that he or she has a different interpretation of what black is then they can simply remove or add a row from the table. For example there are about $80 million people of african descent in brazil. Of that about 11 million define themselves as primarily black. One can decide for themselves how to interpret this information but is useful and relevant if displayed.User:Muntuwandi 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But you're not displaying the information in a way that people can interpret. It simply states the percentage of black people by country.  What source claims those countries have that many blacks?  If the source is you, how did you determine the black population by country?  And the article now asserts that people of sub-Saharan ancestry are about 10% of the world (i.e. 600 million people).  As for the population of sub-Saharan Africa, you not only have to exclude non-black residents (i.e. whites, Asians, some coloureds, and South Africa's not the only sub-Saharan country where non-blacks live) but you may also have to exclude entire countries like Ethiopia which some would consider multiracial instead of black. Iseebias

I do not have a problem with modifying the content. But including certain information in a visually friendly manner is important.Distribution is necessary because it provides information on where most likely you will find black people. If i am walking down a street in siberia will I meet a black person?. The whole issue of racism is very much linked to numbers-minority User:Muntuwandi 15:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to include charts, you need to have a chart that gives separate numbers based on each of the major definitions of who is black. Iseebias


 * Yes that is the goal.


 * 90 % of white africans live in south africa.
 * Ethiopia we could add a footnote indicating that some consider it multiracial. In any case there is certainly a black element with ethiopians. they are definitely not white.User:Muntuwandi 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well experiment with possible charts on the talk page but I don't think enough work has been done to add this to the main article. Also, your figure for the black population in Australia?  Are you including Australian aboriginals in that figure?  I suggest 2 charts. One chart that defines blacks as negroid, and another chart that defines blacks as negroid + australoid (and possibly South Asian ancestry).  And I also suggest, though this may not be possible, within each chart I suggest you list numbers in 2 categories: blackness defined by preponderance of ancestry and blackness defined by any known black ancestry. You can probably find genetic studies that would allow you to create such sub-divisions. Iseebias

I think one chart is enough. some issues

Africa population

 * According to the UN the population of Africa in 2004 was 905 million page 2 of report
 * The population reference bureau has 924 million in 2006. page six of report. The report has the population of sub-saharan africa as 767 million. The population of North Africa is at 198 million. However this figure includes Sudan's population of about 40 million which is also included in the population of sub-saharan africa.

Sub-saharan africa

 * Sub-saharan africa should have the least controversy regarding who is black. Essentially the whole population sub-saharan population can be considered black less white africans -5.8 million and the Indian/Asian diaspora -less 2million. This figure also includes at least 4.5 million Coloureds who are concentrated in South Africa but are present all over africa. This leaves us with a figure of about 760 million. Though some may see ethiopians are multiracial, I think this pic says it all. The complexions are in similar range as much of sub-saharan africa.
 * Yes but the facial features are 100% caucasoid . Also, many Ethiopians have much fairer complexions. Still I wouldn't subtract all 75 million Ethiopians from the 760 million figure. Cavali-Sforza claims that the Ethiopian gene pool is 60% black, 40% Arab, so I would subtract 40% of 75 million people or 30 million people.  This brings the figure for sub-Saharan Africa down to 730 million.

Iseebias


 * "Yes but the facial features are 100% caucasoid." Who are you kidding? D.C. has the largest concentration of Ethiopians outside of Ethiopia.  In fact, we call it Addis, East.  I don't know a single Ethiopian who is "100% Caucasoid" in appearance.  They have brown skin. (Not Caucasoid.) Most of them have either nappy hair (not Caucasoid) or hair that is some variation of nappy-curly-straight (like millions of other, indigenous, black, unmixed -- often blue-black -- folks in Africa -- notably, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia). Many of them, particularly those from the middle and southern portions of Ethiopia, have thoroughly "Negroid" (full lips, broad noses, some degree of prognathism) features.  Furthermore, ask any of the thousands of Ethiopians on the street in D.C. if they consider themselves black, and they'll look at you like you're insane.  Of course they do -- 99.99999 percent of 'em. You clearly don't know what on earth you're talking about!  deeceevoice 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The next thing that's coming is the idea that the Tutsi are "more Caucasoid" than the Hutu...futurebird 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gurl, puhleeze! (grimmacing) deeceevoice 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know which ones you've seen. the ones I see look Arab Christmasgirl

I have again and again said that i wish that this page would not be used by these people who want to push this nonsense into our communities. I am Ethiopian. And it is sickening of seeing peole talking nonsense. Chances are they are white people who realize Ethiopian was the 1st christian state, the empire that conquered Arabia, the Last and longest continuous civilization, the country that saved Islam, the country that the original Jews come from. The country with an ancient Script Ge'ez and they want to find a way, Just like Kemet, take it away from Black people. Again and again we see this. And if anywhere in this article this bunch of eurcentric lies is placed i will have to go down taking it out!!!!!!!!! p.s. Most Ethiopians are darker than Most African South Africans, Xhosa and Zulu poeple. And African hair comes in many different textures. If you live as high as we do your hair will be curly. in addition Ethiopia is a diverse group of people who dont all look the same, Do knowledge and speaking from pure lies. The Masai have the same features, The Kanuri, the Wodabee, the Somali, the Fulani the Tutsi, all have these features, so why would thick lips be more Negroid? It is just the white mans take on what a "real" African is..--HalaTruth(????) 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)




 * Thats academic. They may have a multiracial element but there is definitely a black influence. If one saw one of these boys walking down the street I don't believe anyone would mistake them for white german, swede or a russian. They can be added to the total black population and noted as being multiracial. As mentioned earlier black Africa is ethnically heterogenous and genetically very diverse.
 * But adding them to the total black population is POV because it's an implied endorsement of the segregationist one drop rule which asserts that any black influence is enough to be black. Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia himself claimed Ethiopians were not black. I personally would consider them black, but many people would not. See the poll cited in the article that showed that even most Americans no longer label multiracials like Barack Obama black, and see the varying standards in other places like Brazil, the Caribean, and South Africa all mentioned in the article. The fact that the cited estimates I was able to find for the worldwide black population give numbers that are smaller than yours shows that the way you are defining black people may not be mainstream, and even it is, it imposes one definition out of many. I suppose you could come with separate charts for the global black population based on separate definitions, but such charts would take up a large amount of space, be charged as original research, and are strongly opposed by some editors. Iseebias

please do not add any multiracial madness to habasha people, this has been an ongoing war on this page, dont start it again. see the previous talk comments. How Selassie say that and still be the king of Rasta people, does it make sense. Selassie was one of the key Pan-Africanist who said Africa unite because we are teh same people... come on?--HalaTruth(????) 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The rasta movement was not for black people only. It has millions of Afro-multi-racial followers. Each Ethiopian is intelligent enough to decide for his/herself whether he/she is black, muti-racial, ect.  I respect them enough to allow them that choice. Iseebias
 * Please. Rastafari began as a movement among the poor and disenfranchised black people of Jamaica.  Only later did it develop white followers.  deeceevoice 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the reference to the Habesha is POV and should not be included in the article.User:Muntuwandi 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But your implication that Afro-Latinos be counted as black is just as POV especially since Afro-Latinos themselves do not consider themselves black. So why is one POV but not the other? Iseebias


 * Hardly. The prefix "Afro" should tell you something.  There is, in fact, a rapidly growing black political consciousness among people of African descent in Latin America.  Many more of them are considering themselves black; they are no longer running away from their African roots.  They are no different from African-Americans, for whom, in the 1950s, the word "black" was a fightin' word.  ("I ain't black!")  Would you take a look at, say, Martin Luther King back in the day and say, "He's not black"?  Don't think so.  It's all a matter of consciousness raising, throwing off the shackles of colonialism, neocolonialism and self-loathing and acknowledging one's true self.  Yep.  Afro-Latinos -- by the very nature of the term -- are, like Afro-Americans/African-Americans, African (read "black") peoples.  (Big "duh" there.)  deeceevoice 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse Afro-multiracials with black people. big difference Christmasgirl


 * PLEASE HELP! There is a christmasgirl that keeps challenging and reverting my edits. This is my new add. Someone, please help. I really want to help Wiki be the best. I know this is controversial and ANY facts that can be backed with a reliable source should be able to stay. Please look at the history. I'm starting to get emotionally involved and upset that this is continuing. Here is my recent contribution to this paragraph: "In 1997, self-identifying as black was not enough to be considered black according to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. As was the case of Egyptian immigrant Mostafa Hefny, who describes himself as dark-skinned with kinky hair, was legally white in the United States. At that time, the  U.S. Office of Management and Budget defined blacks as having origins with the black racial groups of Africa, and whites as having origins with original peoples of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt.

After a lengthy analysis and public comment period, the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised the standards for how the Federal government would collect and present data on race and ethnicity. The new guidelines reflect "the increasing diversity of our Nation's population, stemming from growth in interracial marriages and immigration." " Is that wrong? Thank you. Jeeny 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hell yes there's plenty wrong with that. You're implying that Hefny would be legally black today. You provided zero evidence. Just because they revised their standards of collecting & presenting data doesn't mean they changed their definition of black.  That's like saying because they revised their standard Britney Spears must now be black.  You are drawing unjustified conclusions Christmasgirl
 * YOU are drawing the conclusions. Jesus! READ this: 'After a lengthy analysis and public comment period, the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised the standards for how the Federal government would collect and present data on race and ethnicity. The new guidelines reflect "the increasing diversity of our Nation's population, stemming from growth in interracial marriages and immigration."' [2]" And click on the frikken link and get informed and stop making outragous comparisions. It's a "government" site, outlining the changes. NOT changing Black to White or vice versa. That is ridiculous. How can you be taken seriously for making outrageous assumtions as you are doing? Brittney Spears is a crazy example. Jeeny 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, and yes, TODAY, IF someone of his heritage where to come to America today, they would have that choice. Not because they just feel like being black, but because of their heritage/lineage. Jeezas.

The americas
due to significant mixing the americas have the most controversial and flexible definitions for blackness. However we can start with the figures for the African diaspora which are far less controversial.


 * North america - 40 million
 * Latin america - 100 million. Includes 80 million Afro-Brazilians, 11 million afro-colombians, 4.5 million venezuelans( egHugo Chavez, Mariah Carey ), 6 million cubans, etc.
 * Caribbean excluding dominican republic, cuba and puerto rico which are included in Latin america- 15million. Mainly Haiti- 8million, Jamaica - 2.5 million, Trinidad- 0.7million.

This is approximately 150 million. Not everyone in the african diaspora identifies themselves as primarily black. In the US the one drop rule meaning one is black if they have one drop of african blood. However the reverse is true in much of latin america where one drop of white blood could make you white.
 * Where does the 80 million Afro-Brazilians come from? According to this source, only 4.9% of Brazil (roughly 9 million people) are officially classified as black.[]. So the official numbers are only about a tenth as big as your African diasporas figure.  If this is true all over Latin America, that gives us only 10 million for all of Latin America. Iseebias.


 * Yes up 6.2% classify themselves as primarily black another 39% is multiracial of some african descent. see Afro-Brazilian or cia factbook or Brasil ethnic groups. As is often said brazil has the second largest African population at 80million in the world. Nigeria has the largest at 129 million. At this stage in the article I would assume this to be common knowledge.User:Muntuwandi 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there seems to be a lot of resistance to including this section and it will be hard for us to defend because it's original research. We can add direct quotes from people discussing the world wide black population like the source I found claiming Nigeria is one fifth of the global black population,  but once we start creating the estimates ourselves the numerous editors who oppose us will cite wikipedia original research policy. Iseebias

Melanesia
This includes the populations of Papua New Guinea New Caledonia and other surrounding islands. Approx 6 million.

Australia
the institute of health has the indigenous population of Australians as 500, 000.

Europe
Afro-European England - 1 million split evenly between afro-caribbeans and africans France - 2 million of sub-saharan african descent Netherlands- 300, 000 of surinamese descent.

To reduce controversy on defining who is black I have added figures on the African diaspora that are less controversial. This can serve as the upper limit of who is "black". For example if there are 40 million people of african descent in the US, then there can be no more than 40 million Black people of African descent in the USUser:Muntuwandi 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Total
total figure extends above 900 million. This however has not included black populations in North africa the middle east and South India so the figure could be higher. ( eg Egypt and Saudi Arabia) User:Muntuwandi 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Population estimate continued
"The above chart is an unpublished synthesis of published sources, and is inconsistent with published estimates. For example it asserts that indigenous sub-Saharan Africans and their Diasporas descendents around the globe number 917 million or roughly 14% of the now 6.555 billion people on Earth.  This figure is inconsistent with journalist Jon Entine’s, claim that persons of sub-Saharan African ancestry comprise 12 percent of humanity (roughly 787 million people).  The total black population of 923 million is especially inconsistent with reports that the people of Nigeria are one fifth of the global black population . Nigeria currently has 140 million people implying the global black population should be only 700 million (a discrepancy of 233 million people).  The Nigeria-based estimate may be lower because it only counts peoples of sub-Saharan descent as black (excluding the 6.5 million Melanesians and Australian aboriginals) and also because its excludes populations sometimes viewed as multiracial such as Ethiopians and many Afro-Latinos. "

Dear Iseebias,

I think it is a little odd to make criticisms right in the article. It shows conflict and disagreement. If one disagrees, which is expected,then it is more appropriate to provide alternative or better sources.

My motives are really simple- to indicate:
 * 1)- how many people are of African descent in the world today?
 * 2)- Where are they found?

This is useful information and tells us alot about world history and current events.It is not my intention to define who is black but there is a strong correlation between "black" and "african". In an attempt to avoid disputes I looked for the most reliable sources of information, eg The United Nations.

By viewing your edits it seems as though you are uncomfortable with higher figures for people who are black or of African descent. I think we should let the numbers speak for themselves and not try to drive them up or down. Yes Nigeria is the most populous african nation but we should not be trying to manipulate the figures so that nigeria can have one fifth of the global black population.

It is for these reasons I believe the published estimates section should be removed. User:Muntuwandi 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I revised the section so that it doesn't come off so much as a criticism, but rather notes minor inconsistencies and leaves open the door for alternative interpretations. You say you are only interested in the number of African descended people in the world, but everyone has some degree of African blood (even if it's only 0.0000000001%)-there are no pure races left-so how do you define an African descended person? It sounds like you prefer the one drop rule, which you're entitled to, but it's useful to note that alternative interpretations of the data.  And I'm not trying to manipulate the numbers so 1 in 5 blacks worldwide are Nigerian, I am simply noting that such a ratio has been estimated and that it yields an estimate different from yours.  It's important that the reader gets all sides of the story. It makes for a more interesting article Iseebias

The problem with the sources that you have cited is that are from much earlier dates. John Entine's book was published in 1999 and the other nigerian economic report is from 2001. Africa is the fastest growing continent in the world by population adding about 100 million people every five years,. The population of Europe is actually decreasing and the population growth rate in Asia is also decreasing. Therefore comparing figures from 1999 with figures from 2006 ( at least 7 years) will definitely yield different results.User:Muntuwandi 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought of that but I'm not convinced that that's the primary source of the discrepancy. I've done a bit of research on how black populations are counted in Latin America and you get wildly different numbers dependening on whether you only count people of primarily African ancestry as black or whether you count people with only "some" African ancestry (whatever that means).  As a result they often give a range between maximum and minimum.  Are you telling me that in just the last 7 years Nigeria's gone from being 1/5th of the black population to 1/7th?  If Africa's population increases so rapidly then shouldn't that apply to Nigeria too and hence shouldn't the ratio remain constant?  Thus, isn't it more likely that the discrepancy is just because others are using a more conservative measure of who's black (i.e. primary African ancestry as opposed to any Afrrican ancestry)?  If you have a break down from 2001 I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, but until then I don't think published estimates should be so easily dismissed when your original research is given so much weight. Iseebias

This is starting to look like original research (unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material). --Ezeu 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's why I tried to balance it by including published estimate from the Nigeria report which explicitly stated that Nigeria is one fifth of the global black population (however they define black). He is doing original research in the sense that he's equating Afro-Latin American with Black Latin American even though Afro-Latinos include people who are ideentified in their culture as Afro-multi-racial, instead of Afro-black (he's applying America's one drop rule cross-culturally even though most cultures reject it, and even America's starting to reject it).  But apparently a lot of editors find the information useful and I try not to remove content if it can be avoided Iseebias


 * hello, I believe we should work with current figures. In 1995 the population of africa was 719million, including North Africa, in 2000 it was 819 million, in 2006 924 million. The reports you have included are from 1999 and 2001, they do not cite where there information is from and what dates they are. One is a book about athletics and the other is about economics in nigeria. They are both not directly about population but mention these statistics in passing. As they do not cite dates they could be any dates from before 1999 and 2001. As you can see africa's population is growing fast and therefore the global black population is changing quickly. The weight of africa's growth is shifting away from Nigeria to other sub-saharan countries. There are about 26 african countries with faster growth rates than Nigeria(see List of countries by population growth rate) so it is likely that Nigeria's portion may fluctute with time. Current statistics show Nigeria is closer to one sixth of sub-saharan africa(134/767). Though your reports are interesting, they are not directly about population so we should use ones that are.

Because of the fast growth rate, in the future it is therefore possible that due to migration, many countries and regions that did not have a visible black presence will begin to do so. It is for this reason that talk of black population is very relevant.

Yes not everyone in the Afro-latin american diaspora identifies themselves as black. In fact most are multiracial mix of black, amerindian and white. They are still relevant to the discussion because they have a recent ancestor who was black from sub-saharan africa.User:Muntuwandi 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But who are we to impose our U.S. centric definition of who is black on cultures that reject it and define entire populations as black whether they like it or not. You make some very legitimate points, I just don't see the harm in mentioning that published estimates of the global black population also exist as long we make clear that these may be dated.  Also, you act like your figures are beyond reproach but yet I have seen very different estimates of the black population in Latin America, and it's not because the figures I've seen are outdated (indeed they give HIGHER numbers than you provide by about 40 million people).  Your numbers are highly questionable because they are synthesis of different sources using different methodology for counting the black population and the methodology is not even relevant to the culture in question.   At least the estimates I provide each come from a single published source (instead of a synthesis of sources that may not be comparable) and I made clear the limitation of my numbers by saying that they are dated.  I just thing there's enough room in the article for alternative estimates and I'm not sure why you're so afraid of them-even if they may give obsolete data, readers may want a sense of how the black population has changed over time and those references may prove helpful.  Indeed they may invite future editors who know more about those earlier estimates to provide additional references Iseebias

My main issue about the reports is that they are not directly about population. I would like to read john entines book about black athletes but the book is about the NBA and NFL. The second report is about Economic and Financial crimes in Nigeria. If i were attending an international conference on population i would not use these reports as references and I don't think you would either. I would use more credible sources. Yes no statistics are full proof and beyond reproach. but I would still trust those who dedicate their full resources to compiling these statistics than to one who is just mentioning it in passing and has other goals. User:Muntuwandi 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intention to impose a US centric definition on who is black. By using the african diaspora we can determine the upper limit of who can be defined as black based on sub-saharan ancestry. Because latin america is largely multiracial, in most cases the black population is going to be less than the figures but it will not be more. At this point we should not completely exclude anyone of african descent from the conversation. For example Malcolm X's maternal grandfather was a white man so technically he is multiracial. He is to many the symbol of "blackness". Should we exclude him from the discussion. The same can be said about Bob Marley and even Louis Farrakhan User:Muntuwandi 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

my main


 * Having a maternal grandfather of a different race does not make one multiracial. It's a vague, some would even say pseudo-scientific term, but for those who have attempted a definition, a multiracial is anyone with LESS than 75% ancestry in a single so-called race.  And again, I'm not against you using the African diasporas to determine an upper limit, after all many Afro-multiracials are identified as black depending on where they travel,  but you appear to have no tolerance for a lower limit-even though your upper-limit estimates are displayed far more prominently in the article.  Now let me ask you this, if you were going to try to establish population figures for the worldwide white population, would you apply the same methodology?  Latin America's hundred million Afro-multiracials are also Euro-multiracials, indeed they're far more likely to self-identify as white than as black.  But what do you think would happen if you went to the white people article and dared to include all those partly black people in an upper bound estimate of the global white population simply because they have some white blood and often self-identify as white?  But we've been brainwashed into thinking that 1 drop of black blood is so contaminating that Afro-multiracials can only be considered black or multiracial.  Granting them membership in the white "race" is considered out of the question.  Heaven forbid the purity of the white race be compromised, but the black race should consider itself lucky to have some white genes tossed in to improve it.  All I'm saying is that we should be careful not to send the wrong message Iseebias


 * Actually my next issue is to estimate the population of white people. What is interesting is that throughout recent history(ie circa 500 years) people of European descent have consistently outnumbered people of African descent. This majority-minority relationship is very much related to racism. but now for the first time, the african population is about to equal and likely to surpass those of European descent. If we look at this UN chart of population projections  for the next 150 years. we can see that by the year 2150 there will be more people in africa than europe, and the Americas combined. In the year 1750 Europe had 163 million and Africa had 106 million. Africa is 3 times larger than Europe which means that Europe's population was effectively 5-6 times that of Africa by density.


 * people of multiracial decent should be included and the individual readers can decide for themselves how to categorize them. Yes they should even be included in the amerindian tally and the white people tally.

This article is racist
Why is it " a kenyan man" in the first picture on the artice on black people and then only stars in the hite people article. this is so racist. i think this page need a reality check, but i also realy like the way wikipedia devide Black and White people. its sick. I think we need to discuss putting this page into Deletion or a total rewrtie/matrix17
 * Because he would be considered black by all definitions of the term, he's not someone famous so the topic isn't obscured by celebrity, he has very dark skin and hence meets the literal definition of black, he's photogenic and interesting, and it's a free photo Iseebias

Well their are many photogeniwue white people but anyway the photots only shows renowed people. /matrix17

Current state of this article
I commented in the population estimate section, above, without having carefully reviewed the changes introduced in the last month, and especially the last week. I must withdraw any supportive comments I made. The article has systematically been altered to introduce five races as fact. This strong POV must be addressed. Now I see, in this context, the population estimate section has served to reinforce this POV, and especially perniciously by bandying about "admixtures" and allocating parts of one person to different races. I am deleting this section, which serves as a proxy for introducing this material. There is much more clean up necessary. Jd2718 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of some definitions
I have removed the definitions of "Negro" and "Negroid". The terms Negro/Negroid are not synonymous with the term Black people. Include definitions that refer to Black people, and not definitions that refer to sub-sets of Black people. Alun 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Negro is Spanish for black. Negroid like black has varied in meaning.  Some anthropologists felt only Africans were negroid but Australian aboriginals were also classified as negroid by some anthropologists. see australoid Iseebias
 * Another example of the variable meaning of negro(id) is as follows: Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop feels that the standard conceptions of black people fall short, stating: "There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent."'' Iseebias


 * The definitions you give are only for African people. This is absurd. The article is not about African people. I'm really angry with people who want to turn this article into an article about people of sub-Saharan African descent, it displays a lack of objectivity at least, and downright ignorance at worst. Black people is not a synonym for African origin, whatever racists like Rushton might think. I see no reason why this bigot is even mentioned here. This is an encyclopaedia, not a manual for racists and fascists, it should not include this sort of gibberish. Furthermore, if you claim that Negro is a synonym for Black people, why is it that only definitions that include an African origin are mentioned? You appear to be Timelist/Editingopera. How many socks do you have?Alun 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any socks. Please don't get angry and hear me out.  As I mentioned above, Dr. Chiekh Anta Diop is cited applying the term negro in a non-african context to describe the dravidians. User Asiandurcell found this offensive, just like you have every right to find Rushton offensive, and tried to remove it.  People keep removing content causing the article to suffer.  There's nothing to be angry about.  Just because Rushton & others use the term black to identify a more narrow segment of the population than you and I use is no need to censor them.  Words vary in meaning, and black is a constantly changing social category and I'd like to document the evolution of the term and how it changes depending on the context in which it's being used or the ideology of the person using it (even if the person's been accused of racism-indeed the term grew out of racism).  I'd like nothing more than to add an australian aboriginals views on blackness to the article, but the fact that we haven't found one yet is no reason to delete what we have found Iseebias
 * A agree Negro and black are distinct terms... for one thing one of these terms isn't used much anymore, and, in any case, they do not mean the same thing...futurebird 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But negro literally means black in Spanish. This is a worldwide article and should discuss black identity from a worldwide perspective not just using the termonology that is currently in vogue in the United States.  Also, historically and even today the 2 words are often used interchangabley.  You show me a group that has been historically identified as black and I'll cite an example of them being historically identified as negroid. Iseebias

Do you know what Black people are called in Cuba? Negro thats what they are called. Think about it. If you go to Cuba and say "where is that black girl" they say "?Donde nina Negroese?" or something like that. Why do people believe black and Negro are different. Negro is Spanish for black. i never understood why AA move from Negro to black, its the samething. That why i just use African-American.--HalaTruth(????) 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Even Sub-Saharans may not be "black
Like many, I thought that Sub-Saharans could not contain different races in them, as on one show in the UK quoted Sub-Saharans were not very big travelers but looking at many articles say Arabs had coastal towns along the east coast of Africa in the early 10th century. Thus the native population could of not been as big as it is today so the Arabs must of caught a majority of the population and then untermixed with them. Also the majority of Africans taken by the Europeans in the 16th Century to the New World were from West Africa and had Arabic names. I know that is not proof but it is very likely they had middle eastern ancestry.Caribbean1 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Man so-called Sub-Sahara Africa has been home to native Arabs for yonks, pre-Islam all at the time of Axsum. The entire Swahili culture isnt just "black" people. So Sub-Sahara def aint just "blacks". More on that millions of native "blacks" live in North Africa. No they didnt move there to get into Europe, they have always been there, they are "black" and have no connection to Sub-Africa--NONE! they dont speak Bantu and they were not brought there as slaves. Why cant we get our heads around this fact? Arabs and white people came to North Africa with the greeks,Romans, Spanish Arab invasion in 9th c. and pushed the Africans down or mixed with them.--HalaTruth(????) 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New section required
I recommend we make this article more similar in structure to the white people article. In particular, we should include a physical traits section as that seems to be a significant part of race (as is seen in the white people article). A 'culture' section would also be a good addition. 212.139.248.227 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that insulting that in the population tabulation... every term has "afro" in front of it. We just can't be humans can we? --68.60.55.162 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

One drop rule nothing new
Some people are making out that the one drop rule is something unique to African blood, but if someone has a Jewish mother they are "Jewish", Robert De Niro is 1/4 Italian is considered an Italian American. The list is long of examples. --HalaTruth(????) 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the great thing about being one of the few non-blacks here, is I get to decide whether I want to claim my Italian ancesty, my Chinese ancestry, my British ancestry, and be respected by all those culture, or I could say I'm not Chinese, I'm just white. But I feel bad for the blacks. One drop of black blood and your black. You don't have a choice. Christmasgirl


 * If you are Chineese, you are not white...Lukas19 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well technically I'm multiracial but I'm accepted as white. This is because whites worship the Chinese for our superior intellect and want nothing better than to get some Chinese blood in the family.  But if I tried to marry a Chinese person I might get a bit of discrimination because of my white blood, but eventuially they'd come around. See race is decided by hypodescent.  Christmasgirl

Not 100% true, tiger isnt "black", but Berry is, Bob is. Blackness is dominant so it isnt just some unfair policy. Many "mixed" poeple look like everyday non-mixed "black" people. This is the issue. I am from Africa and even with in one family you get people who are lighter than some mixed people, and in the same family you get dark people. So most of these "mixed" people look like Africans in Africa. So race is about how you look. Bob Marley looks Black, Berry looks Black. When she goes to Ethiopia or Rwanda or Mali she looks like them (and no these Africans are not mixed). Only when they tell you they are mixed do you know it. Just look at Lenny Kravitz (with Kinky hair), he is mixed, look at Prince, he isnt mixed, Vanessa Willliam (with Green eyes) isnt mixed. And again having Jewish blood makes you Jewish, you can worship Jesus all you like you are still Jewish. Indian and white = Indian as well (UK) --HalaTruth(????) 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WRONG!!!! Tiger is 100% PURE black.  All people with any African blood are 100% pure black.  There can't possibly be mixed blood in Africa cause black blood don't mix.  It stays 100% pure black.  Only people who are a mix of non-black races have the right to be multiracial.  All the different shades of color only matter to the blacks. Everyone else just sees one shade: BLACK!   And European + Indian does not equal  Indian, it equals the right to decide.  The one drop rule never applied to Native Americans and till this day you have to prove you got a lot of Indian blood to get a government Indian card. One drop rule only applies to the blacks.  The blacks are not even allowed to mention the fact that they have a non-black ancestor.  ANd Jewish only Jewish if mother is Jewish.  With the blacks it can be mother, father, or great great grandpa. Don't matter. One drop and your 100% pure black. Christmasgirl

"the right to decide" can i as an African decide to be not African? why not let everyone decide then. So next race box should be free to select what race you want to be. If you have 1/8 Indian in you, tick whatever on any given day you feel like ticking. Indian + White = INdian (UK not america)--HalaTruth(????) 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lenny Kravitz mother isnt Jewish, and he is Jewish. Same with Slash--HalaTruth(????) 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lenny Kravitz isn't Jewish he is BLACK. And there's no such thing as African. It's called BLACK!  Most people can tick whatever race box they feel like, but that doesn't apply to the blacks. Christmasgirl

I take it you dont like the one drop rule, i guess it makes no sense but i am talking about people who have more than 1 drop like 50%--HalaTruth(????) 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the one drop rule makes perfect sense. It's extremely scientific.  All humans come from Africa so if you mix with African blood it's like going way way way back in time.  So far back in time that even one drop takes you way back.  But  when the other races mix, well there are no other races really. When it comes to science, there are only 2 races. Africans and non-Africans.  So when 2 non-Africans mix they're not really mixing at all and since they're all the same race, we can decide which part of the non-African race we are. But when you mix with African blood, it's whole different deal. Christmasgirl

I hear statistics saying that the proportion of whites to nonwhites is decreasing in America and Europe, explaining it as differences in reproductive rates based on cultural whatnot, as well as immigration.. but considering the prevalence of the one-drop rule (SINBAD is black? How exactly is Sinbad BLACK?) it could just be the fact that any 'mixed race' breeding produces nonwhites no matter what, for dozens of generations.

Personal issues
Can we avoid bringing our personal issues and feelings into this article. Though this is the talk page, it is not a social networking forum. some of the stuff i am reading is really quite embarrassing. we should stick to the facts ie, what can be defined, what can be proved and what can be measured. User:Muntuwandi 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP THE EDIT WAR
Deevoice and Xmas girl. bullet point the issues and discuss, i dont know why Xmasgirl is complaining about Deceevoice edits, you cant revert the entire thing, there must be some content which can be keep, and Xmas girl 3RR is a problem and you will be blocked, use the talk page to discuss. Let others understand the issues so a resolution can be gained, because all that will happen is the same why you can revert they can revert back, pointless.--HalaTruth(????) 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting because he's hardly adding anything to the article, he's going on rampage taking stuff out. he removed a huge quote from the one drop rule section cause he though the opinion was biased.  Well hello.  I thought this article was about different view points.  All he's doing is blanking huge parts of the article, but doing it one edit at a time so it doesn't look like he's doing it.  He's throwing in a few grammar corrections to make his edits look legit, but that's just to take your attention away from what he's doing most: blanking quotes and opinions he don't like. Christmasgirl
 * just revert the problem areas, because it you revert everything it will vex him, he would be terribly vexed and the edit wars would begin again. Discuss the specific areas of issue and allow the minor stuff.--HalaTruth(????) 13:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Girl, you've shown absolutely no indication you've even read my edits, block-reverting wholesale -- including typos, syntactical errors and errors of fact. Furthermore, my edits have each been accompanied by edit notes which explain the changes.  You're edit warring -- plain and simple.  After your vandalism at White people, you're most assuredly due for a block if you continue such unproductive, hostile behavior. Without explaining your edits and simply engaging in ad hominem attacks, there's nothing to productively discuss.  If you take issue with my changes, then let us know what they are so that disputes can be resolved intelligently.  (What a concept.)deeceevoice 13:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * why was this taken out for example:

Although America’s one drop rule originated as a racist attempt to keep the white race pure of any black contamination, today some of it’s biggest defenders are African-Americans such as professor John Michael Spencer. According to American Renaissance : "Prof. Spencer is particularly touchy about the idea that some of the icons of black history might have been 'multiracial' rather than black. Nothing seems to infuriate him more than the thought of the white parents saying to their hybrid children, 'Colin Powell, Lena Horne, Alex Haley, and Malcolm X were multiracial, just like you.' He thinks this is nothing less than the theft of black history, adding, 'The United States has a history of this kind of grand larceny.' 'Is Black History Month to be replaced by Multiracial History Month?' he asks. For Afro-centrists this may be a real worry because without the one drop rule, not even the most brazen of them can claim that Nefertiti, Jesus, Rameses, and Beethoven were 'black.'"

As this is being added and removed in the edit war, so start by discussing this problem.--HalaTruth(????) 13:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, in the interest of thoroughness, we start at the beginning, edit by edit. XmasGirl's reverts begin with the first paragrah. What's the problem there? deeceevoice 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But *sigh*, in the interest of cooperation, I'll start with your question, HalaTruth. My edit note explains: "There must be another way to make this point. The author being quoted is attributing emotions to this fellow rather than making a purely rational, dispassionate argument.Find another, more NPOV source."

The author's quote uses value-laden language to characterize the other person's views. The guy starts off calling the man he's criticizing "touchy." It means (going to the online dictionary) "marked by readiness to take offense on slight provocation." Already, he's engaging in a personal attack, ascribing his ideological opponent's views to some sort of character flaw or emotional imbalance, rather than simply a difference of opinion/perspective. The language is clearly polemical, argumentative and disrespectful, rather than objective; its obvious intent is to ridicule and denigrate/belittle.

Because of the nature of the www, all sorts of written material is readily available for use in articles. Some of it is noteworthy, analytical and useful. Some of it is deliberately argumentative, inflammatory, derisive -- pick an ugly adjective. As the society has become less and less civil, so has the level of public/political discourse. This is an encyclopedia, not a political journal. The sources we choose should meet a high standard.

I haven't taken issue with the point the editor rather obviously is trying to interject/make; I've taken issue with the source being used to do so. The writer clearly has an axe to grind -- as does the editor, Christmasgirl, as she has demonstrated with her non-stop edit warring and her declaration on my talk page that "Black supremacists. Afrocentrics piss [her] off...." My suggestion in the edit note was to find a NPOV source.

And the edit was made was before I checked into the nature of American Renaissance and this guy. The language immediately struck me as inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is clearly an ad hominem attack.

Similarly, Christmasgirl's edit notes -- when she's bothered to include them -- have been little more than ad hominem attacks directed at me, with no credible attempt whatsoever to justify her ongoing black reversion of material.

I did a very brief check on AR, the source of this quote and the author. The publication itself is a rag. The author is widely regarded as a racist and admits to being a white separatist. Yes, he's been published, but so has David Duke. There are plenty of people with degrees frontin' like authorities on this, that or the other thing. And in today's world where everyone has his/her 15 minutes of fame, and at a time when the mass media seem particularly driven by ratings based on battling, intemperate (usually) red-faced talking heads screaming invectives at one another, one can find just about anything on anything in print or online and claim it as a source. It does not mean, however, that we should, as editors, freely and irresponsibly cut and paste such garbage into an article because it is a convenient way of injecting our own biases into an article under the guise of scholarship. Such thinly veiled POV should fairly shout at any remotely sentient/intelligent, objective reader.

And we should call one another on such bullsh*t.

Wikipedia should strive for a high standard when it comes to sources. We should not give the impression that these mental cretins and beyond-the-fringe media whores are reputable, reliable, trustworthy sources -- merely because they have a vanity press, a podium (and there are thousands upon thousands of them -- millions, even, in cyberspace) from which to spew their intemperate venom/rhetoric. Let's not dignify their b*tchy, POV blatherings with inclusion in an encyclopedia, for God's sake. Find someone without an axe to grind -- at least someone with broad credibility. And not some racist lunatic frontin' like decency. U get my drift? deeceevoice 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's take it from the top. Paragraph one. What's the beef? deeceevoice 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I could take or leave the minor wording changes you made here or there. That's not my beef and you know it. I got a problem with you taking out relevant stuff that's cited. What standard should wikipedia strive for and you gona define it?  The one drop rule is very important for black unity and that quote made clear that it's not just racists who accept the one drop rule, lot a blacks do too.  The quote made clear the consequences of getting rid of the one drop rule, that there's a down side too.  It helped balance the article. And you want to toss it out just cause you don't agree with the politics of the magazine the quote happened to be taken from. HELLO! The section's called SOCIO-POLOTICAL DEFINITIONS, we're supposed to cite all the political opinions.  Some of the Afrocentric shit is from people I think are cretins but I don't remove it from the article because wikipedia suffers when you remove content. Sure we should remove blatant racism, but the article had no blatant racism even if you think a source might be racist. So what if the quote was questioning the author's motives.  The author wrote a book about controversial topic and so it's fair game for people to question him.  It's a FREAKING book review for God's sake. You messed up all kinds of good stuff in the article, like taking a photo of South African coloreds and squashing it to the point where no one can see what they look like.  Getting rid of the one of the race definitions just cause you think the guy's a hack (like none of the Afrocentrics are black supremancists or hacks)  You got rid of a nice photo of the Sahara desert that drew attention to the Sahara desert criticism.  I only read that section cause I was curious what the Sahara desert picture was all about, and I learned quite a bit.  Lot of smart people in that section even if a few are Afrocentric. Christmasgirl

If you "could take or leave" my changes, then why did change them -- wholesale? Your argument is a cop-out, and it's evident. When an editor makes carefully considered edits, then you are obliged to state a reason for changing those edits. What you did was an unreasoned, knee-jerk, blanket revert of several changes that were accompanied by rational edit summaries, and you did so with nothing but dismissive, ad hominem language in your edit summaries -- when you bothered to include one at all.

Just as with your puerile vandalism of the White people article, this demonstrates an unthinking contempt for the wiki process and for the contributions of other editors. News flash: this is a collaborative process. If you are unwilling to work with editors in a mature, civil way to produce a quality product, then you'd best turn your attentions to one of the thousands of blogs in cyberspace where disruptive, intemperate, adolescent conduct and mindless demagoguery are accepted modes of conduct.

I stated my objections clearly to the quotation from that racist hack clearly. If you want to introduce information/a commentary regarding the opinion of a majority of African-Americans in this nation with regard to who is and who is not black -- because the majority of blacks in the U.S. think similarly to the "touchy" man referred to in the quote -- then there shouldn't be a problem finding something acceptable. The author's value-laden, smirking language is not. It's grist for a political rag, a blog, even -- but not for an encyclopedia. deeceevoice 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't misunderstand me. There is a difference between being controversial and being a hack. Afrocentrist scholarship of the level of that of Cheickh Ante Diop is highly respected worldwide. When UNESCO undertook a project to present a comprehensive/exhaustive history of the African continent, Diop featured prominently in the epic, finished product. His scholarship had to be presented and defended to a rigorous review by a panel of eminent historians before inclusion in the multi-volume work. He proved to the satisfaction of those seated that dynastic Egypt was a black civilization, and this is what has been recorded in the finished product. There was no countervailing argument presented in the book. Why? because Diop's scholarship and documentation were unassailable. He not only successfully justified his findings, he completely blew away his detractors. He devastated them -- not with demagoguery, or artifice, or ad hominem insults; point by point, he presented the facts. Once the evidence was gathered and all the arguments were in, there was no credible opposition left standing. So, those of you who, knee-jerk fashion, discount outright the work of any and every historian, scholar, academician because you or someone else has slapped an "Afrocentric" label on it, may be closing your eyes to what was in the time of Herodotus, and is now accepted elsewhere in high academic circles the truth. Diop's status is already established. Is he controversial in some circles? Yes. But he was most certainly no hack. deeceevoice 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Diop didn't prove anything. The UNESCO Symposium came to the conclusion that the criteria regarded as adequate for determining race by Professor Diop were no longer considered to be so by American specialists and that his anthropological documentation ante-dating about 1939 should be regarded as "of dubious reliability owning to its lack of scientific rigor". SecurID 20:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the sahara image was cool but it must actually refer to the critic and not be an editor version, like maybe Some agrue against the term Sub-etc etc. I dont think the SA image should be made too small.--HalaTruth(????) 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The family image is a great one, but it's way too large and completely out of scale with the other photos on the page. Layout wise (and print journalism is my field), it just overpowers the page.  If readers want a larger view, all they have to do is click the photo. This is common, accepted practice on Wikipedia. The downsized version is certainly sufficiently large for the reader to see at even a cursory glance the obvious differences in skin tone, hair texture and facial features among the group, and that's what matters.  deeceevoice 20:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes the argument did have a very personal emotion thing going on, just rewrite it.--HalaTruth(????) 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm crunching a deadline and haven't read the changes in detail. I'll come back when I have more time. But I did notice this in the summary from Christmasgirl in the edit history: "...but without the so-called personal attack against spencer that pissed off Deeceevoice"  Once again, unproductive, inaccurate language. I'm not "pissed off." Further the nature of my objections were very clear. Quite the contrary. It is you who stated you were "pissed off" on my talk page. Do not attribute to me motivations which do not exist. I suppose, however, we are making progress. You're finally leaving edit summaries. Tone down the nastiness, girl, and try to behave yourself. deeceevoice 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Population Estimates, redux
The population estimates are a problem. They use 2 of arguably (and in this article argued) many definitions of Black people. They have cobbled together numbers from many sources, constituting new synthesis and Original Research. This is not all that surprising; the article has been edited over the last few weeks to present Black primarily as a race - but there are not and will not be good sources to document world population by race. Jd2718 20:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I got no comment on that. It's written in such a way that I can't tell what parts are cited and what's not.  If it's cited it should stay Christmasgirl


 * Most Wikipedia articles in general are "cobbled together" from a variety of sources. All the information is cited. To avoid controversy the information is more about the african diaspora. Not everyone in the african diaspora is considered black but they all have recent ancestors from sub-saharan africa who were black. Any other definition is bound to be problematicUser:Muntuwandi 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

all the information is cited from reputable sources like the UN and the Population reference bureau. There is no original research or manufacturing of information.User:Muntuwandi 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The creative piling together of mismatched data is original research. Jd2718 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jd2718

I know you have expressed reservations about the population estimate. Also several times you have expressed your wish to have this entire article deleted. You are not giving sufficient reason as to why you think this is original research when all the information is cited from reputable sources. If you have any problems, let us use the talk page and avoid unnecessary edit wars. Please detail exactly what you disapprove of.For the moment the informatin should remain simply because it is cited. It is not mismatched because it is all concurrent.User:Muntuwandi 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * What's up with the incorrect citation of unspecific population numbers? This is an article about Black people and not about the world population in general. If you want to keep this section, then please introduce specific data - and cite them correctly! SecurID 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And why is sub-Saharan Africa grouped with "African Diaspora"?SecurID 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Data is not incorrect but rounded off for the sake of simplicity. eg 485,000 rounded to half million. The goal should not be to establish an exact figure but to come up with a simple range and distribution pattern. This is simply an attempt to find out what is the probability of meeting a person who may fit the definition of being black in any location. By common sense we know that if someone was dropped in a random place in sub-saharan Africa the probability is close to 100% that the first people one would meet would be black. Conversly in Siberia the probability is closer to 0.


 * Furthermore we know by the very term minority that demographics and statistics play a key role in race relations. For instance the black population in the US has been around 1/8th of population for the last 150 years. The dynamics of race relations are thus different in Africa than in the US. The aim of the numbers is to provide raw but reliable data. User:Muntuwandi 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable numbers of what? There is no agreed on definition of who is Black. Which is, by the way, well-reflected in the lack of a single source for the original research table which was at the heart of the section.

what others have said
"There are now nearly 800 million Africans on the continent and perhaps up to another 100 million persons of African descent living in other parts of world"
 * State department representative said
 * Molefi Kete Asante the african diaspora is over 1 billion
 * African studies of university of miami says the diaspora in the americas is about 150million
 * though dated university of wisconsin] indicated the african diaspora is at 1billion.
 * The African Strategic and Peace Research Group says the diaspora in the americas is 150 million

the whole issue about the population is not aimed at advancing a viewpoint or to get an exact number, but just to add context. Are we talking of 50 people or 5 billion people and where are they(alaska, japan, greenland?). Without this context one might end up like president bush, not knowing that there are any blacks in brazil.User:Muntuwandi 05:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Four or five races
The weight of this article has been tilted heavily towards the five race or four race point of view over the last few weeks. We need to reread for Reliable Sources and proper weight. Jd2718 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then add sources that tilt it another direction. That's how wikipedia get better. When someone thinks an article has moved too far in one extreme they add shit to move it in the opposite extreme, and pretty soon you have so much shit that one article gives birth to several sub-articles. But just going on rampages taking shit out you don't like takes the article backwards. Christmasgirl
 * And btw, if we were gona go by proper weight all the socalled Afrocentics would be taken out of the article, cause that's an extreme fringe view. As sad as it may be to say, obsession with looking down at darker people has been the dominant view through history.  But if you got another view that's so much more mainstream, you should have no trouble filling the article with new material.  Very easy to take stuff out, much more helpful to put stuff in.  Christmasgirl
 * Really, no. Writing an article is quite different from piling up as much information as possible. You might like to review Reliable Sources. Jd2718 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And who prey tell is a reliable source for who a black person is? Someone who studies black people for a living?  Wait a second I thought those people were all racists or black supremacist Afrocentrics?  Have you now changed your mind?  So the U.S. census?  Then the article would be 1 paragraph long?  Christmasgirl
 * Probably not one paragraph, but almost certainly shorter than the current article. There are different attempts at defining what "Black person" means, and they certainly should be explained and assigned sources. This article has no business attempting to reach a resolution, nor to promote minority theories with undo weight. Jd2718 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well someone today added back all the definitions of negroid which I just now removed because I decided Wobble & Futurebird had a valid point that we should stick to sources that use black as their termonology. It's relevant to note the entire history of how the social construction of blackness has been used and abused.  I agree with you that the article should not imply that any one definition is superior to any other and the population section does imply that to a degree, which is why I did make some effort to remove it, and then when then failed, improve it to whatever extent possible.  My vision for this article is to document exactly where this social construction called "blackness" came from and exactly how its evolving and changing all the time, so I totally agree with you when you say "we shouldn't attempt to reach a resolution" Iseebias

let just avoid too much multi-racial
Everybody is mixed to some degree, Spanish Italians etc, If we must discuss multi-racial limit it near mixed race, mom, dad, Else we will have to add that the Spanish arent white. The Ethiopian thing will start many problems again, just look at the edit history. Arabs are a Semitic people look up what racial semitic means. So how far back do we want to go, if we go back 70,000 years everybody is African.--HalaTruth(????) 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then calling people black causes just as many problems as calling people mixed cause like you say, everyone was black 70,000 years ago. Again this ain't a science article, it's about how we label people, usually for political reasonsChristmasgirl
 * The idea 'mixed' presupposes that there are defined races that can be mixed. This is starting to feel like a POV fork of the race article. Jd2718 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea of calling of people black and white also presupposes races. What's the difference? Christmasgirl
 * I suggest you read Race and Race (historical definitions) to get a sense of the difference between the label "Black" or "Black person" and the idea of separate human races, which most scientists reject. Jd2718 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is we are debating established Blackness so we should avoid debating vality of race, that is a different article. So to introduce the fact that some Africans are mixed, from some very exotic lonely argument not found in popular history or culture is useless. Furthermore if you introduce those concepts then we have to debunk the entire thing as all Europe has African genes so they are of Sub-Saharan ancestry. There has to be a cut-off or then there is no basis for any discussion on human social-construction. By this argument even if some Swhahili people have "Arab" blood it has no bearing on the discussion of black people, since nobody is pure and then the big crush, race is all in our head, so to keep the debate in perspective these claims of mixed Ethiopians needs to be dustbinned as debated and agreed before. I really dont know what they could be mixed with, And i am part Habesha and have a geneology which goes back to the Axsum and dem is all Black.--HalaTruth(????) 00:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But races are social constructions. Humans used arbitrary subjective biological logic to define blacks, whites, Asians ect. So if we socially constructed these categories then we can socially construct an intermediate between these categories. I think you guys have missed the whole point of the massive multiracial movement. These people are not saying races are scientific, they're saying if you insist on assigning people to races based on antiquated racist labels like black and white, they are going to assert a middle groind. They're refusing to be pigeon-holed, and I say more power to them Iseebias
 * {edit conflict} One problem is, and remains, someone who is Ethiopian is Ethiopian. There is no problem with that. This article demands that the person be categorized as Black or not as Black. That can be a problem. If the article were agnostic on race, then there would be no problem. We would not need to cope with or apologize for gaps in theory.
 * This article has been twisted to an explanation a race-based concept of "Black," the proposition that "Black" means
 * sub-Saharan African +
 * North Americans of 'recent' Sub Saharan ancestry (employing some US-influenced version of a "one drop rule,") possibly +
 * South Indians, possibly +
 * Australians and / or New Guineans.
 * This article should return to a description of the different meanings assigned to "Black" people, and drop the attempts to fully explicate any one of those meanings. In particular, reliable sources favor social construction over race; the article needs serious editing to reflect that. Jd2718 01:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What attempts to fully explicate any of those meanings? The article is simply a description of all the arbitrary ways people have been categorized as black in different times and places.  The only sections that demand that someone be categorized as black or not black are the population estimates and the gallary, neither of which I endorse. Iseebias
 * My comments were directed towards the article, not towards you personally. Since the two sections you name are almost 40% of the article, that looks like a fairly large problem. In addition, undo weight is shifted on racial theories through the needlessly extended discussion of the one drop rule, and the extended discussion of racial theories of a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Jd2718 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The one drop rule is crucial to understanding how black identity has been historically defined in America and it makes the point that race is a social construction. What could be more arbitrary & unscientific then saying 1 drop of black blood makes you black. The fact that Brazil has the reverse 1 drop rule proves how unscientific and arbitrary it all is. The Yale lecturer psychiatrist is given a 2 or 3 sentence quote & she's just there to document the fact that some people use "recent African ancestry" to define black.  And the psychologist who is a professor on race science is only now given a 1 sentence quote, now that I removed his definition for "negroid".  And he's only there to document the fact that some people define a black specifically as someone who has MOST (as opposed to the 1 drop rule) of their ancestors specifically from "sub-Saharan Africa" (as opposed to any part of Africa).  This is a crucial point to document because we have a criticism section where people dispute this limiting definition of blackness and indeed the term sub-Saharan itself.  My vision for this article is to document all the inconsistencies and disagreements about who is black. As for the population section and the gallary, you have a point.  Can't argue with you there. Iseebias
 * It's an article, not a thesis. The facts can be asserted with citations; these non-experts need not be quoted. And 1 drop is important; but that doesn't mean the discussion need go on for over a screenful. Jd2718 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were a less controversial article I would agree that we could just summarize the various opinions. Checking the archives I believe that was tried but it lead to constant edit wars over exactly how to characterize the various view points and all kinds of POV pushing was being inserted by editors.  Finally it was decided to just have direct quotes to avoid such disputes.  As for your comment about this being an article not a thesis; I guess you and I have different philosophies.  I see wikipedia as an excellent resource where people can get an unlimited amount of information about any topic. You on the other hand seem to feel that covering this topic in extensive detail is somehow inappropriate in which case I suggest you nominate it for deletion if you feel an extensive discussion is of limited encyclopedic value IseebiasIseebias
 * If you feel strongly that there is very little reliable material about what it means to be black, and that this article can basicly be summed up in a few paragraphs, then nominate it for deletion and reduce it to a sub-section of another article on race or social constructionism, or turn this into a disambiguation page. But if ít's worth having an article, it's worth having a good and thorough article. Iseebias
 * I see two weeks of questionable aggressive expansion of this article. The expansion looks neither good, nor thorough. Jd2718 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't feel it's thorough then add new perspectives to the existing material. But to say some of the perspectives are not good is POV. There's no right or wrong way to define blackness because it's a social construction that has been applied in different ways by different people including people with world views very different from your own. Iseebias

The day that color based racism ends I would be right up there in recommending this article for deletion. But until then not discussing the issues is being in racial denial.User:Muntuwandi 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But by concentrating on biology instead of social construction, this article directs attention to petty racialist discussion of the color of Ethiopians, rather than what it means to be Black. Complex issues should not be reduced to a table or list. Jd2718 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiracial biracial interracial
These remain one of the most controversial issues in western society. Malcolm X talked about it extensively in his autobiography almost half a century ago. Today it is no less controversial. I just hope that we do not recycle old arguments that have been debated over and over again. we should move forward and bring new insights. What is tiger woods or Halle berry or ethiopians? are now getting stale. Maybe according to Chappelle, let us have a racial draft. User:Muntuwandi 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything about black identity (or white identity) is controversial, that's why it's imperative that the article not endorse any 1 view point and simply document the various perspectives on what it means to be black.(Unsigned post.)

I can't believe you're bringing Ethiopians into this. For the most part, they're not mixed with anything. They're as black as the Kenyan man pictured in the article. deeceevoice 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No don't start this debate again. There are extremely strong views on both sides, but we don't need to discuss it because the article mostly discusses race and multiracialism as social constructions, so no need to argue over biology Iseebias

I'm not going to let such abysmal ignorance go unchallenged. And don't tell me what I may or may not comment upon. deeceevoice 07:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch your manners, deeceevoice. Remember that you are on probation for racist behaviour.  You are forbidden from commenting on this article for the next 24 hours.  24.16.29.149 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

there is only one view on the topic of ET, then there is a few academics with their bin to remove the noblity of Ethiopian civilization from African claim. But 2 white people saying something outbalances 2 billion Africans opinion--HalaTruth(????) 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

i think its a double standard
its strange that someone get blocked from discussing on this page because wikipedia doesnt excepts racist behaviour. then why is this whole article about "black people" quite racist in my opinion. to define people in to races like black and white is just wrong. and to have a "kenyan man" on one of the pictures in the article and then have only celebrities in the "white people" section is just very very strange i think and wrong. i think we should discuss the deletion of this article bacuase i cant see any reason of defining people into races.. i dont see my friend as my "black friend" i see her as a friend i think this article is wrong wrong wrong... /matrix17
 * I think these types of articles are a necessary evil. Of course we don't want to promote racism, but the other option is much worse.  If there were no "race" articles on Wikipedia, then web-browsers would find less reputable articles about the subject.  There are other articles about a "black" "race", but many of them invoke outdated scientific racism. The strength of the Wikipedian community is that it is open to everyone of all backgrounds and it maintains a strict neutral point of view policy and other policies designed to guarantee the balance of any topic covered.  Although this article may give the impression of reifying "race", it actually decomposes the concept, incorporating all sides of the argument.  In actuality, these articles show that race is a social construction, countering racism.--Dark Tea  15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gallery
I don't like the current version of the gallery. It's a more a showcase of our favorite black heroes that makes the article seem amateurish & adds little encyclopedic info. In addition, it displays only a limited spectrum of the people who could be considered black, & implies that some definitions are more objective than others by saying those people are considered black by a significant number of people (significant number of people is a weasle word). I'd much prefer a more diverse gallery that showcases the absurdity racial classification by drawing attention to all the inconsistencies & how blackness is a constantly evolving social construction that keeps redefining itself. The following is a very rough idea of the direction I'd like to take the gallery in & I'd like to get your opinions & suggestions (most of the claims are cited in the article):Iseebias


 * This page is black identity, so black people have heroes is that now banned by white people? The King of Kings is a globally Black symbol of a black united thinking. Just like bob marley, the gallery will only be deleted if it turns into a gallery of pov, leave it or delete it. I dont like trouble makers, let me b honest and you find this page was okay, then people show up with agendas and rattle everything. that entire time wasting section on population got cut with one edit, waste of time. the gallery has been stable for a long time, most editos have no issue with it. if it starts to be a controvesial shopping list of povs i will nominate it to be removed. see and disturb needs to be identified and curbed. what will be gained, read the article look at the gallery, people have brains let them decide. or will you put every view in the caption. Again none of those people are black according to some people.--HalaTruth(????) 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article is about disagreement so the gallery should reflect disagreements. It shouldn't falsely present a consensus that doesn't exist Iseebias
 * Let me sums something by a question, with all the words in the english language we have failed to let anyone know what black is. correct. so how you going to add clarity in the subtext of a gallery? If i was a vulcan and read this page i would be no more informed. Adding confusion to the debate doesnt help, black is broad and not all agree everyone here is black by all definitions is enought for the gallery. Why go further you have already explained the disagreement.--HalaTruth(????) 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever heard the saying "a picture's worth a 1000 words?" Black is a highly visual concept Iseebias
 * Then leave just the picture let the user decide, stop trying to over explain what cannot be explained. And i dont like that EThiopian refernce as it is a POV from a minority source.by this argument white people are mixed race as all white people have African DNA.--HalaTruth(????) 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You could try creating a Black heroes page... But this is about Black people, which is a tough topic... You seem to be assuming that Black is a biological race (mentioned DNA, in the comment above), but that's neither the only, nor even the majority view. I could see a (weak) argument for keeping a gallery to show the difficulty in deciding who is and who is not Black, but frankly, photos in the article itself would better serve that purpose. There are a number of related articles where the subjects are better-defined: galleries in those articles might make more sense. Jd2718 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Halaqah presenting photos without presenting disagreement is an implied endorsement of these people somehow being the posterboys (and girls) of blackness. It implies that some definitions of black are more correct than others because only some people are shown and not others.  It further implies that cultures that don't consider some of those people black are somehow incorrect.  Wikipedia should not take sides on complex issues, it should not try to force one definition of blackness down the whole world's throat. Iseebias
 * Then delete--HalaTruth(????) 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I missed the discussion on the gallery so there is no consensus yet on whether the gallery should be deleted. Any article or book with illustrations is a lot easier to read. Being black is a diverse phenomenon and all the gallery was meant to do was to exhibit its diversity. There are blacks in Africa and in Europe and in America. The images need not be the same, they can be frequently recycled but if they reflects the diversity of "black", then that should be okay. Isn't there anything in this article that everyone can agree on. Why is it that there is so much defensiveness that the only resort is to remove useful info. In the end we will end up with the only the title and a blank page.User:Muntuwandi 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you've missed discussion that you want to participate in, by all means, put it on the talk page. But missing a discussion is not a reason to return and revert. "In the end" by the way, we will have the article as the most recent editor has changed it; this is Wikipedia. No need to WP:Point. Jd2718 08:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading through I do not see any consensus on deleting the gallery, more like disagreement. Though there is no universal standard for "blackness". People who are black do exist. We see them everyday. They are not some abstract concept who cannot be pictured or counted. Though there are some regional variations, there are some people who are recognized as black on all four corners of the globe. We should not be in denial. The gallery does not take away anything from the article, nor does it seek to influence any perceptions. To imply that someone like kofi annan could be white, or asian, or an eskimo would be completely ridiculous.User:Muntuwandi 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the few people around here who believes in biological races, but treating black people like they're some uniques species of animal with a certain range of phenotypes and exact population distribution reminds of some text book out of the 1600s or some anti-immigration web page (countries not to live in). If the blacks feel that being black is a social construction we should respect that opinion.  The article mentions all opinions, but seems to me like you trying to gives yours undue weight Christmasgirl


 * Yes there is some uniqueness which is the basis for which black people have been victims of discrimination. Society does not discriminate randomly. If we look at US, Brazil, South Africa, Australia there is a clear pattern of discrimination. Yes we are all human beings but we have different appearances that people use to make judgements. Just as one can recognize a man from a woman one can recognize an African an Asian, a European, an Indian etc. Ofcourse there are many due to mixing have appearances common to many groups. To say that blackness is simply a social construction is like saying men and women do not exist, there are only human beings.User:Muntuwandi 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

should this article be deleted
At the heart of the problem are some who strongly feel that this article should be deleted, and I can understand their ideals. I share some of them too. But the reality is race and color play an important part of everyday life especially for people of color. Take for example,

"France does not officially recognize race and ethnicity. The ideal is that all citizens are equally French. No statistics are kept on race, religion and ethnic origin. To do so would be to encourage what the French call communautarisme, the idea that identity-based subcultures can exist within a society, a concept most French see as profoundly threatening to Republican values based on individual citizenship."

After the 2005 race riots in france everyone saw that these ideals are actually a myth and as the National Catholic reporter put it "Race is a reality for everyone in France except the French state."User:Muntuwandi 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors should speak for themselves. By presuming to know some agenda of other editors, you are, in fact not assuming good faith. Please be careful. Jd2718 08:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is colored
I would just like to say everyone is colored, There is no blacks or whites, because they are not colors they are shades. So if black people are colored that means white people must be colored. Kind of like native americans, there not indians to all idiots who say there indian still. They are just simply americans and not from INDIA! White is the incorrect term for a "Caucasian"(note the asian part) person just so you know, white people aren't actually white. Secondly any kind of racial pride is just plain stupid because it all goes back to the Only race,the Inferior race, THE HUMAN RACE!

TERMINATE ALL HUMANS WUHAHAHAHAHa -just a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.79.61 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Do u know there is only one biological human race? All children of one African woman. What would she say if she could see the world today? That her own children would come home and enslave their brothers and sisters. So as irrelvant as race is, it is relevant because we are defined by it, we are privalleged or not privalleged by it. the more we use it the more we have to use it.--HalaTruth(????) 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Suggested Changes
(Disclaimer: I don't think anything POV slipped into this comment, and if something sounds POV, I certainly didn't intend for it to. Also, I would have implemented most of these changes, but I don't believe that the current restriction will allow me to edit the article myself.)

1. To preserve its relevance to the article, shouldn't the picture of "a Kenyan man" be changed to "a black man" or "a black Kenyan"?

(Note: I don't really care about that, it just popped into my head.)

2. There are multiple flaws in this quote: "The difference in skin color between black and whites is however a minor genetic difference accounting for just one letter in 3.1billion letters of DNA. code[4] [sic]".
 * Change "black" to "blacks",
 * "3.1billion" to "3.1 billion",
 * "DNA. code[4]" to "DNA code.[4]" (the period comes before the reference link),
 * "is however a minor" to "is, however, a minor" (this was likely intended to be an appositive, the current punctuation is ambiguous);
 * and, lastly, the information derived from citation [4] seems, to me, to have been improperly interpreted. Without getting into any discussion of what I or anyone else believe to be true, and taking the article to be solid fact, the gist is that it is POSSIBLE for one base pair mutation to result in the opposite skin color (opposite of whatever the base pair had previously indicated, I'm not calling one genotype the "default"). The article says, "The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome," but goes on to mention that "Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations," stating that, in fact, more than one gene controls skin pigmentation. Moving away from the article, one gene to control pigmentation is ridiculous: ignoring blacks versus whites, the mentioned nearly pigment-less European phenotype is different from that of other whites, and is not alterable by increasing melanin production through exposure to the sun (or an equivalent). Stick this type of person in sunlight for a day, and they'll turn pink; not tan, and certainly not black. [EDIT: Whoops! Forgot my name!] — KyleP 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For all you fans of separating humans into races
I have fought, and failed, to make the main theme of this article be closely coupled to current mainstream scientific reasoning, instead of pseudoscientific nonsense. I have no objection to including pseudoscience, but it should be clearly identified as such. This is an interesting link that shows what claims of separate human races can lead some extremists to do: click here for a chart. But I know it is not politically correct among most of the editors of this page to admit that maybe skin color is just that; skin color, and basically a very minor difference among humans.--Filll 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Until the colour of the skin is of no more significance than the colour of the eyes there will never be peace," Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia to the United Nations, SqueakBox 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well spoken squeakbox.--Filll 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Brazil
african brazilians are a small minority.most brazilians are mixed race. If racist americans call everyone who has a drop of african blood in their veins an african, mostly for the purpose of oppressing them into a racial underclass, this is an international encyclopedia and such concepts should not be refered for racist reasons originating in one country. the vast majority of brazilians are both proud of their african and european heritages and refer to themselves as "pardos", meaning coloured and mixed race. less than 10% of brazilians refer to themselves as "black".Since race is an unscientific concept it is the self-identification that counts. if you doubt this see references in Brazil and Demographics of Brazil. 84.90.18.136 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

white person in gallery
why is there a white person in the gallery? What would happen if someone put a pic of black person on the white people article. That should not be acceptable. If one sees the documentary African American Lives, in it henry louis gates talks about how back in the day whites would not allow blacks to congregate in church by themselves. There always had to be one white preacher or pastor in the black churches. This reminds me of the same thing.User:Muntuwandi 02:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to the other version of the gallery. The inclusion of the guy who plays Tony Soprano is ridiculous. Diop was referring to southern Italians/Sicilians, and the operative word (though I haven't seen the exact quote; it's not provided) is "may". Clearly, Diop was not writing about all Italians. deeceevoice 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a black person's picture in the white people article. Iseebias what is the obsession with white people in the black people article. there is an article for white people. User:Muntuwandi 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
There are several editors who contribute to this article. Therefore if only 2 editors agree on something it is still very far from consensus. I have noticed that "consensus" is used to justify edits when in actual fact many other editors are in disagreement. User:Muntuwandi 04:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

- I seem to be a little confused but maybe someone can help. Is this guy white or asian.User:Muntuwandi 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (chuckling) deeceevoice 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I'm not certain I get the objection to the language of the lead. The alternatives just don't make sense syntactically. Seriously, what's the problem? deeceevoice 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Today's edits to lead
Today started with the lead of the article in this condition:


 * Black people or blacks is a racial, political, social or cultural classification of people with naturally dark skin. In some cultures the term black also can refer to people with fair skin, owing to lineage. A variety of socio-political and biological factors are used to define categories of black people.

Deeceevoice edited with an edit summary of ''Deleted. Wholly unnecessary -- and this isn't a bona fide footnote. There is no reference cited, nor does there need to be one.'' this to:


 * Black people or blacks is a racial, political, social or cultural classification of people with naturally dark skin. In some cultures the term black also can refer to people with fair skin, owing to lineage. A variety of sociopolitical and biological factors are used to define categories of black people.

I put the deleted information back, but edited as well with this summary del "lineage" and associated ideas of race from opening:


 * Black people or blacks is a political, social or cultural classification of people. No people are actually black in skin color. Many people who are considered Black have dark-colored skin. A variety of sociopolitical and biological factors are used to define categories of black people.

Later today Deeceevoice used an edit summary of Tweaked the head to change to


 * Black people, or blacks, are a segment of humanity broadly classified by skin color and often other phenotypical characteristics. Throughout history, however, a variety of economic, sociopolitical and biological factors, have been used to define and, differentiate among, black people. Chief among these has been naturally dark skin. In some cultures, however, the term black also can refer to people with fair skin, owing to lineage.

First, the edit summary was misleading. All of us, especially in a contentious article, should make sure that we are using accurate edit summaries.

I have put the lead back to where it started today. If there is a need to change it, please discuss here.

The elements that are important: there is not a fixed definition of who is Black. People are not (the color) black. Jd2718 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jd's false charge. Look in the mirror.

 * Jd, u trippin'. Your statements about misleading edit summaries are flat-out incorrect.  This is the diff for the deletion of the footnote -- that doesn't provide a source for anything.  I deleted only the footnote.


 * The edit I made with the edit note "tweaked" is here. And I did precisely that. The previous version says, "Black people are a ... classification of people."  It makes no earthly sense syntactically -- not to mention that you do not define something using a word in the word/phrase which is to be defined.  You mustn't say "people" and then use "people" in the definition.  Nor can you equate "people" with "classification."  I am a black person, but I am not a classification.  (Duh.)


 * Further, the old definition says, "A variety of sociopolitical and biological factors are used to define categories of black people" -- but without alluding to what the categories are. It's a curious definition that raises a question it does not answer. I changed/"tweaked" the wording to say, "classified by skin color and often other phenotypical characteristics. Throughout history, however, a variety of economic, sociopolitical and biological factors, have been used to define and, differentiate among, black people.  Black people are classified not by biology, per se; biologically, humankind is all pretty much the same insofar as our life cycles and how we function as living beings.  Black people are classified generally by phenotypical (physical) characteristics -- in other words, appearance.


 * The next addition is problematic in that I used "biological" (trying to incorporate earlier language, which I should not have done, because it is -- as I've pointed out above -- inaccurate. The statement (tweaked here), "Throughout history, however, a variety of economic and sociopolitical factors have been used to define, and differentiate among, black people," however, is fine.  Over time and globally, blackness has been a function of economics, politics and other aspects of culture.


 * Another problem: "dark-colored skin" sounds -- excuse me -- clumsy, even ignorant. "Dark skin" is sufficient.  And nowhere did I say the skin was actually "black."  Finally, I didn't change the bit about lineage.  I wrote it.


 * If there's a problem with the edit, then kindly explain here -- as I asked other editors to do before -- but you apparently found it unnecessary to do so. And now you're asking me to discuss my edits here -- when they've been explained in the edit summaries.  Okay.  So, what's your beef?  I'm listening.  But don't come up in here and pretend I'm making disingenuous edit notes.


 * If you want to address misleading edit notes, I suggest you direct your comments to the mirror. Your edit summary here refers to your block revert of the lead -- and says absolutely nothing about your wholesale revert of the photo gallery. This reads like a bad case of projection.  Straighten up.deeceevoice 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the ambiguity of being black is very much overstated and exaggerated. there may be a few exceptions here and there but by large people who are black are very easily recognizable. Some have made it seem as though it is very complicated. Michael jordan is black everywhere on this planet. No one will ever say that he is white or asian. No one will ever say that George bush is black- anywhere on this planet. User:Muntuwandi 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely believe the lead should have more detail on physical appearance. User:Muntuwandi 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's worth reading today's valuable input on Brazil. Only 1 in 20 Brazilians are Black, but over half would be Black if they moved to the US. It's not skin color - but it can be skin color. It's not national origin - but it can be national origin. You may be certain that the Ethiopians in DC are Black; I have a book in my hand that says they are Caucasian (the racial part of the book is garbage), but just because some people in one race-obsessed country think they can categorize everyone in the world, that doesn't make the categories constant, accurate, or even meaningful.

Articles about meaningful ethnic groups, Nigerians, East Africans, African Americans - physical characteristics make sense for them. Population estimates make sense for them. We can agree broadly on who we are talking about. That's not the case here. Jd2718 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Jd2718 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a minority of people who have unorthodox views that being black is so flexible. A Nigerian an East African or an African American appearance-wise can easily be interchangeable. but you cannot mistake a nigerian from a white swede. Impossible.User:Muntuwandi 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course Nigerians are considered black everywhere. No one is disputing that. But it gets much tricker when you're talking about the Afro-multiracials so prevalent in latin America or the aboriginals of Australia or the untouchables of India. Iseebias

If you agree Nigerians are black everywhere then that should serve as the starting point for the definition. People who would be considered black everywhere plus regional variationsUser:Muntuwandi 14:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on forensic photos I've seen, my guess would be people who score 75%+ sub-Saharan on DNA tests are the only people who would be considered black anywhere (average African-American scores 83%, average Ethiopian scores 60%, average Arab scores 5%). That's not to imply that race has any scientific validity, however people who score less than 75% have too much of a multiracial appearance to them to be considered black in many (perhaps most) countries outside the U.S. or when presice physical descriptions are required by the police.  However this article is about all notable view points on who is black and  who isn't black and so we should avoid creating sections that favour some notable view points over others Iseebias

Lead
Deeceevoice wrote:
 * Further, the old definition says, "A variety of sociopolitical and biological factors are used to define categories of black people" -- but without alluding to what the categories are. It's a curious definition that raises a question it does not answer. I changed/"tweaked" the wording to say, "classified by skin color and often other phenotypical characteristics. Throughout history, however, a variety of economic, sociopolitical and biological factors, have been used to define and, differentiate among, black people. Black people are classified not by biology, per se; biologically, humankind is all pretty much the same insofar as our life cycles and how we function as living beings. Black people are classified generally by phenotypical (physical) characteristics -- in other words, appearance.

And that's just wrong. Black people are characterized in different ways in different places. In this country, it's social. In Brazil, it's social. But the social groups don't match.

Some people claim that the classification, and that's all it is, is racial, or biological, or genetic. I think they are wrong.

But the lead should reflect that what Black is, is contentious. And it should not say what the social, biological, racial, or whatever factors are, because they very from source to source, and place to place (and from time period to time period). That's what the body of the article needs to do. Jd2718 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Basic reading comprehension and the issue of misleading edit summaries
 * First, let's deal with the version you reverted. The language reads, "Throughout history, however, a variety of economic, sociopolitical and biological factors, have been used to define, and differentiate among, black people."  The language speaks generally and does not mention specific cultures or geographical locales.  Nor does it specify what particular factors have been used.  Does it?


 * Your last paragraph makes no damned sense, Jd. You're stating that my version of the lead says something it clearly does not. You're arguing the lead should say precisely what my version of the lead says! What?!!!  deeceevoice 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. And no comment on my refutation of your bogus charge that I used false edit summares?


 * Oh. No comment on your clearly misleading edit summary?  deeceevoice 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right about my edit summary being wrong. I should have made 2 separate edits. The summary I used referred only to the lead, and not to the gallery. I am not happy about arguing over edit summaries - this is my fault for raising the issue. Let's walk away from it, and all (including me) be careful to keep them accurate in the future.
 * I disagree strongly with "classified by skin color and other phenotypical characteristics" for inclusion in the lead. We could argue that in the United States parentage counts for more than looks. And we have Brazil.
 * Certainly I disagree even more strongly, if looks are mentioned in the lead, with privileging looks over social criteria.
 * In the end there may be fundamental disagreement over what the subject of the article should be. The question "Who is Black?" should be primary. Jd2718 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Passing
What about "blacks" who pass as "white"?SecurID 12:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Historically they were considered white until their African ancestry was discovered & then they were considered black. Today they would have the choice of self-identifying as black, white, or multiracial, though they often run into trouble legally declaring themselves black in situations where it scholarships or affirmative action is involved Iseebias

five legged dog
what is with focussing on five legged dogs or the man with 12 fingers. Yes these cases exist and are very interesting. but they do not reflect the average dog or average person. The same goes for the white guy who is black.
 * It's the borderline cases that cause the most confusion. For an encyclopedia to be useful we don't need to state the obvious "Nigerians are black" because everyone already knows that.  It's the more ambiguous cases that require clarity.  Also we have a hard-core black person right in the article's lead paragraph, which gives us more flexibility in the gallery Iseebias


 * Six out of Eight in the Gallery are multiracial, Therefore this gallery would be more appropriate in the Multiracial article. there are also many repititions which reduces diversity. Two are black and asian. three are black and white. Five are american. This is one of the reasons why the population estimates are useful. Accordingly, more than 80% of blacks live in Sub-saharan africa. In defining blacks this should be taken into account. We should not give undue weight to the more exotic descriptions.User:Muntuwandi 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lock this article
This article needs to be locked to prevent racism posts that are frequent on this page. Shotmenot 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I requested semi-protection, and I see it was just done. Established users (everyone talking on the talk page these last couple of days, for instance) can still edit. New users and anonymous users cannot. This will probably stop the racist vandalism. Jd2718 20:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully though unfortunately rascists will always find some article to attack on wikipedia. Vandalism vigilance is, IMO, our best defence, SqueakBox 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sahara desert
Err sub-Saharan Africa isnt desert it is tropics. The pic, while I like the comment, is not appropriate at all for the article. Can we get a tropical picture? SqueakBox 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I love the picture and it's FREAKING perfect for the article. It's not supposed to be a picture of sub-Saharan Africa, it's supposed to be a picture of the Sahara desert itself, which divided Africa into North Africa & sub-Saharan Africa. If you read the actual section you'll see one of the guys goes on a rant about the sahara desert so photo is perfect. Christmasgirl

PLease no more OR or unbalanced POV in Gallery
What makes this article look poor is when POV run through the article. Kolfi is black by all definitions. This race in this place is identical to Sub-Sahara Africa {NPOV}}. Either keep it simple or leave it alone. The text is enought to explain the complex topic of black identify. It is a waste of time to add it in any attempt to gain clarity. Photo's can be added to relevant sections. the grand list introduces controversy without offering the reader anything more than a shop list. Also a gallery with a sub text cannot do justice to the topic.--HalaTruth(????) 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have noticed one editor pushing a POV, again i ask that you stop. This has been exhausted and the debate on it is closed. MOst editors agree. No stupid oxford study is relevant here. It is very poor politics to see the debate and then try again and again to push this silly agenda. How do you know anything about Ethiopia? To make these statements is very racist in my opinion as an Ethiopia. Please note there is something on Wiki called undueweight, which casues false perceptions. black is not genetic, this article shows that, so you then cannot add a minority obsure genetic def on one group of people this is undue weight.--HalaTruth(????) 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is best that the Ethiopian image be left out of the gallery.--HalaTruth(????) 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Halaqah. We don't need a gallery, especially not after the latest image Deeceevoice was thoughtful enough to add to the African race section. I'm sure all the editors are editing in good faith, but it's just too easy for complex issues to get oversimplified in the gallery. For example Ethiopians being synonymous with blacks. Ethiopian at the time was a broad term for all Africans so putting that caption with citizens of the country now called ethiopian gives a misleading impression. The gallery as a whole is not needed. Much better to concentrate on the text Iseebias
 * I told you, all that section does is attract all kinds of issues. B4 U came here thats what happened. The samething again and again. The Ethiopian thing is too controversial, just look at the talk pages from last year. It turned into a little war.it isnt worth it. Ethiopia today is far too broad, just get on a plane and go and see, far too diverse for general statements. And racially no more complex than any other part of African.--HalaTruth(????) 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just the ethiopian thing, there were other photos in the gallery causing edit wars. Even the 2 people who wanted the gallery were getting into edit wars over photos Iseebias

Gallery Gone Again
I think 4 editors have agreed on this, i think Deeceevoice is the last editor who likes the gallery.--HalaTruth(????) 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The gallery is a good idea but the issue of using it to further an opinion is a problem. for about a month there were no changes, all of sudden it became a big deal. I really don't mind who would be in it as long as there are regular black men and women from around the world. The easiest are those who have little controversy about being black so that the focus is more about who they are, and not whether they are black or not.User:Muntuwandi 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The only type of gallery that might be useful would be one that is devoid of POV pushing captions, & one where we could all agree who is considered black, black/multiracial, black/Pacific islander. Highly controversial people like Ethiopians should be avoided. A model like this might work:Iseebias

Gallery
The following individuals are black by all definitions cited in this article:

I tried to balance it to make half men and half women within each category, and also for mix of American and non-American. I chose not people I like the best, but high quality photos. I tried to show as much diversity within each section as possible without causing controversy. I tried to include diverse mixes in the Afro-multiracial section Iseebias

Haile Berry doesnt look mixed
Side point Haile Berry actually said no one believed she was mixed, this is funny because i was shocked as well when i heard she was, so this is further proof that Blackness isnt about genes and the one-drop rule (more like 50%) is weak because Blackness is dominant. Many times you dont know someone is mixed, now how strong is that? Prince for example is lighter than berry but not mixed.--HalaTruth(????) 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Haile Berry looks mixed to me, but if you strongly object we don't have to include her in the gallery. There are enough people to choose from that we don't have to pick anyone who might be controversial.  And who told you Prince isn't mixed. His mother is white. Iseebias
 * I have seen princes mother (and father and bro and sis) when she was alive, she isnt white, that is so funny. she looks like him actually. Go and look at a photo of prince in the 70's with an Afro. Berry said no one believed she was mixed. I think berry is the best judge of what she looks like and how she has been viewed. Add someone else it would be better, cant think of anyone.ahh Sheila E--HalaTruth(????) 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember hearing Prince was mixed and his wikipedia article says his mother's white, I just checked it. Maybe she's Italian? LOL! Anyway, I'll replace Halle Berry with Alicia Keyes.  We need a [mulatto]] since we have a blasian, a cablinasian, and an Native American mulatto Iseebias
 * The business about Prince's mother being white was a hoax in which he participated. Both of the man's parents are black.  Prince has issues with being black.  Sad, but true.  He's just another mongrelized African-American -- like a lot of us.  deeceevoice 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I ended up replacing Halle Berry with a blasian baby since Alicia Keyes photo was too narrow. I filled the mulatto quota on the male side by dumping Tiger woods for Obama since if I had kept Tiger that would have been 3 blasians and no mulattos Iseebias

What? Mixed people are considered black, too. Why remove Obama? He clearly considers himself black -- and most African-Americans do, as well.

Further, what's with the emphasis on only Africans? Where are the West Indians, African-Americans? (Michael Jordan is included, yes, but he's as dark as any brother from the continent. What about a whole lot of other African-Americans who are clearly mixed (and I'm not talking "biracial"; I'm talking about the usual amalgam of peoples; we're mongrels, for God's sake)? The definition of "black" by implication is getting narrower and narrower.  No Ethiopians.  Not a single African-American!??  Hell, I'm mixed with (obviously) African (likely from Angola or the Congo), Cherokee and Cado Indian, Irish and God knows what else.  And I'm black!  Always have been, always will be.

I object to this silliness!

And why more than one example of Black-Asians and South Pacific peoples? This doesn't make a bit of sense to me! WTH? deeceevoice 02:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, to a certain degree all humans are mixed, but some reserve the term black only for those with a relatively high degree of black ancestry. Most whites & Latinos in America dont consider obama black, & if that's the attitude in 1 drop rule America, imagine what people in other countries think Iseebias


 * There are no ethiopians because the best studies say ethiopians have 40% Arab ancestry so you could argue that's enough to make them multiracial but if forced to choose a race i'd say they're black. But the average African-Americans have only 17% non-African ancestry. Ethiopians appear to be a mix of East African and caucasian, much like Obama, though there is huge variability within Ethiopia.  I included only 1 African American because America's only 1 country.  I picked the dark skinned Jordan because I wanted the contrast with Afro-multiracials to be clear.  The definition of black is not narrow.  I made clear that some consider the "multiracials" to be black but we also have to make clear that not everyone does.  Do you think whites consider multiracials white? The definition of white is more narrow Iseebias

- The debate about Ethiopians will go on forever. My own personal opinion is that Ethiopians have a unique appearance in the world but are still black and recognizably african. there is a notion or stereotype that ethiopian women are attractive. Then I hear they look like caucasians. The implication of this is that caucasians are attractive and blacks are not. Praise for the beauty of ethiopian women often comes from black people- self hate I guess. Even if an Ethiopian had white skin they would still look different from a german or a russian. According to the map the average skin tone in Ethiopia is moderately dark(level 3 on the "blackness" scale), that plus the fact they live in Africa, have an African culture is enough for them to be black.

Technically there is nothing wrong with having a larger gallery to accomodate a diversity of opinions. Four rows is okay. but since we would like to keep it as small as possible we should focus on the diversity of black people and avoid repititions.

I think our focus is too external ie how are blacks defined with respect to other races. we need more internal discusion on "blackness". There are various black sub-cultures that can be brought.

One interesting but controversial issue regarding the concept of race is blacks and sports. According to John Entine Blacks of West African origin dominate the sprints but are lousy long distance runners. Kenyans dominate long distance events but are lousy sprinters. This difference shows that being black is only skin deep.race and sports
 * Linguistically, craniofacially, and genetically Ethiopians tend not to cluster with the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're not black (some definitions are more inclusive than others) but they're not much blacker than Barack Obama.  They've been heavily Arabized over the past several thousand years given the proximity of Ethiopia to the near east and the relationship between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.  You can argue it from both sides but they're too ambiguous and controversial a case to be included in the gallery Iseebias

Arabized may not be accurate as Arabs are relative newcomers in North Africa. Whereas Ethiopians have been possibly been living in the Area for 20, 000 years. Maybe it is Arabs who have been Ethiopianized.User:Muntuwandi 05:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, the people living in today's Ethiopia are a mix of black and Arab (blarab) but including them with the other multiracials will piss off editors I respect, so it's best they not be included Iseebias


 * Personally I would classify as multiracial if mixing was recent. If the semite and the bantu consummated and procreated 3000 year ago to produce a whole new nation of people how can they still be considered multiracialUser:Muntuwandi 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They can still be considered multiracial because they're genetically & physically indistinguishable from the offspring of Arabs & "pure" East Africans who procreate today. They can still be considered multiracial because they have both semitic and sub-Saharan cultural influences Iseebias


 * I slightly disagree, the progeny of bantu and an Arab would look mixed but would not necessarily look like an ethiopian. Certain facial features such as the eyes and forehead are unique to Ethiopians and are not common amongst arabs, caucasians, and bantus.User:Muntuwandi 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said arabs mixed with bantus to create ethiopians. It was indigenous east africans & Arabs that created ethiopians. Think of the offspring of a Kenyan & an Arab.  They would look like Barack Obama, only darker because Barack is the product of white & East African, not Arab & East African Iseebias


 * You're wa-aaay wrong there, Iseebias. I think you need to brush up on your history.  Ethiopian populations, along with the indigenous peoples of Somalia, Eritrea, Kenya and Tanzania, are among the oldest on record.  If memory serves, DNA studies indicate that they and the Khoisan share a common ancestry and likely are the two oldest branches of humanity known.  The Arabs are virtual newcomers to the African continent, having asserted dominion over Egypt in the 7th century A.D., 3,000 years after the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt by indigenous, black Africans.  Arabs were not even in Africa in any great numbers until well beyond modern human history ("modern" in the sense of population differentiation).  deeceevoice 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah on the black side of their family tree they're a FREAKING ancient population, but stop ignoring all the Arab blood that's poured into their veins in the last 3000 years. Yeah go back 3000 years ago and the Ethiopians were black, but I'm not FREAKING seeing any blacks in Ethiopia today. They don't even belong in the multiracial section. They FREAKING belong in the Arab people article.  Christmasgirl

Misinformation regarding skin pigments in white people
The article stated that white people do not have melanin. That information is incorrect, as can easily be checked via Google. See, e.g., http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/skin_cancer.html Albino people may not have any skin pigment, but even we northern European types whose capillary systems show through their skin in the high northern latitudes will tan up fairly well when exposed to UV. Chinese people can be as white as paper under their clothes, but the same people can tan as dark as many Afro-Americans. So I changed the wording slightly. In the process I was surprised to learn that black people can be subject to skin cancers too. So a believer in [race] as a tool for medical guidance might be tempted to direct resources away from public health announcements to darker populations telling them to check themselves for skin cancer, watch strange moles, etc. on the mistaken theory that the darker people are not at risk. It's true that the darker groups get less skin cancer, but when people in those groups do get skin cancer it will often be the worst kind. Just another reason to doubt the utility of [race] as a category for dealing with the world, IMHO. P0M 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Anyone is at risk of skin cancer, and white people do have melanin. The amounts depending on where they are from. According to the map the lowest levels of pigmentation are found in Northern Europe and Scandanavia. Stephen Oppenheimer uses the term depigmented to describe the lowest levels. According to the hypothesis light skinned people are more prone to skin cancer and dark skinned people are more prone to rickets. The hypothesis further states that virtually depigmented people are only found in the Northern Hemisphere because there is no land mass that is habitable at comparable latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. Hypothetically if weather in Antartica was not as harsh as it is, if it was connected to Africa, then Africans living in Antartica over time would become depigmented and their skin would resemble caucasians. Conversly light skinned people who came to the americas through alaska from asia, became darker skinned native americans when the populated central and south america.

Accordingly it is possible for any human population over time to change appearance in a different location. Stephen Oppenheimer believes white Australians are slowly becoming black.

That said African people may still have the greatest ability to modify appearance as they have the greatest genetic diversity User:Muntuwandi 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * U know what u r correct. If everyone was wiped off the face of the Earth and only Africans left they are diverse enough to repopulate diversity again. I think a genetic study done in America shown the stranges group was AA, even chinese and white people were very narrow but all African people had a extremly broad and unique mDNA. Now some would say that is racist but it is actual face. genetic eve--HalaTruth(????) 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not "racist" to recognize the survival potential of diversity. Cheetahs presumably were quite diverse after a few million years of evolution and accumulation of mutations, and then for some reason almost all of the wild population disappeared leaving only a small group of not very diverse individuals. Like planting all of Ireland with one kind of crop (potato), the danger is that some disease will strike that happens to "eat" all the available individuals. Then you can get a die-off of the whole species. If some disease hits, maybe only people with Ainu genetic heritage will be likely to survive. If the Ainu were to get eliminated first and then the disease were to strike, we might all disappear. There would be one hellacious founder effect after that, and government leaders would be wise to preserve all the remaining diversity, the little remnants of other populations, so that the original diversity of humans would not be totally lost. (One of the things that people often do not understand is that a single individual can inherit genetic components from all eight great-grandparents, so successful genetic components can fairly easily get de-coupled from less successful genetic components.)


 * Culture plays a big part in evolution in regard to such things as skin color. A diet rich in animal sources of vitamin D will permit people to move far north, even to the Arctic, without the need to shed the protective pigments. One of the things that promoted the success of the mutation for low pigmentation was that Northern Europe became heavily populated on the basis of agriculture and animal husbandry.  In places where only grass grows very well, consumption of meat and milk becomes a major factor in success, so the group that lost its skin pigments also tended to favor retention for breeding of individuals who were not lactose intolerant.  With improvements in knowledge, we can now provide vitamin D supplements to permit success of heavily pigmented individuals in the far north, and we can also convert lactose in milk to forms that lactose-intolerant individuals can digest. (The problem with lactose is that if you eat milk and you cannot digest and absorb it, then some microbes in your digestive system will grow and thrive on it and give you a good case of diarrhea every time you consume the stuff. In that case you may lose much of the nutritive value of all the stuff you ate that gets flushed out.


 * Fortunately for people who live in Australia, genes thrive wherever they thrive. The mixed genetic heritage of the people now living in Australia will favor people who carry the adaptive factors. Unless the lighter-skinned people all start dressing like Obiwan Kenobi, their population (even during their reproductive years) will get pruned by skin cancer. That's a good thing since we don't need low pigmentation levels anymore. (Too bad for the individuals who die of melanoma, however.) The next mutations may be ones that gives us nictating membranes for protection against air pollution and gills so we can continue to live in places currently just above sea level. Elimination of the nastiness gene in us white people would not be a bad idea either. ;-)  P0M 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The gallery (still)
I've removed the subheads in the gallery, because they are problematic. Iseebias, however, keeps reinserting them.


 * "The following individuals are considered black by those who reject "recent African descent" definitions."
 * This is simply not true. "Black" is a term that has been used to describe Australians and Papuans -- Tamils and East Indians as well.  The gallery  implicitly has adopted the Africa-Europe paradigm, when this is a purely American perspective.  Britains and other European colonial powers historically have referred to certain dark-skinned peoples around the world as "blacks".  For them, in such an application, it's got nothing to do with recent African ancestry; it is all about skin color (and often other phenotypical characteristics).  deeceevoice 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To include a photo of Carol Channing and then refuse to include a photo of Ethiopians is utterly absurd.
 * To include four additional photos of people from Southeast Asia in a section all their own is also absurd. It's a waste of space.  deeceevoice 08:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the heading to reflect your concern Iseebias
 * I'm including Carol Channing in the multiracial section. Ethiopians are far more black than Channing but there's too much debate over whether they are categorically black or whether they are multiracial. It's easier if we limit the gallery to people who fit clearly into 1 category or another. Iseebias
 * You do not get to make unilateral decisions about the format and content of the photo gallery. Stop edit warring your point of view into the article.  Many more people consider Ethiopians black than do not.  In fact, more people consider Ethiopians black than they consider Carol Channing black.  deeceevoice 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that ethiopians are far blacker than channing. it's just too hard to decide which section of the gallery they fit in, so it's easier to just leave them out especially when we can include Somolians who are easier to classify.  Sorry if I seem a little assertive, I just love the idea of a gallery that is neatly organized into 3 broad categories, consistent with the definitions in the article Iseebias
 * I've maintained your divisions, with misgivings. But I have to insist on the inclusion of the Ethiopian children.  The term "Ethiopian" was once synonymous and used interchangeably with "black person."  Furthermore, the vast majority of Ethiopians consider themselves black -- as does, I would wager, the majority of the world.  The only bone of contention is that some call some of them "Caucasoid," which is used purely descriptively; it is not a racial classification.  (No one with any standing calls them "Caucasian.")  Furthermore, the degree to which these so-called "Caucasoid" (again, they are only part of the Ethiopian population) are mixed is far from settled.  There is a widely respected/credible argument among those who study such matters that the genetic affinities with other, non-black peoples is not, in fact, due to mixing, but due to the fact that this branch of humanity migrated out of Africa, giving rise to Caucasian peoples -- that the genetic markers shared with non-blacks are there because they are proto Europeans and not mixed with them.  This postulation is bolstered by the fact that some Somalis and some Nubians also have similar features to some Ethiopians:  relatively narrow nasal indices, straight-ish hair, less broad and longer faces, minimal prognathism.  Hell, the Senegalese are also known for having minimal prognathism.  Technically, also makes them so-called "Caucasoid" -- but funny thing.  No one is calling them "Caucasoid".  No one with any sense has dared suggest they aren't black.  And no one has argued they're mixed with Europeans or Asians.  The difference in phenotype is merely another aspect of indigenous African biodiversity -- like short pygmies and tall Tutsis, like the brown San and the black Nuba.  The notion of non-black Ethipians is absurd on its face.  If Condoleezza Rice, with her Howdy-Doody-lookin' self (obviously mixed somewhere along the line) fits the definition of black, then Ethiopians most certainly do.  To further underscore the inclusion of the Ethiopian child, I found a photo of a so-called "black Jew.  They're known as black Jews.  You can't tell me this kid isn't considered black.


 * I've also added another line of photos to the gallery. The first category is the broadest and deserves wider representation.  There was no really good photo of indigenous Africans in non Western clothing.  (The San woman is draped.) And there was no representation from the Caribbean.


 * And I apologize if my earlier response to you was harsh. I'm fed up.  But I see in your subsequent edits, you've made some attempt to be flexible.  That's appreciated.


 * I also added info to the captions identifying the individuals by geographic origin. It gives some further context.  deeceevoice 08:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And, no. There aren't "too many photos." The phenotypical diversity of blacks is broad: skin color, hair, facial features, geographic distribution.  The gallery should be broadly representative of these peoples -- which is why I objected to the over-representation of peoples from the South Pacific.  Space is an issue; it shouldn't be wasted with redundancies.  deeceevoice 09:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Deeceevoice, in order to be considered black by virtually all definitions of the term, you need to have most of your ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa. While your correct that much of the caucasoid features of Ethiopians are indigenous, and part of the reason they cluster with Arabs is because they may have been the original out of africa migration,  the general consensus among scientists is that they're 40% Arab ancestry.  Iseebias


 * Actually this is a false statement. There is no 'general consensus' about 40% Arab ancestry. They are not 40% Arab ancestry. The reference you give (#28) does not say this. In fact it barely even mentions the word "Arab". It only mentions Arabs in relation to language, and a questionable claim that the Amhara are descended from Arab conquerors. In fact this article is questionable on a number of additional counts, and is contradicted by the findings of other DNA scientists. Adrunkman 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And where are the citations for those arguments? My understanding is that percentage refers to the percentage of common genetic markers -- not "ancestry". That cannot be proven -- and is, again, made dubious by other factors I've mentioned.  And that is in the literature as well.  (Kindly respond here before changing the gallery again.  And give me time to respond.  I've got deadlines/work to do! deeceevoice 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally "...it shouldn't be wasted with redundancies." To that end, the first photo of the guy in the yellow shirt is of pretty lousy quality.  He's also a Papuan.  That makes three photos in the article of Papuans, two in the gallery, specifically.  If a photo can be found of someone from somewhere else, that'd be great.  I've done some checking for images, but haven't come up with anything useful yet.  deeceevoice 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This article[] cites many genetic studies on Ethiopians, many of the studies are cited are by extremely reliable sources Iseebias
 * Also what's with putting Bob Marley in the non-multiracial section? He has talked openly about being discriminated against for being mulatto by other blacks Iseebias

lol. I just knew you would cite that page. Now, go back to that same page, click the link to "Somalis" and read this:

"Genetics"

"The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.'"

"...The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity -- and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis -- makes simple-admixture models less likely [emphasis added] ; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) -- that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe.'"

Translation: what I said.

You've got a point with Marley. We can substitute another West Indian, one who's not "mixed" -- though I don't know anyone who's tried to say Marley wasn't black.

Now, I really do have to get to work. deeceevoice 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no clear answers. Everyone agrees that there was some Arab admixture but the precise amount is in dispute, so ethiopians are seen as categorically black by some and multiracial by others.  I'm trying to establish clear categories and you keep wanting to throw in borderline cases. As for Ethiopians vs Somalians, it's much easier to make the case that Somalians are categorically black than Ethiopians are.  For example this chart[] shows Somalians clustering with sub-Saharan Africans but the amhara of ethiopians being north African/east African intermediates.  Similarly for the Sudanese making your Dinka photos problematic in addition to your Tuareg women photo (which we can't even see).  All of the people you are trying to assert as categorically black are highly controversial because they have implications for the controversy over ancient Egyptian race.  Can we not just leave that controversy out of this article and concentrate on people we can all agree are multiracial or black? Iseebias


 * Actually there is no general consensus on any Arab admixture.''' The article you mention does not support that claim.Adrunkman 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this isn't about agreement in every instance. It is about presenting examples of people who are called/known as "black." The precise definition(s) of who are black and who are not vary depending on a variety of factors. And that's the entire point. The lead (2nd paragraph) clearly states as much!' You can't state the definition is in dispute and then cleave to a narrow band of humanity because it suits your own perspective. Nor, certainly, can you leave out a people who were/are emblematic of black people -- Ethiopians --simply because not everybody agrees they are black (and that is a fringe notion by all accounts.  The facts are they're still commonly called "black" regardless of what theory one postulates about their origins). They commonly -- historically and today -- are called, and call themselves, black. That's sufficient to have them included. I mean there are people in Africa who will look at Condoleezza Rice and a good many African-Americans and claim we're not black, either! So, you're going to leave anyone African-American who could pass the paper bag test out of the category? Absurd! deeceevoice 11:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that to the man on the street Ethiopians are black. No question about it. But among academics there has always been some question.  It started with the shape of their skulls & has moved on to the nature of their DNA.  I've attempted to compromise by including them, but we must do so in a way that acknowledges the complexity of this issue Iseebias
 * Among the ancients and among academics, as well, as far as I know, Ethiopians always have been referred to as black people. The dust-up has come from ignorant people who've read the works of academicians and scholars and who have incorrectly extrapolated "Caucasoid" to mean "Caucasian" -- which it most certainly does not.  This isn't an article about genetics; this is about who is considered "black." deeceevoice 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And they're not considered black by people who go by genetics. That might be ignorance on their part, but it's their belief system nonetheless and needs to be acknowledged, especially since such views were endorsed by Oxford geneticists who explicitly said they weren't black Iseebias


 * Actually this is again not accurate. Deeceevoice is on target. The Oxford geneticists in the reference you give are not saying what YOU say they are saying. They note that Ethiopians share gene flow from a variety of sources including "sub-Saharan" peoples, West Asians etc. But this is only one school of thought. Another school holds that black people cannot be confined to stereotypical types that look like louie Armstrong, but vary in nose shape, skin color, hair etc, just like other folks around the globe. This may not be the result of race mixing at all, but simply another black variant or local African type, based on the Recent Single Origin Theory of "out of Africa" migration.


 * Just as Europeans are allowed to have ultra pale Swedes and dark swarthy Italians, so blacks can in turn have Ethiopians with wavy hair and aquiline features. This is exactly the point raised by Cheikh Anta Diop in his writings, the double standard used by certain researchers when black people are involved. In short, this school, represented by genetic scientists like Alan Templeton and S. Keita, challenges how racial categories are drawn up and why Ethiopians, Nubians, Somalians etc are assigned as "Caucasoid." The article mentioned achieves it splitting off of Ethiopians by defining who is a "true" black quite narrowly. It all depends how you manipulate and cluster the categories. And this is precisely the point raised by many DNA scientists- the inconsistent manipulation of data to define a "true negro" somewhere south of the Sahara, while splitting off people like Ethiopians and Nubians into someother category. They also note that little attempt has been made to define a "true white" in similar fashion. Adrunkman 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is simply incorrect. Genetics doesn't determine "race" or color designation.  It merely establishes relatedness (or a lack thereof) between and among populations.  You can't fit a square peg into a round hole.  Color designations sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with (recent) relatedness of populations and nothing to do with genetics.  They were established long before the discipline emerged, and they exist compltely outside the discipline.  No geneticist worth his or her salt would dare say that Ethiopians aren't black, or assign a race to anyone.  What geneticists have done is merely comment on similarities/commonalities among population groupings - in this case, some Ethiopians with non-black populations.  However one interprets those findings -- and I've provided you with credible, sourced, expert commentary citing several studies that says so-called "Caucasoid" Ethiopians aren't a "mixed" population at all; they are a precursor population to whites (proto Caucasoids, if you will).  Ethiopians are, and always have been considered blacks -- except, quite simply, by those who don't know any better, who have taken a little knowledge and run with it -- in the wrong direction.  deeceevoice 12:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See below Iseebias

The term Arab admixture is technically incorrect because Arabs are newcomers in the area. Arabs arrived in North Africa in the 7th century AD by which Ethiopia was already an established empire. The genetic similarities are likely because the invading arabs mixed with the indigenous populations in the area(eg berbers) who had been mixing with ethiopians. The distinct facial features of Ethiopians are too prominent to be as a result of admixing. If they are any similarities with other groups it is probably genetic coincidence. What makes an Ethiopian look Ethiopian is not other races but it is the ethiopians themselves as they have some of the oldest DNA. Outside of Africa the closest resemblance to Ethiopians are actually Indians and not caucasians.User:Muntuwandi 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indians are caucasian (and no there's no difference between caucasian and caucasoid, that's something wikipedia madeup). And the term admixture has nothing to do with who invaded who (LOL!) even assuming the validity of your historical account. I say Arab admixture because most consider them black people with Arab admixture rather than Arab people with black admixture  Iseebias
 * 'Incorrect as noted above. Arab admixture is not supported in your reference.Adrunkman 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we don't need anything more than the asserted [racial] identity or "black" identity of each individual. One educational value of the photographs is to show how different social constructions can lead to application of the same label to very different looking people. Maybe we could even include a photograph of my white/Amerind friend with a "black" wife and "black" kids who is "black" because his community says he is. I wouldn't mind a few Shan tribal people in the mix either, but maybe nobody but me is ever ignorant and unselective enough to mistake a Shan in Thailand as a wandering African-American. P0M 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

condi isnt black by all definitions
condi int culturally black i think we should put someone else, bellafonte and others doubt how black she is. better to find another female, jada pinkett, and get better images for the tureg. funny AA have more "white" blood than ethiopians so y not put all of the AA in a mix race section. this is just to show the absurdity of the ongoing debate.--HalaTruth(????) 11:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Ethiopians are believed to be 60% sub-Saharan on average. African-Americans are 83% sub-Saharan. But Ethiopians are mixed with dark skinned Arabs so that makes them look just as black Iseebias
 * pure nonsense, go and google mursi and konso and hamer. 60% that is funny again i am from ethiopia. the san r not black then as they have been classified negrito not negro. in any vent 80% black is mixed race. end the silly debate. 60:40 80:20 is all mixed race then so add all AA to the mixed cat. and your are engaging in a WP:POINT, because it is not constructively developing this article. i will now ask for the dna profile of the somali and any person added before they can be added. because average doesnt mean condi isnt 70:30. maybe she is 77% so she is mixed, so if you want this threshold then i will up the threshold. see undue weight!--HalaTruth(????) 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * if these politics continue i wil delete the section as original research. and i think i can do a rfc to back this up. + the list of editors above. these kind of issues always vote delete, see white people issue. again i have warned about the ET POv, stillicbias tries to reinsert it at every turn dispite agreeing not 2.--HalaTruth(????) 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you getting so angry? All I added to the article was that Ethiopian lineage is complex. I phrased my concerns in as neutral a way as possible Iseebias
 * U dont 3RR against people it is called an edit war, the worst thing on wiki. I am allowing the gallery Ask yourself isnt condi linge complex? All AA have complex linege. U keep pushing this mix race thing, when u know fully well even from the above convo with Deeceevoice that it is not welcomed. So it is very disruptive to building a better article.--HalaTruth(????) 11:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the first part of that statement is absolutely correct: "The following individuals are usually considered black by all definitions...." The second part of the sentence, however, is irrelevant and, frankly, inaccurate. Precisely because of this craziness about some ignorant, misinformed whites trying to claim Ethiopians as "white" or "Caucasian," certain North African populations -- Ethiopians among them -- have been researched ad nauseam. Well, make that some Ethiopians, mostly those from the North -- because they're the ones with some so-called "Caucasoid" features. The very accuracy of the first part of your statement completely obviates the need for any further comment on the matter. The article, again, is about people who are called "black," who are considered -- as the title of the article states -- "Black people." It is not about genetics. If it were, Halaqah is correct. A whole lot of African-Americans wouldn't pass muster. By some people's estimation, I myself wouldn't. My great grandfather is Irish. My great grandmother is Cherokee (a full-blood). I have Caddo and Cherokee ancestry on likely both sides of my family, as well -- and God knows what else. In South Africa, almost my entire immediate family would be considered "Coloured" and not "black." But the plain fact of the matter is that here in the States, in the Caribbean and in much/most of the world, I'm considered black. Such is the nature of being an African American. We are, for the most part, mongrels.


 * Furthermore, two photos of Ethiopians just doesn't make sense. The gallery as it was before, I think, with the additional row for the first category, works well.  And please don't think I'm being inflexible; I'm trying to be cooperative -- but rational, and I'm trying to get you to see my reasoning.  deeceevoice 12:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But you admit that Ethiopians have been studied to death so you admit that there is a notable segment of the population that questions their blackness. True it's a minority segment, but so is the segment that considers Tamils black & if that's worth noting, so is the ethiopian nitpicking.  The difference between AAs & Ethiopians is everyone agrees AAs are about 83% sub-Saharan but theories vary wildly about North/East African ancestry.  My version is not much different from yours except that we allude to the fact that North/East Africa is a mysterious & controversial region of history, it's really a trivial difference Iseebias
 * My version is making clear that they are widely considered black, but being neutral enough to very briefly note the controversy on the side. When sources as reputable as Oxford geneticists come out and say Ethiopians aren't black, we can't just ignore such notable view points.  But what I've tried to do is put it in perspective by saying they're usually considered black by ALL definitions. Iseebias
 * Tamils don't have recent African ancestry, now, do they? And, no.  There is no informed, "notable segment of the population" who doesn't consider Ethiopians black.  You've made a very general statement here that has absolutely no basis in fact.  I've already told you how some people got that impression -- by misreading, misunderstanding/confusing some very fundamental terms commonly applied to human populations:  "Caucasoid" and "Caucasian." deeceevoice 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See below Iseebias

African AMericans are not black by all defs
Some of the most mixed people on the planet are African Americans, Slavery has left so much White blood that even when AA go to Africa they are know as mixed, not pure. Every Caribbean person has between 80-60% non-African blood, they also have Carib blood. So how fine can we take this point, either we keep it simple or we take it complex. YOu cannot have AA in the pure cat and Ethiopians in the confused cat. 70:30 and 80:20 is all complex linage (if that argument holds).Please review original research it is pure and it will only take a less fussy editor 2 sec to delete it, just like the population thing. someone like yom for example.--HalaTruth(????) 12:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But everyone agrees that AAs are 83% sub-Saharan. But with North/East Africans there is much more debate partly because there is much more at steak.  Wikipedia never solves disputes, it just reports them from a neutral point of view. Iseebias

But such matters are not -- I repeat -- not the purview of this particular article. This is about who is considered black, and Ethiopians fit the bill -- even the so-called "Caucasoid" ones. deeceevoice 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are considered black by the man on the street but there is controversy among highly reliable population geneticists some of whom don't consider them black. I noted the controversy while still insisting that they're black. Keep in mind that if we want to apply all the definitions, we need to have a rough idea of someone's ancestry, because some definitions in the article are ancestry based, & with ethiopians there's still some uncertainty. Iseebias

And just where exactly in the text you've cited does it actually, precisely say that geneticists have said that Ethiopians aren't "black"? deeceevoice 12:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * a 2001 Oxford genetic cluster study stated: 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans.[] For those who define black by ancestry, we have to all know what someone's ancestry is. Essentially all I'm saying is that North/East Africans have a mysterious history so it's hard to say ANYTHING certain about them, not just race.  That shouldn't be too controversial a point to make Iseebias

Again, this article isn't about "race." It is not about genetics. It is about who is considered "black." And, again, several groups treated in this article are considered black by some and not black by others -- as is noted in the second paragraph of the article. The parameters of who is considered black and who is not are spelled out early on; such classifications are variable. You, yourself acknowledge, however, that the majority of people on the planet consider Ethiopians black. What more do you need?

But for the sake of argument, percentages vary, depending on which study you're citing. This particular study clusters slightly more than half (52%) of Ethiopia's three, major population groups with black Africans -- which comprise only 75% of the population -- citing clades and haplogroups specific to sub-Saharan Africa. The other half studied also have Asian affinities (which the study links to the "Out of Africa" model, which does not speak to admixture, but to shared characteristics, which it cryptically discounts out of hand -- presumably because it is irrelevant to admixture -- and does not discuss this matter further) and Arab and Near East affinities, citing clades and haplogroups more common, but not specific to Arabia and the Near East. This population also was found to possess two additional haplotypes which are consonant with black Africa -- "more common" there -- (but which for some reason aren't fleshed out in the article in terms of frequency). One must look at a tiny schematic (which I don't have time, or likely, frankly, the knowledge) to try to make sense of that piece.

And I'm using this study here precisely because the investigators took great pains to differentiate among Ethiopians -- who are not one, single people. I live in D.C. We have the greatest population of Ethiopians of any metropolitan area outside of Addis, and I see Ethiopians virtually every time I hit the street. And I know what they look like. (And I know they consider themselves black.) So, I'm always leery of studies that speak of "Ethiopians" as one group and then proceed to make generalizations about the entire populace of the country as a result. Further, it makes me wonder which populations they actually studied -- if the findings were skewed because the investigators started out with an unrepresentative sampling of the population.

So, with this study, we're looking at the three, major population groups of a nation, with the highest degree of genetic diversity -- because the other 25% are minority groups who cluster solidly with sub-Saharan Africans. So, right off the bat, you're already looking at 64 percent of the population that clusters solidly with sub-Saharan Africa -- read "with no meaningful/discernible admixture or relatedness to outside populations whatsoever." I haven't read further to determine the percentage of relatedness to other populations is represented by the other 36 percent, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of Ethiopians, taken as a group, across ethnicities, cluster genetically with sub-Saharan Africans. I mean what am I missing here? deeceevoice 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

blackness scale
Bob Marley was born to white british father and black mother Cedella Booker. Marley had very little or no contact with his father or his fathers relatives growing up. He was raised entirely by his black mother. Therefore even though he was genetically multiracial, culturally he was black jamaican. He spoke like a black jamaican, his buddies Peter Tosh and Bunny Wailer were black, he married a black cuban Rita Marley and the reggae music he played can be traced back to the ancient drum rythyms of black africa.

What is interesting is that in the new world many traditions that have long been abandoned in Africa have been preserved in the Americas. In Africa after colonialism there was a desire to become modernized quickly. For example traditional mysticisms and religions like voodoo were condescended upon by the African elite, and the church chasitized them as being demonic and pagan. Upwardly mobile blacks would disassociate themselves from such traditions and many traditions would be lost and forgotten. However in the Americas these traditions would be used as symbol of resistance to the oppression of slavery. Many blacks linked the church with slavery and thus continued to practice ancient religions. The result is Voodoo, Candomble, and Orixas are openly practiced in Haiti and brazil but are rarely seen in public in Africa.

Afro brazilian Walson Botelho says "African culture is stronger in our part of Brazil than in some parts of Africa. Several gods forgotten in Africa are still worshiped in Bahia."nytimes

The basic point is that even though there has been extensive mixing in the americas, elements of black african culture are still pervasive and in some cases more african than on the mother continent.User:Muntuwandi 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research in Gallery
Condi is Congo would be a mulatto, she is at least 10%-35% non-African, most AA are, we dont know her DNA. It is OR to add her, or any AA into a pure cat. Their lingage is complex. So how can we seperate out Ethiopia. As Deeceevoice has said at length, the genetic map of Ethiopia is not enough to draw conclusions about all Ethiopians. Today and in the past they are the definitive Black people. for heaven sake Ethiopian means burnt face. Original research means you are as editors adding unreferenced groupings and not applying the criteria across the board. According to the critics on this very page, Ethiopian, AA, San none of them are black, they are only African. So the gallery contradicts the text. To seperate out groups is to make the gallery worst. Not everyone agrees about averages because some AA might have 99% while some may have 60% African genes, thus the average is the middle of those studied. Basically no African American fits the pure section, or no San fits the pure section as they were called COLORED under SA law. how much % DNA do you need to be considered mixed 80% or 60% this is why it is original research--HalaTruth(????) 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well this is why Michael Levin's definition is useful. He says that anyone with less than 75% ancestry from a single geographic region is multiracial:

Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub- Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%. An individual, half of whose ancestors are East Asian and half Caucasian, is to be categorized as just that, of half northeast Asian and half Caucasian ancestry. Nothing in continental cladistics precludes mixed ancestry, any more than the concept of a breed of dog excludes mixtures.

The highest estimates anyone has ever claimed for Ethiopians is 64% sub-Saharan which means they would not be considered negroid by Levin, but multiracial. African-Americans, who are on average 83% sub-Saharan, would qualify as negroid on average. Iseebias

Wrong again, Iseebias -- if you're using the figures I've presented above. That's 64% of Ethiopians solidly clustering in the "sub-Saharan" African group with no evidence of admixture or affinities w/outside (non black African) populations. That doesn't even begin to address the other 34 percent who are said to evidence admixture (though that, too, is disputed, as I've mentioned earlier), or some affinities/similarities with Arabs and Eurasians - but who clearly also have affinities with black African groups to varying degrees. Even though they are said to cluster more closely with Arabs and Eurasians, they very clearly aren't completely Arab or Eurasian, so the degree to which they do so (the variables involved) cannot be known without consulting very detailed genetic schematics (which, frankly, I don't have a clue how to interpret). So, even if this 34 percent were, say, 75 percent Arab and Eurasian -- taking Levin's definition of the threshold for "racial" identity (so, assuming this 34 group is non-black by Lewin's definition, which is being wa-aay too generous) -- then the final result is that Ethiopians are 74.5 percent indigenous, black African, with 25.5 percent with sufficient evidence of non-indigenous accretions so as to be classified as non-black (in effect, quadroons -- whiter-looking than, say, Alicia Keys, who is mulatto -- the very notion of which is absurd; it's way too extreme). And that's, again, being overly generous with the "Ethiopians aren't black" nonsense. Looks to me like Ethiopia was -- and remains overwhelmingly -- a black, African nation (genetically and historically), a matter which has never been in question among Ethiopians themselves. deeceevoice 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Wrong again? LOL! I haven't been wrong yet :-) Just because 64% cluster solidly with sub-Saharan doesn't mean they're not mixed, it just means they're closer to sub-Saharans than any other "race". Anyway, rather than try to make sense of complex genetic studies we're not qualified to interpret, I quote directly from the man universally regarded as the most important population geneticist in the world today, Cavalli-Sforza, who says this about Ethiopians on pg 199 of The Great Human Diasporas:

'''The Ethiopians compromise a number of different ethnic groups and have many more languages. They are one of the forty-two genetic groups emerging from the fifteen hundred populations studied, and are classified as African, genetically speaking, even if a closer look reveals that they are special Africans with a high level of genes of caucasoid (white) origin. In fact we can call them an admixture of African and west Asian (Arab) genes. The two groups contribute respectively about 60 percent and 40 percent of their genes. But linguistically speaking, they are closer to the Arabs, because they generally speak languages from a family (Afro-Asiatic) covering northern Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East.'''

'''The mixed genetic makeup and use of Afro-Asiatic languages reflect the history of the Ethiopians, who for a long time had close contacts with the Arabs. In and around the earliest Christian times, there was an empire that took in both regions. Its capital was first at Saba (Sheba) in Arabia and later at Axum, in Africa. According to Ethiopian tradition, Makeda, the Queen of Sheba, visited King Solomon and had by him a son, Menelek, founder of the Ethiopian dynasty, which has only recently been overthrown. The Bible tells of these events. '''

Now I can't imagine why anyone would think Ethiopians are multiracial?! (sarcasm) Anyway we've reached a compromise by putting very dark skinned Ethiopians in the top third of the gallery (since they probably have the least admixture) and I'm not going to nitpick about Ethiopians overall being less than 75% (at least they're well above 50% in some studies which is more than I can say for some people who've tried to call themselves black) because black and multiracial are mostly social constructions Iseebias

I am Ethiopian (1/2), and nothing you said is correct it is your original research based upon a very limited understanding of Africans. YOu see that Kenyan man, he is Masai, Masai are closly related to the Oromo people, they come from the same place (KENYA). Oromo are the majority of Ethiopian people. Amhara are no lighter than other ethnic groups in Ethiopia. The waChaga of TZ are very light skinned, the San are the lightest Africans in Africa, they are almost yellow (lighter than Arabs). This is the danger of assumption based on racistly feed information. Keep your opinions as it is clear you are not intrested in learning. Afro-Asiatic is spoken by Hausa. The Ethiopians are mothers of the Arabs of Yemen (they werent even called Arabs back then), they occupied it in antiquity. Google Woodabe are they mixed as well, they look identical to Somali and Amhara poeple. Ethiopia has more Ethnic diversity than all of South Africa and Kenya combined. Do not discuss antiquity as if you go back far enough everybody is from Africa so nobody is mixed. But you have 2 sets of rules one to prove a crazy idea. AA are more mixed than Ethiopians. AA have European blood which is less than 120- 300 years ago. The biggest Joke is Condi the "pure Negro" is light skin in Ethiopia. The few "Arab" genes that these freaks claim exist are 1000's of years old. YOu are pure OR as you are limiting race to genetics and racist assumptions of "negro features". The people of Rwanda look just like habasha people, the fulani also. In West Africa the same thing among some Fon. This info isnt for you as it is clear you have no interest in learning from the people telling you, it is for the peoople that read your rant. If they are social constructions then your argument is an opinion and invalid in the real world where Black means Ethiopian, AA, SAn, Gambian, and Nubian. Everyone is from one race the human race, all genes go black to Africa. Most Ethiopians are dark, i am from Ethiopia i think i know what the people in my country look like. Most Ethiopians are not Hailes color, and the ones with the straightest hair are usually very dark, intresting fact. this debate needs to end and i think editors should delete it if it continues as it keeps coming up and doesnt develop this article! fly ethiopia and see for yourself, so racist to discuss a people you dont know or never seen methinks--HalaTruth(????) 13:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So we should believe an anonymous wikipedia editor who claims he's half Ethiopian over a direct quote from Cavalli-Sforza, considered the greatest population geneticist of our time? To be truly interested in learning, we read sources, instead of constantly repeating our personal experiences and opinions dozens of times on the talk page and accussing other editors of "racist assumptions"  I realize that being half Ethiopian this subject is very dear to you,  but wikipedia must evaluate everything from a neutral point of view. Also, the skin color of the khoison has no relevance because they're indigenous to a totally different region of Africa with a very different climate.  In any event, I agree that there are many ethiopians who are not too mixed to be in the top third of the gallery, we found one such photo, so there's really no point in dragging this tired debate out any longer. Iseebias

Hal have you ever been to America? What are you FREAKING talking about when you say African Americans are more mixed than Ethiopians? Just cause the ones you see in the FREAKING movies are mixed doesn't mean the typical African American on the street is very mixed. It makes me so FREAKING MAD to see a guy who looks 90% Arab thinking he can lead the Rastafarian movement. That makes my blood FREAKING BOIL trying to play them for fools like that! I think you need to listen to the African Americans. Everything you know about being black you learned from the African-Americans so if the African-Americans aren't ready to accept you as black you got to respect that! I'm so mad I could spit! Christmasgirl

I am following this discussion and I am astonished. Christmasgirl and Iseebias are really out of line with the remarks. The arguements you bring up don't hold ground what so ever. And I also wanna ask Christmas girl, do you know who that man is in the picture that iseebias call's a man from Ethiopia? No, I think this discussion needs to be based on scientific facts and handled in a professional manner. There are several things you have to take into account when stating comments and defining who or what is to be called "black". First Black is a term used to identify people who where not white. In the medieval times an African was called Moorish by early Europeans and Zanj by Arabs. The term negro was invented by the Portugeuse after there first encounter with Sub-Saharan Africa'd Zanzibar (Vasco da Gama). Black became a synonom for Negro and a negro was stereotyped as having a flat nose, thick lips, dark skin and crispy hair. So everyone who fitted within these description's was therefor a negro. But as we now know, this racial typecasting is UNSCIENTIFIC and therefor MUST be dismissed. Just as the onedrop rule should be dismissed for 1 since it was used (and here I agree a little with Cgirl) to separate Africans from Europeans and to maintain the "pureness" of the white race 2 the fact that it helped to maintain the segregation law's. May I remind you that in the time these definitions where made and used Europe still thouhgt that the Earth was flat, draining blood with leaches was a way to cure typhoid and other ailments, and people with epelitic seasures where possesed by the devil! Scientific studies in America has found in Every AAn traces of European, Asian, Native An DNA-markers, And that a large percentage of Euro-Americans have significant traces of African-American DNA-Markers! These studies can be viewed on the internet if you'll take the time to google a bit!! Now for the Ethiopians and the Africans: you both Cgirl and IBs, are wrong and do not take a very SIGNIFICANT thought in considaration: Migration. Halaqal has good points there she is not only talking out of experience but she is stating the same thing scientist UNIVERSALLY conclude: 1 that through migration one group with specific markers merge with another group with specific markers creating a new group with a new DNA make up. Ethiopia alone contrives of minimum 42 different groups with each his own specific markers. BTW the Oromo-tribe is one of those 42 groups and to which Archeologist and Forensic Antropologists say the first Pharoa of Egypt (Narmer/Min) probably belongs. THIS IS NOT AFROCENTRISM BUT FACT!!! Migration is VERY VERY important when you want to outline groups, pinpoint there origins and define who they are or who they where. It has been proven not only by DNA but archeological findings that the migration started arround 15,000 BC when groups whent separate ways out of the region that is now known as the Saharan dessert. The migration whent south, northwest north and east. some-time later the Nubian A-group emerged on the banks of the Nile. Now we all now that Nubian's where darkskinned people aswell as the Early Egyptian's. As far as I am concerned the whole Anti-AFROCENTRISM debate and definitition comes from EUROCENTRICS who lack the ability to confirm the obvious. That we are all from ONE RACE and we all have a unique bleuprint which gives us our look. Again Halaqal is right. I see it within my own family. While my youngest sister looks more like a or even Ethiopian my Elder has the morphology of an Native American, My mother passed on many occassions for an Erythrean and My Sister looks more like an Asian we all have different skin tones predominantly red and yellow skin undertone. While when anyone will perseave me as black I am for a 42% Native through both parents 19%jewish and 5%Asian while the rest of me is African. The fact that I see myself as African Carribean is solely because I rather identify with my African Ancestry. The Cavalli-Sforza, IBs, is not undisputed. You should find a more reliable source since this particular gentleman is being fronted by 4 other scientist who oppose his views. And if one scientist come's up with some BS doesn't make him a world renowned scientits, ofcourse only to those who's agenda these views support! BTW this man comes from the 1920 so he's ancient as well as the research methods, the whole thesis based on insignificant and uncomplete researchdate would today not be admissable so: DISMISS!!!#@! ADD. Furthermore, His Imperial Majesty  Negus Negesti Haille Selassie (YEAH, THE ANONIMOUS ETHIOPIAN MAN IN THE PICTURE), Is significant to every black man and woman everywhere, You can also trace his line further back to the Biblical times (the oldest monarchy in the world). During the struggle he invited black people from whereever they where to come back to live in Ethiopia. That's why he is so important to Rastafarians. But I guess you didn't know.

4 the sake of Peace leave Decces Gallery
Mr or Miss (i guess u r a girl i dont know why)Leave the gallery alone, Deecees version is far more acceptable. Deccevoice and you will disrupt this article so just let it go. I back up this gallery as it is better than the alternative, but only in the name of stablity.--HalaTruth(????) 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit war this into the ground. I've stated my case -- over and over again. The gallery still isn't quite right. The last row still has two Papuans (with a third in the body of the article). That's overkill. (And I, frankly, don't remember my other objection at this point. lol)  But let's keep talking, people, and keeping things civil. It's tedious, but bearable, as long as we keep a level of respect, openness and cooperation. Bless. I'm out for now. deeceevoice 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The gallery will never please everyone but at least we cannot complain about diversity. Blacktino, blaropean????User:Muntuwandi 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've got Hugo Chavez. He's an Afro-Latino. I think we should replace the Papuan in the yellow shirt with a black European -- like maybe the athlete who was there before. (There are already two other photos -- as I keep pointing out -- of Papuan peoples in the article.) I'll hunt it up and do it. deeceevoice 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it, but promptly had to revert it. Switching out the old Papuan guy meant the athlete was under a subhead which implied he wasn't of recent African descent -- when he is. He is (or his people are) from Surinam. deeceevoice 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the guy in the yellow shirt should stay. He looks fascinating.  And it's interesting that someone who is so black in color would not be considered black by many definitions Shows how complex the issue is Iseebias

You have a very good point. I don't particularly like the photo -- not because, as someone said, he's "unphotogenic." I don't have a problem with the way the guy looks. He just looks like he's had a hard life. But it's simply not a very good photo. (It's out of focus.) And then there's the problem with three Papuans represented. But, then, I'd hate to sacrifice the photo of the children. They're cute. Unless someone has any better ideas, I'm can live with it. That brings to mind the fact that the top section doesn't have any blue-black black folks in it. Do we have a photo of someone from Sudan we could insert, maybe in place of the Dinka? deeceevoice 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think it's the most interesting photo of them all. His face looks like a rubber mask Iseebias


 * Its a screenshot from a video. If one is good at video editing we could get a higher resolution and more focussed image User:Muntuwandi 18:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What about this image of Michael Jackson? It would be interesting that someone who is black by all definitions is the whitest person in the article and that the South Pacific man who is black by the fewest definitions is the blackest man in the article.  So should we add Michael Jackson? If so, who should he replace? Iseebias


 * E-EE-EEEEK! I'm scay-owed.  Wun, wun, wun, WUN! lol  Include MJ?  HAY-OH, no!  The man's had cosmetic surgery.  Dang, people.  Let's not complicate matters with this.  This was tried once before.  Such a suggestion is just plain ridiculous -- IMO, worthy of a sockpuppet, but not a serious editor.  And we were getting along so well.  Don't start.deeceevoice 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

mayb pics of mj from the 1970s when he was young and had an afroUser:Muntuwandi 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "...when he was young and had an afro" and was cute and actually looked like a real human being.


 * Well, I don't really see the point. No need to clutter the gallery with more photos.  At a second glance, the Dinka tribesmen photo does show a couple of fairly dark-skinned brothers (though they're not the primary image -- dang! how beautiful is that photo?!).  But I'm thinking the suggestion about showing a Euro black is a valid one and should be pursued -- maybe that sister who served in the Dutch parliament (or whatever they call it?).  I'm thinking there may be a wiki photo of her already.  Anyway, congrats on collaborating to come up with something that works.  (Though I haven't looked at the page in a long while.  I don't dare!)


 * Next, dealing with the text. The lead still needs work. Peace, people.  It's back to work for me.  deeceevoice 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was only half serious about Michael Jackson. My larger point is that we should add someone who is black by most definitions yet white as a ghost, in sharp contrast to the South pacific guy who is black as can be in color but not defined as black by many. A native African albino would be a cool choice if we could find such a photo Iseebias

U SHOULD PUT IN MJ, because he doesnt fit all the definitions and is an intresting case study. he has transcended physical race. genetically black, physically "unknown".--HalaTruth(????) 13:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I disagree. Not because he's an embarrassment to himself and, for some black people (not me; I'm not accountable for him), an embarrassment to the "race." He's a freak -- pretty much sui generis. In an article on white people, should we include as an anomaly taxorexic white women who get butt implants, grotesquely collagen-swollen lips, who rat their hair, and sing in AAVE, trying to sound like (name their favorite black recording artist)? (Jeeze. Except for the butt implants and swollen lips, I think I just described Christina Aguilera! 8-O ) Or in an Asian gallery, Asians who get their eyefolds sliced, breast and butt implants -- or the Ganguro girls of Japan? MJ would be an utter waste of space better utilized with some other, truly instructive, photo. deeceevoice 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we did include Michael Jackson we would have to create a separate section for him. He's not black by all definitions because he's not black by appearance based definitions.  He also doesn't fit the multiracial section. We would have to call the section The following individuals are black as defined by all ancestry definitions but not as defined by appearance.  But we would need at least 3 more people that fit that category (i.e. black albinos) to justify it since each category has a minimum of 4 photos. It's unlikely we would ever find 3 more such photos.  There might be a place for MJ's photo if we created text (a section on self-hatred assuming we had a reliable source accusing MJ of such-not that I'm advocating such a section, just throwing around ideas) for it in the article, but it doesn't look like he'll find a home in the gallery  Iseebias

How about a section "Black people who look like they belong in a Tim Burton movie"? Look, this has gotten beyond silly. Let it drop. deeceevoice 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Two types of definitions
I think that this article should have two types of racial definitions:those made by black people and those made by Europeans. In the name of counteracting systematic bias, the historical section with definitions by Europeans should be moved to the bottom and should be given less weight. The self-definitions made by black people should be given more weight. The white people article never lets non-whites define white people, so why should this article rely on Europeans to define the black people? The reader should have a clear heads up about what definitions are self-defined and which definitions come from white people who have less of a vested interest in the definition.Dark Tea 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But if the article states there's no agreement on who is black (or white for that matter), how do we decide which definition was made by a black person? The division you propose would turn the article into a self-contradiction.  And what about cases where an African person defines a tamil or a dravidian as black.  That's not a self-definition.  And there are many cases where we just don't know whether the definition was made by a black or a white especially definitions formed by government bodies under diverse political pressures.  And if white people created the term to label and classify segments of the non-white populations, why should white definitions be given less weight? As Toni Morrison said, definitions belong to the definers, not the defined. That's why many African ancestry people have rejected terms like black and negroid in favour of a term they created: Africoid.  They are free to classify anyone they want as Africoid because they originated the term, so no one can claim they are misapplying it Iseebias


 * Let me clarify what I meant by self-definition. I agree that when a person of African descent defines a person of South Indian descent it is not a self-definition.  A self-definition is a declaration that the definer is black.  For example, I have heard the fictional character "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" define himself as a black man, but Blumenbach was not defining himself as a black man. White people do not have a vested interest when they define black people, because they are not going to be included.Dark Tea  15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People who don't have a vested interest should be given more weight not less because they are more neutral. People who invented a concept should be given the most weight of all. And why should a dravidian or a multiracial be given weight when he/she define himself as black or white for that matter?  People trying to force themselves into social categories they may not be welcome in should not be given undue weight. Iseebias
 * In some cases, an outside opinion may be the most neutral, but if the outside opinion is motivated by personal interests, then it is not neutral. For example, US slaveowners defined black people by hypodescent for convenience and to mentally remove the attached guilt of enslaving fellow whites. This is a case of vested interest which is not neutral.  In this issue, we may never find a neutral party, but we will find self-definitions and outside definitions.  I feel the distinction should be made in this article between the two types.  The proposition that some south Indian self-definitions of black are forcing themselves into the black category, pre-supposes a fixed definition of black people.  There is no absolute definition of black people that is removed from our perceptions.Dark Tea  16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's POV to say self-definitions should be given more weight than outside definitions by the very people who created, or at least popularized the concept of blackness. It would also just be an oversimplified & incoherent way to organize a very complex article. Much better to organize the article chronologically & by the type of definition being made rather than by the person making the definition. It also makes little sense to imply the Fresh Prince of Bel Air speaks for all African-Americans or that a South Asian can speak for all South Asians which in turn presupposes that South Asian is a coherent category rather than a social construction as equally elusive as black.  Why should one African attempting to speak for all Africans be given undue weight?  Are all Africans the same?  Is a West African definining an East African as black a self-definition since they're both Africans?  Even within East & West Africans there's a huge range of ethnicities, so unless one is being extremely specific it's not a self-definition. Who says African/non-African is a meaningful dichotomy? You're suggestion would promote the very systematic bias you are trying to combat.  Sure if a person says "I Will Smith am a black man" that's a self-identification but we don't have any definitions that ridiculously specific, nor do we want any. Iseebias
 * I agree there is value in ordering the article by type of definition. Most of the historical definitions were made by racists. In this sense, I consider Blumenbach to be a racist because he considered races to have unequal value and to have fixed mental characteristics.  Instead of listing him in the historical section, he should be listed in the racist definitions section.  I do not believe that there is a meaningful dichotomy between Africans and non-Africans in this issue; I was proposing a distinction between self-definitions and outside definitions.Dark Tea  16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's POV to classify definitions as "racist". Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould (who is hated by racists) says Blumenbach was not a racist.  By your definition Darwin and Thomas Jefferson were racists, so were every scientist of any repute in the last several hundred years. And again, when people define themselves as black, they're not just defining themselves but others.  If an African says all Africans are black, how is that a self-definition, unless we make the racialist assumption that all Africans are a unitary category. Iseebias
 * Although the numbers of historical figures who would fall into the racist category by the definition I gave may seem staggering, we must admit that they were racist. The shear numbers of estimeed figures who deny human equality does not make their views any more right.  Okay, maybe it is impossible to provide self-defintions that encompass more than the definer.  I now propose that there exist definitions whereby the definer is included in the definition.  These are the type of definitions that must be distinguished.Dark Tea  17:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A racist is someone who advocates limiting the civil rights of an ethnic or racial group. Simply arguing that races differ is not racism, it's a scientific view point (though one that has become less mainstream).  And just because someone includes themselves in a definition of blackness does not mean they should be given more weight.  What if they are broadly defining black as ALL dark skinned people because they want blacks to take credit for Tamil culture?  Iseebias
 * The definition of a racist must mention the essential quality which is that races are unequal. Someone who wishes to limit the human rights of others is only a person who does not believe in the concept of human rights.  I do not believe a person would define south Indians as blacks to "take credit" for a culture.  They only seek to affirm the shared color that they both have in common.Dark Tea  17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unequal in what way? I believe black people & white people are unequal in their risk for skin cancer.  I believe black people age better than white people.  Does that make me a racist?  And what you personally believe about people's motivation is your own POV and should remain separate from your decisions as an editor. It's simply POV of you to attribute negative motives only to outside definitions and impose that view on the article Iseebias
 * For every physical adaptation in the human species that provides an advantage in one situation, there exists a corresponding disadvantage in another situation. Without the access to fortified milk, dark-skinned people living in areas with little sunlight would not get adequate amounts of vitamin D for bone growth.  These traits are different, but equal.  I couldn't call another user a racist even if I considered them to be one due to Wikipedia's policy on etiquette.  Distinguishing between different derivations of definitions does not necessarily entail attributing them with "negative" motivations.Dark Tea  17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So if the superiority or inferiority of all biological traits are context dependent, simply asserting that races differ on traits is not asserting inequality & hence not racist Iseebias
 * There are distinctions which are racist due to implied inequality and there are distinctions which do not imply inequality. The example I gave applied to individuals' skin color.  There is a cline in skin-color shade that corresponds directly with biogeographic ancestry among individuals.  Acknowledging this cline as it applies to individuals is not racist, because it implies no inequality.  Assigning differential mental attributes to the abstract concept of race, is pseudo-science because it relies on natural divisions between races which don't exist.  Some attributes are considered unanimously negative, so ascribing these traits to races implicitly assigns inequality.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no difference between asserting physical differences between races & asserting mental differences because the mind is the product of a physical brain, unless you believe in mind/body dualism which hasn't been accepted since the dark ages. And as you yourself said, there are no superior or inferior physical traits, but the value one assigns them depends on the evolutionary context. Iseebias
 * Physical characteristics have a causal link in determing a black person by most definitions, but mental attributes do no have this relationship. In this sense, there is a causal relationship between dark skin and being a black person.  This cline relates to ancestral sunlight in a given region.  If there exists a cline in mental attributes, there is no reason it would correlate with dark skin or other physical characteristics which are the causal factor in determining a black person.  It would also not correlate with biogeographic ancestry.  This cline is separate from the physical traits or political boundaries which are considered racial indicators, so it would be false to associate any "race" with certain mental attributes.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some academics who argue it takes very different mental attributes to survive in a cold Northern environment that produces light skin than it does to survive in the tropics that produce dark skin. That may be ignorant thinking on their part, but it is based on the theory of evolution Iseebias
 * It is actually harder to survive in Africa than the colder lands. Look at how many dangerous lions, rhinos, snakes, gorillas, elephants, giraffes, cheetahs, buffalo, crocidiles live in Africa.  Look at how little building material and ariable land there is in Africa.  Remember that humans are less tolerant of extreme heat than extreme cold.  Look how little water there is in Africa.  Based on environment, Africa is harder to survive in than Europe.  If you think that the difficulty of survival in an environment, causes higher IQ, then Africa is the place to find our brightest individuals.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You could certainly make that argument, and doing so doesn't make you a black supremacist or a racist, it's simply a scientific view point Iseebias

[[:"I contend that black is a state of mind -- a state that Rice arbitrarily denied and currently defies. I send my condolences to Condoleezza for the awakening of methodical individualism and the death of her blackness. That blackness nurtured her and made her eligible for the affirmative action to which she is now, conveniently, oblivious. All those who subscribe to the same contra black thought should no longer accept anything on the basis of race. Accordingly, Rice should resign from the cabinet. As far as I'm concerned, she is as black as Rush Limbaugh and as acceptable for black America as Elvis." Same was said about other people, for instance Clarence Thomas and Larry Elder.

And this: "For me, being Black is a state of mind: My Blackness cannot be judged by the color of my skin, the width of my nose or the kinkiness of my hair. For me, being Black is knowing and respecting more than 300 years of African-American history. It is realizing that I am a part of this history, because it has made me who I am today." And Walter White for instance, looked like a white man, but selfidentified as black. And Wallace Fard Muhammad, the founder of the Nation of Islam, was according to his birth certificate a white man, but he and his followers claimed he was black. SecurID 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You could create a section called "psychological definitions" or "black as a state of mind". It might force us to remove any known republicans from the top of the gallery since they'd no longer be black by all definitions Iseebias

Why is there a photo of sand?
I do not understand why there is a photo of sand with the caption "Some feel the term sub-Saharan is rooted in racism." First of all, this article is about people, and a photo of sand doesn't offer anything useful to the topic. Second, captions are supposed to describe what is actually in the photo, not provid editorial commentary about a topic that is only indirectly related to what appears in the photo. I suggest that the irrelevant photo of sand be deleted. Spylab 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I sort of agree. Also there is nothing in the picture to indicate it is the sahara. It could be the kalahari or just some sand somewhere.User:Muntuwandi 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See above Talk:Black people where I already raised this objection. IMO the pic is not relevant and should be removed, SqueakBox 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just a really cool photo that fits the text where someone's discussing the Sahara. Several editors like it, & it adds variety, instead of having all the photos be about people.  The Sahara desert has been viewed by many as the divider between black Africa & non-black Africa, so we should have a photo of it, especially in a section where people are expressing their objection to its significance.  It draws attention to very thoughtful criticism.  If any photo should be deleted it's the papuan new guineans since they already appear in the gallery. Iseebias

Wikipedia articles aren't for posting "really cool photos." This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedic article. There are plenty of photos on this page already; more than there are on most Wikipedia articles. It diverts attention away from the main topic of this article. The useless photo of sand should be deleted. Go ahead and delete repetitive photos if you want; like I said, there are still way more photos in this article than there are in other Wikipedia articles.Spylab 18:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The U.S. census & many others equate black Africa with sub-Saharan Africa, so the Sahara has been used as a political divider. Hence we should have a photo of it, especially in a section where it's being described. The article is incomplete without it Iseebias

I disagree which is why I removed it. A pic of tropical Africa would be more appropriate and if we really want desert there is desert in South Africa, SqueakBox 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate: the photo of sand offers nothing useful to the article, and should not be there. The article talks about a lot of things, but there aren't photos of every single topic that is mentioned. If people want to learn about the Sahara they can click on that topic's article. Spylab 18:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But the Sahara is the dividing line in the debate over back identity. It plays a role in everything from the U.S. census, to racial theories, to the debate over Afrocentricism, the distinction between Africoid & Negroid, to debates over ancient Egypt.  If we can have dozens of pictures of black people, we should at least have a photo of the Sahara itself since people want to know what it is and what it looks like.  It's not just 1 topic, it's a major theme in the whole debate! It practically *is* the debate Gottoupload


 * A pretty picture of sand and sky does not add anything useful to this article, and captions are supposed to describe what is actually in an image, not provide commentary about an indirectly-related topic. Spylab 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it adds balance because the person being quoted is saying the Sahara is just a little sand that doesn't even exist physically. The picture showed that it does exist physically & that it's more than just a little sand Iseebias


 * Yeah, the photo shows that the Sahara has a lot of sand, not just a little sand. It also has a pretty blue sky during the daytime. What the photo didn't have was any encyclopedic relevance to the topic of black people. Spylab 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevance is it shows the Sahara as a physical barrier which in the view of many, prevented black people and Arab people from blending into a single population. I also just really like the picture for its haunting imagery.  I don't think everything must serve and educational purpose.  Sometimes we add photos because they improve the visual layout of an article.  It serves as a haunting symbol of how people have arbitratily misapplied geography to impose limiting definitions of blackness.  Because it's been misapplied in such ugly ways, people often forget how beautiful it is, so it's a nice note to end the article on Iseebias

Suggested images instead of sand
consider these.User:Muntuwandi 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We already have a similar image in the legal definitions section. We need an image of the Sahara itself.  I think the photos absolutely hypnotyzing, & the black people article is lucky in that blacks are the only ethnic group where such a scenic image would be relevant so this article should take advantage of that.  My god we just survived a massive edit war over the gallery and now people are creating controversy over an image of sand?  Will this article ever achieve stability? Gottoupload


 * The only thing similar between these images and the one in the US Census section (which doesn't even have a caption to explain its relevance) is that they are maps. They are not the same at all. The photo of sand serves no useful encyclopedic purpose in this article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to showcase "absolutely hypnotyzing" photos. Feel free to post that photo on your own website or blog if you feel it must be shared with the world. Spylab 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any connection between black people and sand. Can someone please elaborate? SqueakBox 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's symbolic. Sand has been used as a social weapon to keep black people in their place metaphorically speaking, by equating blackness with sub-Saharan Iseebias


 * The picture on the left (geographical map of Africa) would be a good replacement. SecurID 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of definitions of blackness
Added new infor on scholars who criticize definitions of blackness. This info was taken out by Issebia who has made several erroneous statements as regards blacks and race. For example he claims that Ethiopians are 40% Arab, but the study he cites says no such thing. Indeed, that cited study is itelf seriously open to question on a number of points by the sources I reference. There are also a number of other erroneous statments made as well. This new information balances the statements in this article by Rushton, etc, and supports some of the data presented by Alum, DarkTea and Deeceevoice. Please do not remove this new info until other editors have had a chance to review and comment.Adrunkman 00:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The section was overly long. Can you prepare a shorter version? Jd2718 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not me who says Ethiopians are 40% Arab, it's Cavalli-Sforza, I posted the direct quote. And I posted it on the talk page not the article.  It's you who is dragging that debate into the article and thus giving it credibility.  The rest of us reached a compromise.  The article hardly mentions race except out of historical interest & dismisses it as a social construct.  A few of the people quoted make vague references to biology when defining black people (including Afrocentrics) but they do so only in passing & their comments are usually equally consistent with blackness as defined by biogeographic ancestry as with race. All your talk about negroids, caucasoids, and genetic clustering techniques seems way too technical and way off-topic.  The article already is balanced and all you will do is inspire users like Lucas to add scientific studies refuting yours & we'll get further off topic Iseebias


 * Wouldn't it be easier to link to Cheikh Anta Diop? Why do you copy and paste Diop's whole "Assessment of Diop's thought" and "Criticism of the racial clusters approach" sections into this one and create a duplicate? SecurID 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the section he created is that it misses the whole point of the article. The article is not about proving one definition of blackness is less scientific than another. Blackness is just a social construct and people have used all kinds of nutty and arbitrary ways of defining it, including poking people's hair with pencils. So if people decide tommorow that only Ethiopians are black then that's what black will mean & no amount of science can change the fact that black identity has once again been reconstructed Iseebias

Comments
 * The section is not overly long at all, because it deals with several specific issues raised by definitions of blackness. user Iseebias knows this thatis why he is trying to get it removed, and because his erroneous references and claims on the Ethipians being 40% Arab have been questioned.


 * Info as regards this issue appears in several articles on genetics and blacks. Pointing to one article is just a red herring to keep out this relevant information while on the other hand, Iseebias and others are sure to incude info on Rushton, etc. In any event, the references are what is relevant, and that is what Iseebias is trying desperately to remove. In fact the new info specifically includes new references not covered in other mentioned articles, such as that related to the Australoid/Indic/papuan connection.


 * The claim that "the whole point is missed" is bogus. In fact the scholars referenced specifically address definitions of blackness particularly the stereotypically narrow definitions used. Earlier on the Talk page Iseebias was urging inclusion of more scientific references. now he is changing his tune to say the article is a mere "social construct" and that such references are now, curiously, not needed. It it is a social construct why then is the info on the science done by rushton et al included, but other scholarly references bearing on the same issue are excluded? Smells like a double standard to me.


 * In his latest revert Iseebia says Cavalli-Sforza does not even mention the word black. This is inaccurate. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Cavalli -Sforza's work or a look at his Wiki article knows he has dealt with race extensively particularly blacks. ndeed his definitions on some peoplesof Africa, excludes blacks, and he has drawn criticism specifically for that fact. Indeed the new info mentions Cavalli-Sforza's controversial classification. It is cleer Iseebias, et al. has resorted to vandalism and edit warring to keep out information that undercuts many of his own erorneous claims.


 * Iseebias says above that the article is "already balanced". This is also untrue. Indeed there are several complaintson this talk apge of LACK OF BALANCE. Itis balanced per Iseebias when certain scholarship is kept out by vandalism and unilateral reverts.


 * Iseebias says "The article is not about proving one definition of blackness is less scientific than another. Blackness is just a social construct and people have used all kinds of nutty and arbitrary ways of defining it." FINE. But I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was not to deal with nutty ways but with documented scholarship bearing on the issue. Why is he so hasty in removing the info? Could it be because it undermines several errorneous claims made here?


 * It is recommended that the information stay, and let other editors get a chance to comment and analyze. The fact that Iseebias (and others) keep removing the info quickly so other editors do not get a chance to look at it speaks volumes.Adrunkman 01:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay put it in. It's makes my point anyway which is that many people have questioned whether Ethiopians are black. The fact that all your sources are bending over backwards to prove Ethiopians are black means that it's something that requires desperate proof. I thought it was understood. My only concern is that it doesn't fit the theme of the article which is simply a list of diverse perspectives on what it means to be black not a scientific debate about whether North/East Africans have Arab blood. The scholars I quoted like Diop & Rushton only make vague references to science in passing, I don't quote their entire thesis or try to justify their definitions. I simply document them as part of the diverse spectrum of views on this topic. And btw Cavalli-Sforza uses the term African when discussing genetics. It's you who is making the leap that implies Cavalli-Sforza is defining black people. Trust me if Cavalli-Sforza had offered a definition of black people I would have put in the article by now Iseebias


 * OK. That is a fair comment and I withdraw claims of erroneous information or edit warring. Fair enough. Tell you what. I am going to shorten the addition per your earlier suggestion. I only want to make sure that there is some reference to scholarship challenging definitions of blackness. That is my bottom line. Once that is done, I will not mess with other sections, or any existing compromises that have already been worked out. I will trim it down maybe 40%.Adrunkman 02:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you should do is create a brief section called "true black" or "true negro debate" because this was a well known view in anthropolgy. I'm not sure if your comments really fit in the criticism section because who in the article are you criticising? Rushton's not saying Ethiopians aren't black.  You first have to cite the actual claim before the criticism makes sense.  Iseebias
 * OK, new section added with clearer explanation of exactly what points are being questioned, namely mixed races, classifications of certain peoples, and pre-sorting methodologies. I have left in the section on Australoids because the DNA studies question whether they should be lumped into a vast "black" category. Social scientsists can argue the point of course, and the phenotype similarities are there for all to see, but there is debate over it. This assures that not only Africa is being dealt with in the discussion. All the other info has been chopped, cutting the new data by about 50%. As I say, I will not mess with other info or compromises on the article once certain bottom line scholarly references are included. If we can include pics of Condi Rice surely we can make space for some scholars. Personally I have no problem with Rushton being included. I say let his approach be noted and stand side by side with other approaches for all to compare. There is more than enough info out there for all schools of thought to be fairly represented, but I will not mess with that either way. If a compromise has already been worked out I will not stand in the way Adrunkman 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

lineage, multi-racial, admixture
The frequent use of these words in what seem like encyclopediac-NPOV context, is all quite POV: the terms presuppose the existence of "pure" races. Jd2718 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the section, it challenges the idea of race. Also terms like lineage and admixture don't imply race, it just implies different people have different geographic ancestries. Iseebias


 * The section??? They entire article is now riddled with them. The word "mixed" introduces a similar POV. Again, throughout. Jd2718 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What words are we allowed to use since "mixed", "lineage", and "admixture" are all too politically incorrect for you? The entire existence of this article introduces the POV that race exists.  Oh I know, instead of calling people "multiracial" we'll call them "multi-social constructions" Iseebias
 * It is not an issue of political correctness. If the article is on "Black Race" then that should be its title, no? But we know that Black can be a racial, political, social or cultural classification. Yet the article (and I think you are right about this) now assumes that Black is a race, pretty much from top to bottom. The enormous volume of editing in the last few days is dizzying, yet it seems that details are being edited, while the overall sturcture of the article remains amorphous. But it is likely the overall structure that needs to be addressed. Jd2718 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're making a false dichotomy. It's not a matter of black being a racial or a social construction, but rather that race itself is a social construction, so when I speak of multiracial, I am speaking of someone who has ancestry in what has been socially defined as separate races.  For example a French/English hybrid is not considered multiracial because we haven't socially constructed the French and English as separate races, but if we decided to do so, they would become multiracial. Multiracial is now a political term as much or more than a biological one. People who identify as multiracial are actually the least racialist people of all, and the most marginalized, so it makes me sad that you would associate the label by which they self-identify with racialism.  These poor people are running out of things to call themselves: They tried half-caste (too controversial, how dare one imply they are less than whole), they tried half-breed (again too controversial, we're humans not breeds of dogs), they tried mulatto (again, are you comparing yourself to a mule?), they tried mixed (we're human beings not soup! how dare you!) Every time they try to unite politically & form a social identity, someone claims to be offended & I think it's intentional-a way of marginalizing multiracial identity and thus maintaining the mono-racial status quo one drop rule  Iseebias


 * I don't know how to say it in English. In Chinese philosophy there is discussion of rivers whose flow gets split by some huge long island. Creeks may enter either fork of the river over the portion where it flows in two channels. Eventually the two forks of the river reunite when the island tapers off. Stream-rejoiner people? Would that be the proper way to refer to the children of people who come from opposite ends of the earth and look pretty different from each other? They have their special problems. But they are unlikely to suffer from inbreeding. They are wonderful creatures bringing all the best from everywhere and cancelling out the accumulated and concentrated imperfections of folks who have for too long married close to home and nearly next to kin.


 * Anyway, I agree with Iseebias. And shame on everybody who even believes that [race] is a big deal. The word "race" has so many different definitions that people ought to be forced to sign a treaty stating agreement on a common definition before they could even be permitted to start talking to each other on the subject. Otherwise it's about as useful as a discussion between one person who means "foot race" by "race" and another person who means something like "subspecies" by the word, a total waste of wind. Better to blow it at windmills! P0M 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Some one for the Gallery


If in the photo Slash is expressing his opinion about people who attach importance to his "race," then I agree with him. ;-) P0M 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Horn Africa
this section should be rewritten as black diversity or the section should be deleted. if we have a this then we could have a section on Bantoid, khoisan, dinka, west african, east african, masai etc. In the west appearance is superficial and simply based on skin color. But in Africa it is possible to identify what general region someone is from based on appearance. Certain phenotypes such as nose, forehead, eyes and other more subtle features give cues to where someone is from. Basically Africans are generally dark skinned but have a spectrum of different appearances and cultures.

where ever there is a population overlap, mixing is expected. So not only do horn africans but also kenyans, tanzanians, particularly from Zanzibar all have arab influence. Indeed Swahili itself is a bantu language with a significant arabic vocabularly. Arabic influence extended all over the east coast of africa as far south as mozambique. My point once again is we are dwelling too much on the so called caucosoid features of horn africans. What next the epicanthic folds of khoisan. In fact we could make a case saying that whites are black because they both lack epicanthic folds and that asians are khoisans because they both have epicanthic fold. We could say that everyone with the same blood group are one race. Thus a japanese, a mandingo, a peruvian with blood group A are all the same race. Scandanavians and dinkas are one race because they are tall.

The concepts of race and ethnicity are always largely based on simple things such as skin color,language, culture and location. 100 years ago before DNA was discovered, if we were to ask are ethiopians black or Arab, what would the answer be.User:Muntuwandi 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and the section has been rewritten as a black diversity section, removing excessive emphasis on the Horn of Africa populations. The rewritten section has the scholars saying exactly what youa re saying- "Basically Africans are generally dark skinned but have a spectrum of different appearances and cultures." This is precisely the point, that they can vary, just like all pale Swedes and darker, shorter Portugese vary. The reconciliation meets your bojectionson this score. I am leaving in the pics of Iseebias however and at least his footnote to the Horn ethnicities. I have no opinion on the pics either way, but at least a footnote is needed in there.


 * You say that where there is proximity that mixing should be expected. I agree. There is a mix. The only issue raised by the new scholarly references is how the lines are drawn in classifying the mix. Do aquiline noses or non-nappy hair equal Caucasoid people which would include Arabs? Cavalli-Sforza says yes, at least 40% based on genes. Others say this is not necessarily so and that blacks could have narrow noses and wavy hair without any mixing. No one disputes that mixing has taken place. The controversy is on how the lines or boundaries are drawn that define "Caucasoid" features versus "black" features.


 * The question here is one of the history of genetic flow. Progress has been made in tracing genetic flow by watching how certain changes accumulate in the Y-chromosomes. If you add an a factor when humans get a little ways out of Africa, and everybody who goes on from that point carries that factor, then you can distinguish "a-carriers" from Africans. Go a little farther along the trail toward Australia and a b factor gets added. So when you find somebody with factors a, b....e you know the guy has a long complicated history in the past of his family connections leading back to Africa. Have they discovered any a factors in the populations of supposedly "Caucasoid" inhabitants of Africa?  I don't know. But maybe some of the "Caucasoid" features developed somewhere just outside of the African continent but so early that the a factor hadn't been added.  (There are technical terms for the a, etc., factors. Sorry. I don't remember what they are off the top of my head.) P0M 02:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reconciliation also addresses the third issue you raise, that of phenotypes. It is indisputable that some Australoid and Indic people look like black Africans on a number of counts. A new scholarly footnote from Journal African Histroy has been inserted to bolster that observationt. Alongside this thesis, is the work of the DNA scientists who place these peoples like Australoids closer to SE Asian populations rather than Africans. This is based on DNA analysis not phenotypial observation. Both approaches are valid based on the methodologies that they use. The reconciliation includes your edit (Muntuwandi's) on this, and actually helps balances the article from criticism that it focuses so heavily on Africa and Black Americans. Here in this section, mention is made of the other non-African black peoples and the sciience involved in classifying them.


 * It's entirely possible that the first wave of migration made it from Africa to the area now inhabited by the Australoids, the second wave of migration populated the S.E. Asian part of the globe, and subsequently there was migration of S.E. Asian peoples into the area inhabited by Australoids and significant interbreeding. With regard to color, we don't even know for sure what range of skin shades characterized the original emigrants from Africa. There is some indication that people living in Africa have continued to evolve in response to that environment, and as people more and more came out from under the forest canopy maybe that meant that the darkest shades evolved after the original migration from Africa occurred. Convergent evolution is possible, and it would be consistent with people growing darker to gain better protection against UV radiation no matter what part of the world they found themselves in as long as the UV was intense. Selection for heavy pigmentation from a population with a range of pigmentation would also occur under those circumstances. P0M 02:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In short both you (Muntuwandi) and Iseebias are right and have been accomodated. There is less emphasis on the Horn people per your concerns, but at the same time mention is made of this key controversy in black genetics. No article worth its salt can be considered serious if such a basic issue is not dealt with. It is startling that Colin powell, Condi Rice, black basketball players etc, etc can be debated and included, but we leave out such a key issue. On the Iseebias side, his reference and other edits are included so the other side is represented as well. This seems a fair compromise.

I still believe this section should be rewritten or better still deleted. The obsession with the Ethiopians continues. I think we should avoid this controversial and divisive issue altogether. Even if the heading is changed it still has the same undertones of saying some are less black than others. The section is a distraction from the main article. My personal preference is always for simplified information as opposed to long winded theories and hypothesis that will just confuse readers.

what is the whole aim of this section.User:Muntuwandi 13:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * His aim is to balance claims in science (though not made in the article) that Ethiopians in particular & North East Africans in general are heavily mixed with Arabs. Iseebias


 * the term "heavily" is subjective. Yes Arabs and blacks have mixed but how is that relevant to the discussion of black people. Islam came to africa by way of the Arabs. All Islamic african countries(about 50%) are influenced by arabs. the war in Darfur is one between arabs and bantus,

but the arabs in question look just like the bantus. why the obsession with horn africans.

Finally the idea of assigning admixture percentages to whole groups is innappropriate for this article. As we have done with other population such as in brazil. Instead of assigning a percentage we have just mentioned that the people are a multiracial spectrum. User:Muntuwandi 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep using the term bantu in ways that I've never seen it used before. The reason his section emphasizes horn africans is because he's responding to historical theories of race (i.e. "true negro" theory), theories by Coon, Cavali-Sforza, etc, all of which singled out Ethiopians in particular as being hybrids and in some cases may have gone as far as to call them caucasoids.  It's ethiopians in particular that have figured so prominently in the "true black" debate in the academic literature.  It's ethiopians in particular that are claimed to have an abnormally high level of non-indigenous ancestry.  Cavalli-Sforza (the most respected population geneticist of our time) singled out Ethiopians and ONLY Ethiopians as being "special Africans".  Coon (the most influential anthropologist of the 20th century) went so far as to create a special racial term just for Ethiopians. And a study by Oxford (the most prestigous university in Europe) flat out stated they aren't black.  Such ideas have become so mainstream in the academic world that Adrunkman feels the need to challenge them in explicit detail in oder to preserve the black identity of ethiopians Iseebias

While i am not too aware of what goes on in the academic world regarding horn africans. we are all familiar with how the common man perceives who is black. This should be given preference over hypothesis that only a few in the academic world will have access to. A person in a rural village in africa has little concern about admixture percentages and will simply see things in black, white and brown. For the whole article I would much prefer most of the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists to be removed. We do not need some college professors deciding who is black, rather the collective perceptions of society at large should be taken into accout. In short we need to "dumb down" some of the phylosophical jargon.

If one met a horn african, and said to them you are 40% arabic, I guess they might be insensed by the allegation. Throughout this article I think that we had been succesful at avoiding the term "admixture" which is fast becoming a much misused word. I see its execessive use as quite politically incorrect and not very good etiquette. we do not ask say for example each african american what his or her admixture proportions are. but we do know that mixing is a reality. There must be a much less controversial explaining whatever concept that the section is attempting to explain.User:Muntuwandi 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But this is an encyclopedia. We rely on scholarly sources.  If you are interested in how the common man sees things write for the urban dictionary.  And polls show that the common man sees many so-called black people as multiracial. It's POV to say we need to dumb the article down. You cant just arbitrarily exclude perspectives because they aren't dumb enough.  If the academics endorsed your world view you'd be calling for more of them. University professors are the ones who articulate and publish definitions of blackness, the common man just has an implicit sense that can't be objectively documented in an encyclopedia. If they are on topic they should be included. If you feel this topic is too controversial to be handled in an encyclopedic way then nominate this article for deletion.  I do agree that a scientific debate about whether north east africans are Arab or indigenous is a bit off topic & that whole section should probably be removed, but wikipedia gives enormous weight to academic perspectives & I don't believe in censorship Iseebias

If as some say race is a social construct, then it is the common man who constructs it and not the elite professor. Scientists have began to discard the concept of race, but it is central in the life of the common man(His neighborhood, family, friends etc). I am not against science but against the scientific opinions of a few. I just find it odd because a four year old can recognize black from white. So why do not we need a rushton or satel to advise us on who is black. But anything scientific that can help us articulate what a person goes through in that fraction of second that is required to recognize the race of an individual is useful. Surveys, polls, statistics are better sources because the give group dynamics as opposed to what one prof says. The article can very well articulate "black people" without rushton, satel, sforza User:Muntuwandi 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you just want to remove opinions of people you don't agree with. There are many many experts in the article from all kinds of perspectives.  Why did you single out the few that define black as recent African descent?  Looks like someone's POV pushing. Why no calls to remove Afrocentric Diop or Psychiatrist Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye?  Bluescientist
 * I agree with Muntuwandi. The genetic definitions are faulty.  First, these genetic definitions are not descriptive of blacks unless they're describing the genes that cause black color. Second, as Muntuwandi brought up, they don't know anymore than the average black person about who's black.  They may even know less than the average black person.  How can their expertise in genetics give them expertise in a sociologist's realm of work? Frankly, they are not reliable sources because they are talking outside of their field.  Sociologists should be telling us the definitions of black people.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They're experts on how the term is used in their field. And it's POV to say sociologists should be defining black because it assumes black is a social construction. In fact the term black was constructed by anthropologists.  So only people who study race are experts on blackness. And you contradict yourself when you say black is a social construction but experts on skin color are experts on blackness.  If it's a social construction it would have nothing to do with biology of any kind.  And Cavalli-Sforza is an expert on African genetics and the man on the street equates black more with African ancestry than dark skin, so by your logic, Sforza's the biggest expert of all Gottoupload
 * By my logic, he's an expert on genetics. He may also claim to be an expert on African genetics, but he's neither an expert on the definitions of black people nor does his field lend him expertise in making such a definition.  The sociologist is the expert in this arena. Social constructions are not completely removed from the physical world.  There is a physical component that causes dark color.  The social construction is the arbitrary line where we stop considering someone black based on the way they look.  There is the POV widely-held by anthropologists that race is a social construction and there is the minority POV that race is not a social construction mainly held by racists.  Sforza claims there is no scientific basis for race.  In publically supporting this POV, he's in line with mainstream anthropology, so stop using his name as an example of an expert defining blacks by science.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  22:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But Dark T, you can't on the one hand say that people who are experts on skin color genetics are experts on defining black people but people who are experts on African genetics are not, because both are equally arbitrary genetic criteria for defining blackness. I agree with you that S'forza does not believe in race, but neither do many skin color genetic experts Iseebias
 * Dark Tea's comments are absolutely correct, yet the article reads almost in its entirety from the other POV, that race is not a social construction. Jd2718 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it reads that way at all. In fact the artical has a strong anti-racialist bias and says several times that race has been dismissed as a social construction and I even added a chart showing the rejection of race by many scholars. I also added much material to show the varying and arbitrary standard for being considered black in different cultures.  The mere fact that there are so many contradictorary definitions proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that blackness is a social construction with no consistent definition. It was only the new section that was added that was skewing the balance somewhat but Hal removed most of it, leaving only the part critical of race Iseebias
 * I agree that blackness is a social construction, but it's a social construction that was created by people who study race so it's actually racial scholars who are the experts on blackness. In the same way human intelligence is a social construction, but the experts on it are cognitive scientists, neurologists & psychometricians, not sociologists Iseebias

Let's just show everyone's opinion, the professors, the common man's, the 4 year olds, show all the disagreements as you go from the U.S. to Latin America to Jamaica. Hell in Australia they think Australian aboriginals are black! Let's show everyone's opinion. In the U.K. they even thought people from India were black, but they called them "blackeys" not black. That's what make this article interesting. Hell, I'm even interested in the Afrocentric opinions as crazy as I think they are Gottoupload
 * That's all I've tried to do. Simply document the full spectrum of opinions & perspectives on what it means to be black.  And it's not just about what black people think, or even what the common man thinks.  It's white people, especially white people in positions of influence such as academia, who are the one's who actually discriminate against black people, so knowing who they identify as black is of the most serious social consequence. Iseebias

Undue weight violation section deleted
undue weight this page is about Black people not exploring opinions of quaks et al with strange lopsided POV. Which have more to do with another topic than this one. Focus and due weight means that this article must be balance and discuss the issues in balance. not be original research. As explained above by the POV agent isseebias a promise was made not to introduce this nonesense into this article, subsequently i return and see the POV again. Dispite this agreement this OR was added by citing and giving undue weight to a psuedo topic with an article.--HalaTruth(????) 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me. I reverted that section twice. Iseebias
 * thats strange because it looks like your kind of POV, no offense but you seem to love Ethiopian people. Mayb i should invite you over to my country for bunna and te.bs. Undue weight means focusing on one group in a very general article about a very broad group. --HalaTruth(????) 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It did support my POV but I still tried to get rid of it twice because I knew it would lead to edit wars & there would be no way to write in such a way that would seem neutral to everyone Iseebias


 * It is absolutely astounding that an article on "Black people" does not include at least a minimal discussion of one of the key issues- the definitions of blacks by scientists.


 * I see a peripheral issue like the Book of Genesis with a full section- 28 lines. I see a full section devoted to whether you should capitalize the word black- 4 lines. I see 30 lines on some black filmmaker. I see 8 lines quoting some white guy saying colored people in SOuth Africa look mixed. I see Michael Jordan and Colin Powell, and basketball players debated, but nary a word on central scholarship in the field? Not even by a respected guy like S. Keita, a DNA scientist who himself happens to be black? Astounding.
 * OK but lets all see if we can compromise here. How about a 9 line blurb, less than one-third of that spent on black filmmakers, and less than that expended on basketball players or the Book of Genesis. If 9 lines are "overkill" while we get 4 on racism in spelling the word black and 8 saying colored people look mixed, then this article is badlyout of kilter. The 9 line blurb would go like this:
 * A number of other scholars (Keita and Kittles, Armelagos, et al.) have challenged methods used to define black peoples as using pre-determined, arbitrary categories to cluster various African peoples. In particular, questions center on studies putting populations like the Nubians, Ethiopians, and others into Caucasoid or "mixed" groupings. [63]. It is argued that black peoples vary in skin color, hair, facial features, etc. just like other human populations, and cannot be pigeonholed into narrow clusters, nor are these variations always the result of mixed races. Critics charge that too often methods define a "true" black somewhere south and all others not meeting the narrow, stereotypical definition are assigned elsewhere.[64] They call for a truer picture of the geentic diversity of black peoples and less arbitrary categorizing.[65]Adrunkman 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

this debate has been exhausted and editors agree not to add in this content as it is undue weight, this article is about black people, not strange theories according to a group of white people about one group of Africans. ISEEBIAS, if what you told me is true and you comply then i encorage you to revert the inclusion of this addition not feed the problem. other editor see the talk page and stick to what editor have agreed upon in order to develop this section. Undue weight is only one violation, add that argument to race not black people.--HalaTruth(????) 09:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

depersonalize
At least we have come to some sort of consensus regarding horn africans. One thing

Anyone with a brain has political views one way or another. She's a Yale lecturer and medical expert on human variation published by the NY Times. The most reliable possible source, and she's the only person who defines black as "recent African descent"-a key point that needs to be made. Very strong keep.
 * Francois Bernier (Pre 20th century historical figure. Info on formation of concept of race.)
 * Carolus Linnaeus (Pre 20th century historical figure. Info on formation of concept of race.)
 * Johann Blumenbach (Pre 20th century historical figure. Info on formation of concept of race.)
 * Georges Cuvier (Pre 20th century historical figure. Info on formation of concept of race.)
 * Carleton S. Coon (20th century historical figure. Info on formation of concept of race.)
 * David M. Goldenberg (Published author, Princeton Univ. Press, w/ reaonable point saying Bible itself not racist but twisted by racists. Keep.)
 * Sally Satel (Psychiatrist, conservative political bent, with one opinion of how to construct race on the basis of fuzzy facts. Find a better quotation. She is not speaking as an authority, and when she says "some degree of recent African ancestry" that could mean anything.)
 * J. Phillipe Rushton (Find a better source to cite. Black is "anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa." At least Satel realizes that everyone's ancestors were born in Africa if we go back far enough. Rushton doesn't even set a fuzzy "date after which" for required African ancestry.)
 * Rushton is the only person in the article saying you must have MOST of your ancestors from SUB-SAHARAN Africa to be black. He's also published dozens of articles on race in peer reviewed academic journals. Definition is simple & straight forward, the point about fuzzy date is already made by Satel so the 2 definitions complement one another. Elsewhere Rushton writes "a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa" so we could always merge that in if you are fussy about dates. Very strong keep.
 * The man's widely known as a racist. I mean he's tried to say that the smaller your penis, the more intelligent you are.  Come on, people.  The man's a racist hack.  This is an encyclopedia.  We're supposed to quote learned, reliable, respected sources.  In an age where virtually anyone can be published, anyone can put up a website and front like a legitimate source of information, we should be more discerning.  We shouldn't dignify this guy's bulls*it by quoting it in an encyclopedia.  Any time you can insert paragraphs of disclaimers about why this guy's viewpoints are suspect -- and I don't mean controversial; I mean suspect/abject trash -- from multiple sources across the spectrum, that should tell you something.  Seriously, folks.  He's out!  Find another source about sub-Saharan Africa, or leave it out.  If he's the only one saying something -- and with his "credentials"/scandalous background -- then that should tell you something.  (Jeeze.)  deeceevoice 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Runoko Rashidi (He has one point of view. I don't know what his academic qualifications are, however.)
 * Rashidi has been published several times by legitimate houses and is widely respected in some academic circles. Yes.  Keep him.  (On the other hand, Sweet is an example of someone who should not be included.  He's a relative nobody, published only by a vanity press.  He belongs to some group grinding a multi-racial axe, and that, his vanity press website -- and Wikipedia -- seem to be his primary means of somewhat shameless self-promotion, inserting information on him and references to his book on various articles around this website. See my comments below.) deeceevoice 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jensen's an emminent psychologist who has been the dominant figure in the race debate since the 1960s. And he's not even giving a biological definition but a social one.
 * Arthur Jensen (A psychologist who poses as an expert on [race] with an opinion about how must people define "blacks." He is not an expert on evolutionary biology, so his point about what scientists think would be better supported by someone who is an expert in evolutionary biology.)
 * Frank W. Sweet (Published author with research on how definitions of [race] are applied. Keep.)
 * HELL, NO! It really doesn't matter what this guy has to say.  He's a totally non-notable person.  See my comments at Talk: African American history here.
 * Keep. Noteable author who was even cited in ScienceNewsSecurID 15:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Professor J.B. Bird (The material cited is on a website. The website apparently does not make clear the author's qualifications. It is not a peer-reviewed publication. It's very interesting stuff, and has citations to scholarly works. The website may contain the information attributed to Bird, but I haven't found it yet. It's not central to the slave rebellion the site is dedicated to explaining.)
 * Jon Michael Spencer
 * Jared Taylor
 * Dinesh D'Souza
 * Martin Bernal
 * Stephen L. Sniderman
 * Jon Entine
 * Troy Duster
 * Pilar Ossorio
 * Nirmala Rajasingam
 * Lewis R. Gordon
 * Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye
 * [[Owen 'Alik Shahadah
 * Ruggles Gates
 * S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles

Nothing against them, but who are these folks. I may recognize one or two but i do not know the rest. I think that is why this article is jumbled and does not flow. So many different opinions.


 * If you are going to represent a wide spectrum of "scientific opinion" on a controversial subject, then contributors who find an interesting "take" on a subject are likely to summarize it and cite it appropriately. The only way to reduce that list (if it comes from citations) would be to argue on a case-by-case basis that somebody is unqualified, not an authority in the field, etc. Some of those people are "big in the field" but have professional qualifications in other fields, not in the field of [race] or genetics. Sometimes those people end up in the Race article because of the impact they have had on discussions, not because people all think they are actually qualified as "experts." We could make a start by eliminating anybody who is a recognized authority. I don't know about Rushton, who is a controversial psychologist. Coon is a physical anthropologist, so I think he could be eliminated from the list. Jenson is a controversial psychologist, but he's also a University of California professor. Personally, I would perhaps discount anything they said, but others quote them in the Race article, so maybe they all should come off the list of "suspects." That still leaves a long list to be evaluated. P0M 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

to start with this guy
 * "In 1758, Swedish botanist, physician and zoologist Carolus Linnaeus divided humankind into four main races, loosely based on geographic distribution: europeaus (white race), asiaticus (yellow race), americanus (red race) and afer or african (black race).[8] "

This sounds like a page right out of Genesis chapter 1


 * Was Carolus Linnaeus quoted to "prove" that there really are four races? Or was he quoted as an example of an otherwise valuable figure in the history of science who let his subjective feelings get the better of him? (He has some rather subjective things to say about non-whites, and some rather subjective and favorable things to say about whites.) I can't imagine why his take on things would be pertinent to this article unless somebody just wants to establish the place where the idea of a black "subspecies" got started. P0M 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondly


 * "University of Western Ontario psychology professor J. Phillipe Rushton (of the controversial Pioneer Fund) has stated: "In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa"[28]"

Do we really need a professor to tell us that. This is common sense. I think many of the things these so called experts are saying can be mentioned without bringing their personality to the fore. User:Muntuwandi 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement quoted is actually good evidence for why psychology professors ought to stick to their own fields. He's giving us one definition of "black people," but as this article and this discussion page demonstrate, that's not the only definition that people use. All of my most ancient and revered ancestors were born in Africa. In between them and me, some were born in Europe, some in N. America, and some in who knows where. Are Afro-Americans whose family members have been in the Americas since 1500 not "black people"? Are Afro-Americans whose family members lived in an enclave just outside of Africa for several hundred years and then made it to the Americas not "black people"? How about people whose families moved from Africa to Madagascar 1000 years ago? Does being born "across the border" have anything to do with one's genetic heritage?


 * It only makes sense to use a quotation if it establishes that something maintained in the article is not a matter of original research or the personal opinion of the writer. Personally I wouldn't use a quotation of anything Rushton said because I think he serves the purposes of racism and this article is not the place to deconstruct the idea of race. Leave that to the article on Race (which, IMHO, is still troubled by lots of racism-promoting sloppy thinking).


 * By all means, get rid of anything that doesn't serve a useful purpose. P0M 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added evaluations to some of the "authorities" listed above. It's strange to see the names of so many people who are speaking outside of their own field. It makes me wonder whether they didn't have anything to say in their own fields that others would find valuable. P0M 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Rushton's definition is the best of all, because it's so straightforward. While in Australia, Australian aboriginals are considered black, and while in America, multircacial people like Tiger Woods are sometimes considered black, & in Afrocentric thought, ancient Egyptians were black, but in most of the world, and in the field of evolutionary biology, only people who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa are black.  Someone in the article needs to state the obvious in a clear and efficient way. Of course if you go back far enough everyone's ancestors were born in Africa.  If you go back far enough everyone's ancestors were born in the ocean, but that's obviously not what Rushton means. Elsewhere Rushton writes "a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa." Iseebias.  I mean if you really want to get technical we could bring back Michael Levin who said:

''Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub- Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%. An individual, half of whose ancestors are East Asian and half Caucasian, is to be categorized as just that, of half northeast Asian and half Caucasian ancestry. Nothing in continental cladistics precludes mixed ancestry, any more than the concept of a breed of dog excludes mixtures.''

But we don't need to get that precise or technical. Rushton & Satel's quote when combined make roughly the same point. In fact I added time estimates Rushtom made elsewhere to the article to make his definition more meaningful Iseebias

its time to start thinking about archiving the talk page.


 * It is not at all clear that "Black" existed in any context before Linnaeus' races. Ethiopians were Ethiopians, Africans were African, etc etc. It's not until the Portuguese open up the African slave trade that it becomes useful to have a catchall category for people that Europeans agreed were ok to enslave. (I guess all of that should be sourced, and placed in the article) Anyhow, that's where Linnaeus comes in. Jd2718 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate question is do we really need the quotations of these people in conceptualizing black people. I personally think most of their observations are commons sense or unnecessary. They may be known in their respective academic circles but they are not household names. If someone was to read this article for the first time, how would he have confidence in them because he does not know them. Once again I am not against scientists, but say if there was a quote from Mandela, or Dr. Martin Luther King, one can easily relate to them as opposed to some relative unknowns.User:Muntuwandi 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are so many disagreements about how to define black people that we need to clearly articulate the different views. It's not common sense because there's no universal standard Iseebias
 * yes but do we really need a guy like rushton to tell us that black are people of african descent. I knew that long before I ever heard of rushton.
 * Do we need lineaus to tell us there are four races. I knew that from watching TV. some of these quotation are cluttering up the article and they should be removed.User:Muntuwandi 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Not mention lineaus in an article on black people? lineaus is the one who socially constructed blackness in the first place. This article wouldn't exist had lineaus not invented the concept. And not everyone agrees that black people are defined by majority African ancestry so Rushton's definition is not common sense but 1 view point out of dozens Iseebias


 * I do not know who he is, so do most black people and most white people too. As I mentioned earlier any four year old knows the difference between black and white, we do not need lineas to tell us that.User:Muntuwandi 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4 year olds know the difference between light skin and dark skin, but they're very confused about who exactly would be classified as black in their particular culture or who would be classified as multiracial. Some 4 year olds would call Gandhi black, even though most American adults would not. Others would consider only people as dark as Michael Jordan to be black.  And 4 year olds only know the term black because lineaus popularized it as a label. Otherwise they'd just call people "brown" or "dark".  If adults in latin America & the U.S. have such wildly different perceptions of who is black, what makes you think 4 year olds have the 1 true answer?  They couldn't possibly because it's a culture dependent social construct Iseebias

On the street I see asian, people, white people, black people. I do not need lineaus to tell me who they are. It is self evident.User:Muntuwandi 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason you call the African descended people you see on the street "black" is because of Lineaus, Francois Bernier, and Blumenbach. If not for them you would be calling them something else & perhaps not even lumping them all together in the first place.  Just because you weren't aware of the influence they had in socially constructing your reality, doesn't mean it's any less important Iseebias

That is not entirely true. these guys were born in the 1700, 100 years after which blacks were already in americas. are you insisting that there were not know as blacks in 1619.


 * Bernier was born just 6 years after after the first Africans arrived in America. Coincedence?  Iseebias

New Organization
The new organization is entirely based on race. The massive remake of the article goes well beyond bold. Jd2718 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not based on race, but an ancestry and color (color has nothing to do with race, since people who are genetically opposites can both be dark skinned). Sorry if it was too bold, I was simply responding to charges that the opinions were incoherently organized.  I just now created subsections of the subsections that emphasize the political/social component, but every single perspective on blackness relates to either the part of the world from which people are from (ancestry), or the color of their skin, so this is the most coherent way to organize things.  It's just important that we recognize that ancestry & color are simply arbitrary criteria for socially constructing blackness Iseebias

I am in objection to the use of terms in the lead that would subliminally portray blacks a perpetually oppressed people. Hence all terms regarding oppression, slavery, discrimination should not be present in the lead.

This is a reason I had the population information. If you see there are some countries in africa that have an almost 100% black population. How is racial discrimination a problem in those areas because there are hardly any other people. Therefore we cannot define blacks based on any history of discrimination. User:Muntuwandi 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jd2718 the lead you have is very much US centric. The issue of oppression should be left out of the lead. It can be mentioned elsewhere but not in the lead. being black is just that. Certain places being black is just about skin color and cannot be connected with discrimination and oppression. We should mention that definitions differ from place to place, yes, and that some see it as a social construct. Not all places have the civil rights history the US has.

Your lead also states that Europeans defined blackness, the lead is borderline racist.User:Muntuwandi 16:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Europeans did socially construct blackness, or at the very least they popularized it. Keep in mind, it's only relative to light skinned people that anyone is black.  Black and negro are both words in European languages Iseebias

Then is it blacks who constructed whiteness. That is controversial and should be left out of the lead. What should be in the lead should be the least controversial information. I believe nobody made black or white, the two both came into existence when two different cultures collided. One of light skinned people and the other of dark skinned. In the US maybe there was a social construct whereby someone with very light skin may be called black but in a village in africa it was all about skin color.

The lead is going to have problems, I suggest we keep it simple as it was before.User:Muntuwandi 17:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a huge difference between everyone noticing the contrast between dark skin and light skin, and the actual social construction of labels like "black". Since no humans are literally black, the decision to call some humans black was an arbitrary decision made by Europeans during the Enlightenment.  Of course natives of Africa long noticed different skin shades but many did not even have a word in their language for black, nor would they use it to describe themselves since they're not literally black anyway.  It was a European metaphor imposed on Africans & sometimes other groups as well Iseebias.

everywhere European explorers went from polynesia to the new world, the natives described them as white men. Therefore the social constructions were self evident. Nobody constructed white people, same as did black people. When white explorers came to east africa, the local tribes people called them Muzungu which means one who goes round and round in swahili. This because the explorers were looking for something (gold, the source of the nile etc) and often seemed to be wandering aimlessly. Differences in appearances, culture, language, and behaviour are self evident. So to say that Europeans constructed blackness is absurd when black and white are self evident to a four year old.User:Muntuwandi 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If no humans are literally black, how could blackness have been self-evident? How can something that's not even true and that doesn't even correspond to physical reality be self-evident?  Yes people noticed the difference between darkness and lightness; very different from arbitrarily using the idea of "black" to express said difference. And where we draw the line between black and non-black is a social construction?  Do khoisans have black skin?  Most dictionaries describe them as yellowish brown but they've been socially constructed as black because they're African.  If you don't want to deal with complex social constructions & prefer to deal with self-evident reality, create an article called dark-skinned humans but black is a very specific idea & metaphor Iseebias

Once again we need to keep the lead free from bias and opinion, controversies should be in other places. A four year old in an isolated village in africa knows a white from black and does not know lineaus, is unaffected by european academics. Yes whites were the first to make an in depth study of the races but the people themselves were already self aware.

finally the social construct is not entirely accepted by everyone. There are still some biological issues to race. Apart from the obvious dark skin, other issues include ; medicine sickle cell disease is most common in black people, so is the risk of prostate cancer is higher with black men. In this case social construct is baseless. From a lay mans perspective, a doctor would not waste his time testing for sickle cell disease on a white person. User:Muntuwandi 19:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A 4 year old in an isolated village in africa knows dark skined people from light skinned people but he doesn't conceive of dark skinned people as being "black" unless he's been exposed to Western culture. Why would he, since they're not actually black & many cultures don't even have a word for black, but divide everything into dark/light dichotomies. And even if as you claim, African race is real, the decision to call them "black" was an arbitrary European one that is actually not a true description of their color, nor are Africans the only dark race. I don't really care that much about the lead either way, but some believe not enough emphasis is being placed on social constructionism, so emphasizing it in the intro may be helpful Iseebias

the race article says
 * "Most biological and social scientists regard the concept of race primarily as a social construct, while some maintain it has a genetic basis"

not everyone agrees about the social construct thing, therefore putting controversial theories in the lead is a POV. In the body yes, but not in the lead.
 * Race may be the primary definition of black, but it's not the only one. Australian aboriginals have sometimes been considered black but are part of the australoid, not negroid race.  Under the 1 drop rule people who were overwhelmingly white genetically and phenotypically were sometimes called black.  In South Africa, a pencil getting stuck in your hair defined you as coloured or black (obviously a totally arbitrary socially constructed way of drawing the racial line)  So it's indisputable that there's an arbitrary social construction component to blackness, even if the strictly racial definitions are objective Iseebias


 * The "social construct" is the majority view. Jd2718 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be accepted by many especially in academia, but it is not the only view and it is not widespread. The common man for instance does not know what a social construct is. In placing it in the lead it is like a confirmation that it black is a social construct. This is POV. Why don't we let readers decide for themselves. Once again

the race article says
 * "Most biological and social scientists regard the concept of race primarily as a social construct, while some maintain it has a genetic basis" User:Muntuwandi 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead of an article should reflect its content. We only have 2 living sources in the entire article (Rushton & Satel) who are quoted as describing blackness as a scientific construct.  Virtually every single other living source in the entire article is saying blackness is a social construct.  If the view that blackness is a scientific construct is so widespread in the world today, how come we can only find 2 notable sources (who are alive today) out of dozens definig it in scientific terms?  The man on the street may agree with Rushton, and the man on the street may even be right,  but encyclopedias are built on references from scholary sources, not speculation about what the guy in the bar thinks.  And you're contradicting yourself.  On the one hand you argue that race is scientific, and on the other hand you put a source in the lead saying Africans & Australian aboriginals are the 2 most black groups?  No proponent of race with any standing in the scientific community would group Africans & Australian aboriginals into single biological race because they're two of the most genetically distant groups on the planet.  As Sally Satel said, evolutionary biologists define races as huge extended families,  which means people with common descent.  Africans & Australoids have among the least common descent because Australoids may have been descended from the first wave out of Africa & because they were so geographically isolated from Africans.  They only look alike because they both evolved phenotypes suited to tropical environments Iseebias

Obama is not black
According to some recent publications and discussions in US academia, since his ancestry is from East Africa and not West Africa, he is not black.--Filll 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it really make a difference if his ancestry is from East Africa or West Africa?  . V .  [Talk 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with East/West. It has to do with the fact that his ancestors weren't slaves so they're trying to say he's not African-American per se and thus can't relate to the struggle of slavery etc.  It's politically motivated. An attempt to undermine his massive support among blacks like Oprah & others & it wont work because most African-Americans are smart enough to know that voting for Obama is in their best interest. Plus his amazing wife is hard-core African American.  I tried to find a picture of her to put in the gallery but was unsuccessful so I put in Condi.  Oprah's picture was too small in the gallery.  I feel very strongly that all black, dark-skinned, and Afro-multiracial people need to unite in support of Obama. Iseebias

Enough of the campaigning! What the hell has Obama done? Back to the matter at hand. Obama's father was Luo, the largest non-Bantu ethnic group in Kenya. They are a Nilotic people and most certainly black. Not even those people who try to perpetrate the hoax that some Northeast Africans and some East Africans, by virtue of geography, somehow aren't black should be able to say with a straight face that Obama isn't black. The man self-identifies as black. He looks black. Hell, he doesn't even look like a mulatto. If I saw him on the street, I wouldn't assume he was of mixed parentage. The brutha is clearly a brutha. And those who try to say otherwise obviously don't have a clue what they're talking about. deeceevoice 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * if he was robbing the hood he would b black fast, if he was building pyramids he would b north African, if he was building Axsum he would b Arab. u must understand this i how blackness works. the debate crisis is as iseebias cs it, cause confusion to take away his black power base. i gues he hasnt bombed and killed anyone yet so dont vote for him. he isnt "really" black so vote for a white person---logic check. yeah had he not said he was mixed i wouldnt know. he is far "blcker" than the ine bone structured masai.--

HalaTruth(????) 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WTH? Obama's a halfie. That beautiful Masai brother with the mahogany skin likely isn't mixed with anything.  How on earth can you bring yourself to type such a thing?  So, in order to be "black" you have to look a certain way?  Okay.  If that's the case, then all those blue-black, unmixed Nubians with fine features, all those blue-black, unmixed Somalis and Sudanese with narrow noses and straightish hair -- all with centuries of straight-up African ancestors -- are somehow less black than Obama, with his white mama?  ROTFLMAO.  Not!  You've just fallen into that trap set by white folks who try to tell us (some) Ethiopians ain't black becaue of that false "Negroid"/"Caucasoid" b.s.  Just amazing! *shaking head* deeceevoice 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deeceevoice is right. Even though we disagree about how much Arab blood is in Ethiopia, I agree with Deeceevoice that many pure negroids have caucasoid shaped skulls & facial features. But they're not caucasoid because contrary to wikipedia, caucasoid is defined by geographic ancestry, only loosley correlated with skull shape Iseebias.

Wrong. "Caucasoid" refers to phenotype -- not geographical origin. And you can't argue with objective fact. It is a known fact that many Senegalese have no/limited prognathism. That makes them, according to those who use such a term to describe some Ethiopians, "Caucasoid" in that respect. There are Nubians -- full blood -- with straightish hair and narrow nasal indices. But these same white people don't call them "Caucasoid," either. Why? Because there's no way in hell they can maintain that the Senegalese populations and the Nubian populations are mixed with anyone. They can't get away with the lie. Besides, they're not interested in trying to claim Senegal or Nubia. They are, however, intent upon appropriating dynastic Egypt. Hence the lie of "Caucasoid," black North Africans. The fact is they are all African phenotypes; they are all Africoid peoples. deeceevoice 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No Deeceevoice I'm not wrong. Caucasoid is a racial category decribing people who have ancestry in Europe, West Asia, India, and north Africa, (leaving the ancient egypt debate aside for now). You can usually guess that a person's caucasoid from their skull, but the shape of the skull does not make one caucasoid. There are pure negroids with caucasoid skulls & pure caucasoids with negroid skulls. There's no difference between caucasoid & caucasian (wikipedi made that up, with your help I suspect). Race scholars use the term interchangabley Iseebias
 * Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. "Caucasian" means white.  One can have so-called "Caucasoid" characteristics and not be white.  Some of the blackest East Indians around have so-called "Caucasoid" characteristics, but they're certainly not considered "white"; they're as black as the Masai at the top of the page.  Latinos can have "Negroid" characteristics, such as prognathism, but they're not considered "Negroes."  Two of my sisters have flat facial profiles (rather than maxillary prognathism), which is a Caucasoid characteristic -- but neither one is Caucasian.  You need to do some reading.  deeceevoice 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No Deeceevoice in mainstream anthropology there's no distinction between caucasian and caucasoid. And the term white in the technical literature has broader meaning that in common useage. It is sometimes extended to include all caucasians/caucasoids, including the blackest Indians but does not include any sub-Saharan Africans regardless of skull shape. Hell the blackest Indians were classified as white on the U.S. census not that long ago. In every day useage caucasian often means European but that's not how it's used in the technical literature Iseebias


 * Okay. So, a blue-black East Indian is "white"?  That's as ridiculous as the dark-skinned Brazilian referred to in the article declaring that he's not black.  It's just as mind-numbingly ridiculous.  Caucasians are whites.  A "Caucasoid" person, however, can be any color.  It is a term used by anthropologists, forensic scientists, forensic anthropologists to describe particular physical characteristics -- even by those professionals who today refuse to use narrow racial classifications like "Caucasian," "Negro" and "Mongolian."  (I'm not saying I agree with the use of the term "Caucasoid" to describe indigenous Africans; it's an oxymoron.  The proper term is "Africoid.") deeceevoice 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Caucasoids can be any color, but they can't be indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa, because pure sub-Saharan Africans are defined as negroid. On pg 119 of the great human diaporas Cavalli-Sforza writes: "The caucasoids are mainly fair skinned peoples, but this group also includes the Southern Indians, who live in tropical areas and show signs of marked darkening of skin pigmentation, although their facial and body traits are caucasoid rather than African or Australian. Rushton defines caucasoid race as "A major racial division of mankind originally inhabiting Europe, North Africa, western Asia, and India.  Hair in males is generally well developed on the face and body, and is mostly fine and wavy or straight. A narrow face, prominent narrow nose, and narrow lips are typical." I agree that in everyday life people associate caucasian only with Europeans, but there's no formal distinction between caucasian and caucasoid any more than there's a formal distinction between negro and negroid, or mongolian race and mongoloid race. Now it's possible to say a pure East African has a caucasoid skull, ánd that a Pacific Islander has a negroid skull, but that's not the same as saying they actually are caucasoid or negroid.  For example Southern Indians are negroid in skin color but are not negroids Iseebias
 * they did the same thing with the def of moor, it is only about removing noblity from Africa. And their are teh fulani and the hausa (AfroAsiatic) so how do these people have fine bone structure just like ET people, the fon and these people so y the difference. c the reason behind the lie. the nubians will soon be "arabs" 2.--HalaTruth(????) 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How on earth can you write that after writing: "yeah had he not said he was mixed i wouldnt know. he is far "blcker" than the ine bone structured masai." You're contradicting yourself.  deeceevoice 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Obama was smart enough to speak out against the war while other democrats supported it. He's introduced excellent pro-black legislation to have police interviews videotaped. He has a brilliant career as a civil rights attorney. He's absolutely brilliant. First African American president of the Harvard Law Review. Most gifted and charismatic speaker in politics since Kennedy. And while I consider him multiracial not black, you don't need to be black to be African-American. Being Afro-multiracial or even even Afro-octoroon is enough to be African-American because it's a far more inclusive term. An African-American would have to be very foolish to not vote for Obama Iseebias


 * Obama's congressional record is damned slim. He's accomplished very little since he arrived and said as much at a roast for McCain. He did so in a joking, self-deprecatory manner, but what made it funny was that he was absolutely correct. Obama's got to show most thinking people something to earn a vote. Mulattos have a history of divided loyalties, one reason they've been used as "buffer" groups between ruling whites and the black underclass throughout history. And while Obama hasn't exhibited any of these unfortunate tendencies, I'm still waiting and watching to see what he's made of. Yeah, I like the guy, but that and our shared blackness don't mean squat when I get to the polls. What's he got? deeceevoice 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * u do know he will never win? doesnt matter how good he is, he is black, half Muslim, middle name hussain, should i go on.(breaking wki rules) he and the last snowflake that tried to cross hell hve the same chance.--HalaTruth(????) 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * White America doesn't see him as black, but as multi-racial and that's a huge advantage for him, but black America respects him for being married to a black woman when he could have any woman & so many successful black men who actually are black marry white. Also white men are happy he married black instead of white. He also doesn't fit the physically threatening big black muscular Mike Tyson stereotype that scares white America.  The Muslim issue wont have legs because he was mostly raised Christain & his father's way too dark skinned to have much or any Arab ancestry.  He has major support from powerful billionaires like Oprah & Geffen.  He's far and away the most charismatic on the political stage.  I think he will win.  The talk that he wont win is just propoganda to designed to narrow his support. He's not at all polarizing. Even republicans can't help but like him.  If Obama can't get elected, then no African American ever will. Iseebias
 * Boy icbias are you so locked in america that you cannot take a flight to yemen, do you know how black skin those arabs r? most SA are lighter than them. Y do you keep thinking in these superficial terms, black skin = pure, white skin= not pure. Even in Egypt some of those Arabs are blacker than Condi et al.--HalaTruth(????) 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yemen has a tiny splash of black blood (mostly limited to the Hadramawt region) but it's predominantly Arab. Anyway, we've been down this road before. We'll never agree on who is black & who is arab so let's not talk about it.  But you're right, even southern Arabs with zero black blood can be very dark Iseebias


 * Yeah, white America loves their "mulattos." It makes them all warm and fuzzy.  They can sleep at night thinking, "Gee, I like him.  I'm not racist!" Truth is if they didn't know who Obama was and they came upon his black a** on an otherwise deserted street in the dead of night, dressed in FUBU, the men would clutch their wallets, the women would hug their pocketbooks and tighten up their (use your imagination)'s and clear out.  Fast.  All the more reason I'm on the sidelines, waiting and watching.  All else being equal, hell I'd vote for an unmixed blackman -- in a second -- before I'd vote for a mixed one.  deeceevoice 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If any U.S. president were just a homeless whino on the street they would clutch their wallets in fear. If anything Obama is the least physically threatening because he's the self-described "skinny kid with a funny name".  In the same way Michael jackson, even when he was dark was unthreatening because he didn't fit the hulking black brute stereotype.  And Obama is married to a hard core black woman and has 2 black daughthers so you can't be on the side lines. Iseebias

white people never really worry about the mike tyson type, it is the type with brains they worry about, the ones that cut ilitary bujets and will be more pro-Islam than pro-Israel. They only c him as multiracial because it is the string that links them to him, nothing to do with if he is or isnt. watch this space. The one thing he will do is challenge the system and force AMerica to be more honest about racism vs merit.yes if he cant get elected no AA will--HalaTruth(????) 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

well deeceevoice i hope u r smart 2 c beyond his 1/2 whiteness and dont end up voting for a 100% white person. Sometimes we miss the point what about voting for a fully black person like rev. jesse peterson? y do we treat each other like this?--HalaTruth(????) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If I do vote for a 100% white person (if there is such a thing), it'll be because of what they bring to the table -- not the color of their skin. Same with Obama. Otherwise, we end up with turncoat self-haters like Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes and the like. Pleeze. deeceevoice 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't compare Obama to black republicans. Obama's actually the most left-wing even of the Democratic candidates for president Iseebias


 * I don't care what party. A turncoat's a turncoat.  A confused half-white is a confused half-white.  Nothing's changed.  The bwoi's got to show me something more before he gets my vote.  Same thing with a white person, or a Latino.  Because when it comes to that thing black folks fought and bled and died for -- mine doesn't come cheap.  Period.  Black folks have been far too gullible and trusting when it comes to black politicians.  We need to be far more critical and hold their feet to the fire instead of just running out and voting for a brown face.  You seem to be 'bout a half-second shy of callin' on Jezus (if you get my meanin') over this guy.  But not this blackwoman. deeceevoice 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

100% of an imaginary leader or 25% of hope? waiting on a messiah that will never arrive. i am shocked at this debate. dont think turncoat is Obama. a man cant b guilty for being mixed or can he? we dont like sharpton cuz his hair is too slick, we dont like Mr FKhan cuz he 2 hardcore (and Islamic and brown skin). we end up with...--HalaTruth(????) 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I'm still waiting to see who else is running. There must be at least half a dozen more folks waiting to throw their hats into the ring. A politician eventually ends up catering to his base. If a bunch of smitten, mealy mouthed (politically middle-of-the-road) "can't we just all get along," "we love our mulattos" white folks get solidly behind Obama, give him $ and hold him up as their candidate, what? You're gonna tell me Obama isn't going to start parsing his words and altering his platform to get elected? Well, I don't know that. It's been my experience you can't predict what a candidate is going to do once the political pressure is on. Obama laughed and poo-pooed the idea of him running for president a while back, saying (in effect) he hadn't done anything as a senator yet. Well, he still hasn't. But is he running? Yep. It's possible that whole rock-star/adoration mess got to him. And if it did, then what's next. I'm still waitin'. deeceevoice 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But you have to appeal to middle of the road white America to get elected so cut him some slack. I bet you voted for lilly white Bill Clinton & got sucked in by his soul brother routine.  He was a great president overall but I don't think he did enough for black people who so passionately supported him.  When he reformed welfare he disturbed the social safety net that kept many black people from going homeless. The number of black men in jail actually went up during his presidency.  And he even admits that the biggest regret of his presidency was not doing enough to help Rwanda. All his triangulating transformed the once progressive democrats into republican clones. So for those reasons and many others I prefer Obama to another Clinton presidency, though I prefer either to any republican Iseebias


 * Nunya bizness who I voted for. And news flash:  With all due respect, I don't care who you prefer.  Hell, I don't know who you are, what you are or what your politics are.  (And I don't care about that, either.)  Your opinion of Obama will have absolutely no bearing on how I cast my vote when the time comes.  Again, the role of mulattos in majority white societies through the ages is clear.  So, don't assume -- as you did when you initiated this portion of the disussion -- don't presume to speak for all black people.  Don't assume we're automatically supporting Obama because he had a black daddy.  And don't presume to tell black people who we all "should" vote for.  Your opinions are meaningless.  I'm still waiting.  deeceevoice 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not telling you who to vote for, but I stand by my opinion that anyone who cares about black interests would be foolish not to vote for Obama, & since you strike me as an intelligent woman, I'm sure you'll come around. And although he is multiracial, his wife & daughters are black, so he's hardly the typical upwardly mobile mulatto who marries white Iseebias
 * this debate is a joke if someone needs to tell a passionate black person to vote for their own.anyway back to the topic at hand. i always believed black was in the heart not in the skin. re: condi.--HalaTruth(????) 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The joke (and a rather sad one at that) here is someone declaring a half-white Obama is blacker than an unmixed, black African. The joke here is someone I don't know from Adam making pronouncements about who all black people should vote for and presuming anyone in their right mind gives a damn what they, some faceless stranger in cyberspace, thinks about anything.  I suggest we discuss something meaningful/relevant to the subject at hand.  deeceevoice 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea but icbias has a right to state her/his views. stranger is 100% irrelvant. I am reading Diop now and he is a dead stranger, i heard he had a white woman. content is wht i am looking at.--HalaTruth(????) 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say she didn't have a right to see what she has to say. It's simply unimportant, gallingly presumptuous/arrogant (about how black folks would be "foolish" not to vote for Obama) -- and utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand.  (Sorry, but the rest of your post makes no sense to me (kinda like your pronouncement about Obama being blacker than the Masai, but different.  It's the syntax this time, I think, that I just don't get.)  deeceevoice 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me explain in line with this article. I am from East Africa and the Masai (some) have finer bone structure than mr Baraka. FACT. his hair texture is "stronger" than most 100% Black Ethiopians. his color is the same as the San in South Africa. he is African-American. I think slavery was good at making us hateful of each other. Light skin==not as black. Obama cant help who his mommy is. He is in my opion more fitting inline with Blackness than Condi. Black is also a cultural identity, something that hasnt be said in this article. I do agree we need to look beyond color, but we need to be realistic and I think u r being very hard on Obama (and i am confused as you seem pro-Black). Baka isnt half-black as we dont know if 1/2 his genes r white. (some diagree with this term). like being 1/2 Muslim, u either worship Allah or you dont (bad example) i think his culture and politics make him "blacker" than the so-called 80:20 Condi. And no she isnt fully black her surname is Rice.--HalaTruth(????) 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Brock O'Bama User:Muntuwandi 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope people realize how ridiculous this entire discussion is. And by extension, this article. However, feel free to tear each other to shreds and act like jerks over stuff with zero substance. It just demonstrates what I have often said here. --Filll 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Diop on race is this in the article

 * "But it is only the most gratuitous theory which considers the Dinka, the Nouer and the Masai, among others, to be Caucasoids. What if an African ethnologist were to persist in recognising as white only the blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans, and Mediterraneans in particular--the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese? Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries must be considered as two extreme poles of the same anthropological reality, so should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in the reality of the Negro world. To say that a Shillouk, a Dinka, or a Nouer is a Caucasoid is for an African as devoid of sense and scientific interest as would be, to a European, an attitude which maintained that a Greek or a Latin were not of the same race."

On who is Black..
Do we have to handle the Tamil/Dravidian matter again and again. Some of u even doubt about if EastAfricans are Black. So how come u think Tamils are Black if they fit only the dark skin criteria to be "Black" (like allmost every Indian do)and also fall us Caucasoid in term of race, while EastAfrican share a Black ancestry and are atleast "Partly Black". Just one point, there is no fuckin race called Tamils. Tamil is one of the ethnicities of Indians, like Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali, Telugu, Assamese,.... And those both girls doesnt even look a little bit "Black", even if they smile and their nose looks "broader". I've read something about selfdefinition.. If we talk about self definition most Tamils, not all, will agree thet they are not "Black", what ever that means. Putting people together by skin colour is as much ridiculous as putting people together with hair-, or eyecolour. Skin colour is an adaptation to the climate. Just like hair- or eyecolour. Not one single Nation describes Tamils/Indians as Black in their racial profiling. It doesnt matter if some of you think that way. Asian2duracell 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Didnt u get banned? watch your language and take a break if you cant--HalaTruth(????) 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If australian aboriginals (who are the most genetically distant from Africans of almost anybody) can be considered black by a minority of people, then why not tamils? I agree most people don't consider them black, which is why they are not in the top third of the gallery.  But this article in order to be complete must represent all notable view points Iseebias


 * The more i read and listen the more i realize it is silly. You know people see faces in the clouds. If the above agrument is true then yes Tamils are Black. But many Black looking people are not gentically Black. Look at those guys in FIJI, but they are closer to Asians than Africans. The same with those original malys people, they look like African but are the parent race of Light Malay. the San and the chinese have the same eyes. The Anduman islands (cant spell it) have "negro" looking poeple in the full racist sense of the word. yet they are not black (African). U can actually not look "black" and be more black than someone that looks it. my view is culture is what matters.--HalaTruth(????) 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Tamils are not a Race at all, So we talking about Indians. Well if these arguments are true then Indians arent Black. Indans dont look "Black" they have a dark skin. A Chinese guy doesnt look "White" he has a light skin. I havent said that Australian Aboriginies are Black. Some of you did. Indians in general are least related to Africans than to other races. Do some serious researches. So whats ur point with they look Black? That Fiji guy is darker than 90% of all Indians. By ur definitions he could pass as Black much easier than Indians.
 * Well if most people dont consider Indians/Tamils Black why are they here? I've heard some Anglo-Saxons call Italians/Spaniards "Black", or Chinese calling Indonesians and Filipinos, Black. Do we have to mention them also? Seriously...No! Its about international definition not about " I think they are Black, so we have to mention them, point!" And people who never met any Tamils themself shouldnt talk either. Tamils dont look like the people u see on the afrocentric page. Tamil look pretty "Indian".
 * My question is why should I get called "Black", if I dont self indetify myself as "Black"? Or my culture, language or even look does not resemble to "Black people's". I dont want others do decide who I am. Others who dont have any clue about my heritage.Asian2duracell 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * no, 'black' is not cultural or genetic or national - it's political ! the seperation of asians and africans in britain is all about divide and conquer of the black power movement, which has always been about self defence not racial supremacy at all!!!! Paki.tv 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Slash is black under the hair
Am nobody ever see slash, thats how he mask his black identity, i think he is a good example we all know him. etc etc. Ahhhhhh Vin Disel put him, he keep cropping his hair but his voice gives him up everytime--HalaTruth(????) 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC) --HalaTruth(????) 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

White people defining Black . . .? ... IS THIS STILL GOING ON???
Why is it that Black people have to discuss and argue their identy and origin's with white people? Can a white person answer this question: How white are YOU? And what if I was going to make a definition on who is going to be called white from now on and who's going to be called, off-white all the way up to black. To take it a step further: what if I add some characterics and race trades on your mental state of mind (The less melanin one has the lower on the lather you'll end up). Than, to take it up a knodge, how would you like it if I would impose MY DEFINITION of you to you and declared it to be the UNIVERSAL TRUTH? Than I will go to WIKI-White-people and put in some bogus lil'entry! How does that sound? It is not up to you to define me or any other person for that matter and push me out of history!! You cannot do that anymore that ship has sailed.

And tell me what do you have to back up these thesis of yours? Dravidians probably African but an essentially African cultural is in your imagination probably EuroArabic. Proposterous!! Than the case of defining by morphology or other physical trades whither someone is Caucasian or not, by which method? HITLERS? Are you going that way? The definition used by so-called scholars living in dark-aged Europe is a crock, gibberish from old white-only-in-it-for-the-loot-man and their melanin-envy, trying to come across as litterates, inventing terms to seperate people (white) from so-called subhumans (by Euro definition: darkskinned, broadlipped, kinkyhaired people). And you are so NOT SMART to accept their way of thinking with analysing where this is coming from. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the earth is flat and women belong in the kitchen.. . (You know that the earth is not flat right and women today have voting-rights).

The only way to PROPERLY identify whither people belonging to the same group share the same historical origin is by studying the history of those people and groups maticulously. Cultural trades, religious believe, language, burialsites, skills, arts, legends, fabels and folklore all the way down to their genetic make up. Next is to go digg in the ground to find traces. I doubt seriously whither the whites and that obnoxious lil'Chinagirl have done that. This discussion seriously needs to get away from the European focus point and back to where it belongs, Africans.

Objectivity is urgently needed in these pages. Have none of you (again whites) had a proper education? Haven't you learned that arguements need to be backed up by scientific evidence, reckonising sources and USING them (f.e. Halaqal as an Ethiopian had to clearly very concise and accurate arguements). It seems to me that you are deliberately ignoring the objections, using this board for your own shady views. You need to stop it, take a reality check, argue with the evidence instead of basing the evidence to support your arguement, handle the evidence as objectively as you can (if you master that capacity), and get of your imaginary throne to listen to people with a little more knowledge about the region than yourself. '''Got it? good'''.

Now, In the light of new knowledge, where in the past the untruth was being established as fact by Eurob(i)ased views of the world during the renaissance and the industrial age, and that being that the term "Negroe" or "Black" used as a definition for the "homegrown sub-saharan" African, must be DEEMED unsubstantiated, unscientifical and biologically incorrect. This definition of "Blacks" in referrence to the peoples of sub-saharan Africa or their descendents should be banned from here on out.

There are sources available which are less questionable and more accurate such as the ancient Greecs traveljournals, they did never put much emphasis on race. The Greeks described breefly the appearance of the peoples they encountered Herodotus for example. Than the Arabics like El Mas'udi a highly praised Archeological scholar (although I wouldn't trust the translation made by the English and French in the 19th century, because their view was already tainted by economics and the slavetrade). Al Mas'udi is the first and only one, up till the 20th century as far as I am concerned, who observed in a scientifical nonpartial way and recorded amongst others, early CE purely African cultured Civilizations (which formarly was said to haven been build by the Arabs) I have nothing against the Arabs but those cities where there and thriving long befor Al Mas'udi arrived and saw (as he himself attests). You could also do an extensive research an try to study some of the different peoples living in Africa(Fulani, Dogon, Zagawe, Oromo, Ibo, Ife Yoruba, Massai, Ashanti/Akan,Zanj or waq waq or mende, Touareg, Amazight to name a few) and register their beliefsystem comparing them to one another and than you can start to call yourself a little educated on Africa. Untill then I think it best for you to reckonise your lack of knowledge and look to the more venerated and lamented scholars and writers. Reed Basil Davidsons Lost cities of Africa, that would be a good start!

We got to get some people in here who have the knowledge to tell other people about who every distinguishable group within Africa is. I think Eurocentrism shouldn't be allowed in this page. It is almost blasphomy.

It's an interesting issue that keeps coming up. How is it that White people think they have the right to Africans and their history? Good for a debate from a psychological viewpoint on Eurocentrism. And if you don't stop the stupendous remarks on Anthe Diop I am going to go to WIKI-White-people and start my Afrocentric entry. And than I'll put you on trial. '''Got it? Good.''' --Glynn71 11:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's why really interesting people like Owen 'Alik Shahadah feel society needs to dump Eurocentric terms like black, negro, and negroid, and instead replace them with terms Africoids created themselves. Hence black Americans are now called African-Americans, and black people world-wide are now called Africoid instead of the incredibley offensive term black-the dictionary says black is the color of evil and wickedness which is exactly why Eurocentrics assigned it to Africans who were from what Europeans called the dark continent and in the opinion of Europeans, practiced all kinds of evil wicked black majic and voodoo.  It's not a reflection of reality since no humans are literally black.  Only people of sub-Saharan African descent still allow themselves to be called black. Our tamil editor goes ballistic every time someone so much as hints that Tamils might be black because the rest of the world knows it's an offensive Eurocentric social construction & that the dictionary equates black with evil & wickedness.  Black is a white man's word. White man's invention.  White man's idea.  The white man taught the African what it is to be black just as he taught the Asian what it is to be oriental.  Hence Asians rejected the term oriental and started calling themselves Asian & decided what the parameters for being Asian would be.  They had too much self-respect to identify themselves by a term imposed on them for the purpose of dehumanization.  (The term Oriental means East but East Asia is only East relative to where Europeans live, hence the term is Eurocentric.  Similarly, Africans don't have black skin, they're just much darker than Europeans so the term black is even more Eurocentric). In the same way, the really smart Africoids are refering to themselves as Africoid instead of black/negroid.  Owen 'Alik Shahadah has really influenced the way I think about the word black saying: Indians are from India, Chinese from China. There is no country called Blackia or Blackistan. Hence, the ancestry-nationality model is more respectful and accurate: African-American, African-British, African-Brazilian, and African-Caribbean. Shahadah has stated, in addition, because it is a term placed on us, we have no bases for its control, and hence they are able to say; 'Ancient Egyptians weren't black.' Black has no meaning; except the meaning they place on it, if and when they chose.  I think we need to support progressive creative thinkers like Shahadah and those use the term Africoid, instead of constantly ignoring them & their ideas which is why I created sections just for Shahadah & Afrocoid in the article.  The more we try to sugar coat black identity and deny it's racist and Eurocentric origins, the more the Africoid movement gets undermined & they don't deserve to be undermined because they are creating a new identity with self-created termonology Iseebias

Karenga said something about we try to clean up an ugly toilet and b proud of it.(nigger etc) I agree with black as a non-white racial grouping, that film by shahadah got me editing on wiki so i cant flaw the attempt at something new. these opinions r refreshing at worst, revolutionary at best. never understood the difference between negro and black still confused--HalaTruth(????) 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many separate sections
There is no need for so many separate sections in this article, especially since some of the sections are very short. Some of the separations seem arbitrary. Many of these short sections should be merged together with similar topics under a common heading. Spylab 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there are only 4 main sections (spelling & population are minor sections), but the controversy section has a lot of sub-sections because there are so many different controversies. Iseebias


 * Every section in the article includes controversy and debate, so it is pointless and arbitrary to to create a separate section called "Controversies" and put some sections in there but not others. I left the "Emphasis on racial classifications" and "Criticism of the term black" sections separate for now because I didn't notice other sections that are a natural fit for those topics. I'm not even really sure what the "Emphasis on racial classifications" section is about, and whether the title actually represents what's being said in that section.Spylab 13:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May critic can be a sub sub section, it is more flowing how it is now, but harder to pick up quickly. throwing critic together doesnt put it in context.--HalaTruth(????) 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking criticism of the term black may even belong in the African ancestry section, since if you read it, he's talking about how other ancestry groups are named according to their place of ancestry, but Africans are named according to a "color" Iseebias
 * Yes it makes sense but inlining things make it difficult to quickly speed read and pick out the points. I think that section should be expanded and a referenced used in the Ancestry section. There is this guy that discusses black and negro which could help the section. cant find him kwu something.--HalaTruth(????) 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Black vs. multiracial is too long cut it up
Cut it up too many topics it was better b4--HalaTruth(????) 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there are sub-topics within the multiracial topic we could add: "one drop rule", "reverse one drop rule", "coloureds", but Spylab doesn't like too many topics or too many sub-topics so we should probably leave it for now. Iseebias
 * Okay I sub-divided it'based on geography. The top half is about U.S. & Brazil & Jamaica so I just called it the Americas. Hope Spylab likes it Iseebias


 * I'm not opposed to subsections if they actually make sense, but some of the versions of this article seemed to be organized in a random fashion, with similar topics scattered all over. Spylab 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i Am a speed reader and lazy at that, if a section is nicely formated it is very easy to read, eye soars put me off. that US section still 2 much text to many points, it doesnt hurt to chop it, seperate points into sections, have 1 drop rule seperate. in this day and age people like to go and get only what they want. they dont want to spend time sifting through non-related stuff. or having to using "find on this page" to find a topic.--HalaTruth(????) 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Let us avoid POV in the lead and controversies in the lead. Social construct is a plausible hypothesis but it has not come full circle yet. We can mention it in the body as one of the leading theories but let us not force readers to believe that it is a social construct as some people do not believe it is a social construct. I have included dictionary referenced from both british and american english. These are the foremost authorities on the language so can serve as a starting point for the definition.

to some black is nothing more than skin color and has nothing to do with opression, or civil rights or politics. I go back to the four year old. He may not even know what racism or discrimination is but he knows black and white.User:Muntuwandi 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A 4 year old knows dark skinned people from light skinned people, but this is a very simplistic view of how black is defined. Most people beyond the age of 4 equate black with African ancestry and a 4 year old can't tell an African from an Australian aboriginal from a negrito from New Guniean from a Southern Indian Iseebias
 * I am not sure that children see race, they are trained to see people in these terms. they might align on other terms like i have a red truck you have a red truck like me.--HalaTruth(????) 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the dict quote doesnt belong in the lead because it outshadows other defs. almost like giving undue weight to it as an authority. Leave the diction like all other sources in their correct place. It cannot be in the lead.--HalaTruth(????) 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

From purely a linguistic perspective the dictionary has authority. I acknowledge that this article is looking into more than linguistics. The point is the mainstream view of black people is reflected in how it is used in everyday language. there are other definitions as well including the social construct hypothesis.User:Muntuwandi 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Used in which everyday language? British English is very different from American English which is very different from Canadian English which is very different from Australian English.  And what about non-English countries?  Black is a visual metaphor that transcends any one lanuage. Iseebias


 * The oxford dictionary is well versed on matters of linguistics and according to them they have evidence of the use of the term black in regards to dark skinned african from as early as 1400. The term black had already been in use long before lineaus et al.User:Muntuwandi 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh it was used before the enlightenmnet, but the use was not widespread because most whites had never even seen an African until long after 1400. Remember 1492 is the year that marks the start of massive population movements. As you said the first Africans didn't arrive in America until 1619, around the time the first racial scholars were born. Iseebias


 * yes africans arrived in America in 1619 but they had been in the caribbean 100 years earlier. In fact some reports indicate that christopher colombus had blacks on at least one of his voyages. Blacks were first introduced on Hispanola in 1502..
 * But Blacks were still an exoctic concept to most whites until the slave trade really started to take off. I don't think it's a coincedence that the first racial classification system was created by someone born just 6 years after the first Africans arrived in America. Iseebias
 * I believe that maybe in an academic context he was the first to popularize the terms but widespread there were already in use. Remember vasco da gama sailed around southern africa on his way to india in 1497. When bernier and lineaus were born there had already been at least 130 and over 200 years respectively contact with black africa.
 * Most dictionaries define black people exclusively in terms of race. Hence I find it very hard to believe that the concept of black people was widespread before the concept of race, especially when contact with black Africa predated the notion of race by only a few centuries (and such early contact was very limited) Iseebias
 * seeEuropean exploration of Africa and Yñigo Ortiz de Retez. In 1545 he named new guinea, Nueva guinea, because the people looked like the black people of guinea in africa. Some say guinea is berber word meaning land of the blacks.User:Muntuwandi 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the problem is someone will bring another "well versed" view and add it to the lead. leads should be simple, NPOV, without any bias to linguistics or politics. esp with a word which is so broad. the leaning is not a worldview yet the def is posed as a "sum up authority" best put it with the other def.--HalaTruth(????) 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The dictonary also repeats the comments already voiced in the lead and provide a pan-American bias or at least an over dependence on American authorities, the best solution is dont add these things to the lead, the lead is clear enought.--HalaTruth(????) 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the reason I included both the oxford and the American dictionary. Oxford uses historical literature as part of the basis for its definitions so is less biased. Every wikipedian has a personal preference for their definition of black people. In order to avoid a tug of war of definitions based on personal experiences we should take into accout what the dictionary says. Some believe black has nothing to do with africa and yet all the dictionaries clearly say so.User:Muntuwandi 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The lexicographic definition (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) of the term ‘black’ with regard to race is as follows: ‘a person belonging to a dark-skinned race or one stemming in part from such a race; esp. Negro’. But the definition of ‘Negro’ is as follows: ‘a member of a people belonging to the African branch of the black race’ (ibid.). Consider the definition of the term ‘African’: a native or inhabitant of Africa; an individual of immediate or remote African ancestry; esp: Negro’(ibid.). All this is puzzling because the term ‘Negro’ is a Spanish or Portuguese adjective meaning ‘black’. And individuals who are now called ‘black’ used to be called ‘Negroes’ until quite recently. Furthermore, does the definition of ‘Ne-gro’ mean that the black race has members who are ‘non-Negro’? Do the lexicographers have in mind people like the Papuans of New Guinea, the indigenous inhabitants of Fiji, or other Pacific Islanders (called Melanesians, a term whose Greek prefix literally means ‘black skinned’) whose Africanoid phenotypical traits have long puzzled Western anthropologists? If ‘black’ and ‘Negro’ are practically synonymous, and if ‘Negro’ is defined as ‘a people belonging to the African branch of the black race’, does that mean that 'black’ is synonymous with ‘African’, specifically for those blacks whose immediate or remote ancestry is African? If this is the case then it would mean that the black race and the African race are equivalent sets—according to Boulaga’s definitions. Note that for Boulaga the universe of black people is restricted to Africa, the Americas, the Caribbean, and Europe. He makes no reference to the peoples of New Guinea and Melanesia.Iseebias
 * vague dictionary definitions are not particularly interesting especially when they're just repeating points already made by more detailed and colorful definitions already in the article, but you're correct that lexicography provides a mainstream perspective that should be added to the article. I added a brief reference to the above to the article because it's a far more analytical than just quoting from the best dictionaries, this person actually analyzed the way lexicograhers conceptualize blackness Iseebias
 * The problem was the statement saying there is no universally agreed upon definition for black people. This is a little misleading because it gives the impression that anybody can be black and it just depends on the circumstances. The dictionary counters this by saying there is actually one mainstream definition. User:Muntuwandi 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the differences between the term black, african, negro are purely academic and for everyday use are practically the same. Negro is just an exotic latinization of the word black. Yes black and african are the same however it is the exception that proves the rule are the case of the melanesians and australoids. According to the single origin hypothesis. The australoids and melanesians branched off earlier in the human migration somewhere in Asia, possibly in India, and headed south towards australia around 70000 years ago. The other groups headed North and East to populate Europe and Asia. The sea levels were low at the time so Island hopping was easier. As the Ice caps melted rising sea levels submerged most of the land in between asia and australia and thus the melanesians and australoids were cut off and remained essentially isolated for the next 65000 years. This is the reason why australoids are genetically closer to asians as the branched off from the main asian group first, somewhere possibly in India or Arabia. However as the australoids and melanesians remained isolated for 65000 years, it is believed they closely resemble the original africans who first migrated out of africa 80000 years ago.User:Muntuwandi 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying Australoids are black or that they're not black? If you believe in race than they're clearly not black.  Their resemblance to Africans is only skin deep and caused by living in similar climates, but they don't share any of the common genetic history that defines race in the eyes of those who still believe in the concept.  In fact in many ways Australoids resemble caucasoids more than Africans and were often grouped with them by anthropologists before genetics proved they didn't belong in any of the so called three main races.  Who believes Australoids resemble the original Africans? Afrocentrics?  It's my understanding that the pygmies and the khoison are the most similar to the earliest humans & pygmies & Khoisons are most related to other Africans & are genetically very distant from Australoids.  Australoids are clearly part of the non-African branch of humanity, in fact they're arguabley the most non-African of all.  When the article says there's no agreement on who is black, it is refering to the fact that some people use the term black only to describe sub-Saharan ancestry, others use it to describe ancestry in any dark skinned group.  The dictionary says pretty much the same thing by saying black refers to dark skinned races, especially Africans/negro Iseebias


 * It is likely that the first people who left africa to populate the rest of the world looked like the melanesians. from this group there were two branches, one went to populate Europe and asia the other which includes

the melanesians and negritos and australoids went to populate australia and surounding Islands. at the time asia was connected to australia coz the oceans were low. but when the oceans rose australia was cut off from asia. These melanesians remained cut off from their asian cousins for 65000 years and did not receive any new genes to modify their appearance. This unlike europeans and asians who had plenty of genetic exchange to modify there appearance. so the melanesians look very similar to how they were when they left africa 80000 years ago but are still more closely related to asians and europeans because they branched off from the same group.

In summary the first people to leave africa were black. This is why melanesians are black skinnedUser:Muntuwandi 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are arguing Rushton's theory. Although he makes no reference to Pacific islanders, he asserts that the races that first diverged from the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree are least evolved. Anyway I don't think melanesians look like Africans because they were genetically isolated early on.  I think the place they were isolated in is far more relevant than the time period isolation occured.  If they were isolated in the frozen artic they would look like North East Asians.  It's just a coincedence that they happened to be isolated in a climate very similar to Africa's and thus needed dark skin.  For all we know the first humans to leave Africa may have been yellowish brown like the khoison and only after living in the Pacific Islands for 60,000 years did their skin become extremely dark Iseebias


 * To the contrary i have heard some articles claiming papuans are the most intelligent people on the planet. All humans are Anatomically modern humans regardless of location. rushtons theory does not hold as amerindians were the last to branch and accordingly should be the most evolved.User:Muntuwandi 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about Amerindians. Rushton would probably dismiss them as the exception that proves the rule, and he conviently only focuses on the big 3 racial groups.  He also believes the challenges of surviving in cold climates caused greater intelligence so your comment about papuans would be a double challenge for his theory (they diverged early and were in a warm climate) assuming you're right about their intelligence  Iseebias

. If you look at the map you can see that the khoisan live below the tropic of capricorn, this is why they have light skin. but this was not always the case. the khoisan used to occupy almost all of central and southern africa. And actually the article says nilotics such as the Maasai in North and eastern Africa are descendents of the Khoisan. This means the khoisan were probably dark skinned when they lived in central africa. The Khoisan were only pushed south by the Bantu migration which is believed to have started in Nigeria. The bantus had a different culture, the used agriculture, and were more warlike than the hunter gatherer bushmen. There was some assimilation and elements of bushmen culture and language are evident all over central and southern africa.

Even though the melanesians lived in a climate similar to africa what is startling is the similarity of other phenotypical features. for instance of all the peoples of the world only melanesians, negritos and africans have wolly hair. Many south indians can be as dark as africans but they still have the caucasoid type hair. User:Muntuwandi 04:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but Southern Indians are mostly descended from the caucasoid branch of humanity that pushed the original inhabitants out and then gradually became dark as they adapted to South Indian climate. But they still retain the caucasoid type hair from their non-tropical ancestors. Skin color evolves quite rapidly, but climatic adaptations in hair may take longer.  And whether or not the Bantu had agriculture is one of those debates between Eurocentrics & Afrocentrics Iseebias


 * Yes there was agriculture. Crops like Sorghum are indigenous to africa and were cultivated by africans. Various tribal groups had already began animal husbandry. see Ankole-Watusi (cattle)

User:Muntuwandi 05:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well on the one hand you have Eurocentrics claiming that black Africans achieved virtually none of the criteria for civilization on their own (including no agriculture) and on the other hand you have the Afrocentrics claiming they built ancient egypt. It's so hard to separate the honest intelligent scholarship from the deluded propoganda Iseebias
 * the extreme Eurocentrists view are far from true. By the time Europeans had made contact with Africans the Iron Age was well on its way. SeeIron age in africa. The Zulu people already had large scale production of iron for their spears. Even though they were finally subdued by the british who had guns there fierce warriors and military strategies on many ocassions defeated british armies. In fact white americans did not know how to grow rice africans were already growing rice in West africa. When slaves were brought to America they taught whites how to grow rice and sorghum. User:Muntuwandi 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's great that you have pro-African ideas, but I'm a little concerned about the quality of your sources Iseebias
 * these are not even pro-african ideas, it is just the plain truth. which sources are a cause of concern. In the past because of the history of racism a lot of important information regarding blacks and africa was either ignored or written from the white man's perspective. Now there is a sort of African renaisance occurring and africans are reclaiming their history. User:Muntuwandi 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be right. But if our knowledge of history is biased by the racism of whites, why does the historical record reveal mongoloids to be equal to or far ahead of caucasoids for most of the past 3000 years? Rushton for example argues that for centuries China was the richest, most powerful, and most advanced civilization on Earth, far ahead of Europe, and with the most advanced weapons & navigational technology, reached the east coast of Africa by 1422 carrying 27,000 men and their horses and could have easily gone around the Cape of Good Hope and discovered Europe. Iseebias

it was the Nokthat did the Iron thing, the thing is the Afrocentrics are reacting to the horrors of racism that the Eurocentrics created. They wouldnt b a need for Afrocentrics if the stink of racism wasnt so strong. According to Euro, either Africa got it from Europe, copied it from the North or are some half Arab group thus crediting the 1/2 arab genes for any scripts, sculptures and civilization. Well yes Nubia built this and that, but they were not SUb-Saharan they have causcoid (spell) skulls.--HalaTruth(????) 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

but europeans relied so heavily on other cultures. where we are today is the sum total of the interdependence of many cultures. Eventually all technology still finds its way back to africa. for four thousand years the tallest structure in the world was in the pyramid of giza in africa.User:Muntuwandi 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The strong biological emphasis you place on race is rare among people with pro-African views. This combined with your views on Melaneisians and blacks in ancient Egypt suggest to me that you are of the Afro-centric school of thought.  Nothing wrong with that since most of the text books are written from a Eurocentric perspective.  But the views you promote are outside of the academic mainstream.  For example, J.R. Bake of the Oxford University press argued that Negroids & Australian aboriginals achieved virtually none of the 21 criteria for civilization in the originating civilizations (by that I assume he means those prior to 3000 years ago).  By contrast he claims caucasoids achieved all 21 in 4 independent locations: the Sumerian in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Cretan, the Indus Valley, and the ancient Egyptian.  He also claims the Mongoloids developed a full civilization in China (sinic).  The Amerindians achived about half of the 21 criteria in the Malay society in Guatemala, a little less in the Inca & Aztec societies, according to Baker.  Iseebias

100 things about black people u didnt know
100 things about black people they will delete i am sure. but i think politics are strange if everything is Africa or as the above 21/4 person NOthing is African. It must mean without saying it Africans are primitive. what other conclusion do these academics expect us to have.And this is Oxford.--HalaTruth(????) 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting link. Here's Rushton description of how Africans & East Asians were viewed by early explorers & the racism that colored their perceptions:

'''The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocked by the nudity, paganism, cannibalism, and poverty of the natives. Some claimed Blacks had the nature "of wild animals... most of them go naked... the child does not know his father, and they eat people." Another claimed they had a natural sense of rhythm so that if a Black "were to fall from heaven to earth he would beat time as he goes down." A few even wrote books and made paintings of Africans with over-sized sex organs. Sound familiar? All just a reflection of racism? Maybe so, but these examples are not from 19th Century European colonialists or KKK hate literature. They come from the Muslim Arabs who first entered Black Africa over 1,200 years ago (in the 700s), as detailed in Bernard Lewis's 1990 book, Race and Slavery in the Middle East. Several hundred years later, European explorers had the same impressions. They wrote that Africans seemed to have a very low intelligence and few words to express complex thoughts. They praised some tribes for making fine pottery, forging iron, carving wooden art, and making musical instruments. But more often, they were shocked by the near nakedness of the people, their poor sanitary habits, simple houses, and small villages. They found no wheels for making pots, grinding corn, or for transport, no farm animals, no writing, no money, and no numbering systems. The Whites who explored China were just as racist as those who explored Africa, but their descriptions were different from what they and the Arabs had written about Africans. In 1275 Marco Polo arrived in China from his native Italy to open trade with the Mongol Empire. He found that the Chinese had well built roads, bridges, cities connected by canals, census takers, markets, standardized weights and measures, and not only coins, but paper money as well. Even a postal system was in existence. All of these made him marvel when he compared the Chinese to what he saw in Europe and the Middle East. Even though he was an Italian, proud of his people and well aware of the greatness of Ancient Rome, Marco Polo wrote: "Surely there is no more intelligent race on earth than the Chinese." Historical research bears out Marco Polo's impressions. As early as 360 B.C., the Chinese used the cross bow and changed the face of warfare. Around 200-100 B.C., the Chinese used written exams to choose people for the civil service, two thousand years before Britain. The Chinese used printing about 800 A.D., some 600 years before Europe saw Gutenberg's first Bible. Paper money was used in China in 1300, but not in Europe until the 19th and 20th centuries. By 1050 Chinese chemists had made gunpowder, hand grenades, fire arrows, and rockets of oil and poison gas. By 1100, factories in China with 40,000 workers were making rockets. Flame throwers, guns, and cannons were used in China by the 13th century, about 100 years before Europe. The Chinese used the magnetic compass as early as the 1st century. It is not found in European records until 1190. In 1422, seventy years before Columbus's three small ships crossed the Atlantic, the Chinese reached the east coast of Africa. They came in a great fleet of 65 ocean going ships filled with 27,000 soldiers and their horses, and a year's supply of grain, meat, and wine. With their gunpowder weapons, navigation, accurate maps and magnetic compasses, the Chinese could easily have gone around the tip of Africa and "discovered" Europe!'''[] Iseebias

If rushton is so racist why do we even quote him in the article. User:Muntuwandi 14:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) u need to see blacks fail the civilization test then they say we are paranoid.--HalaTruth(????) 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes africans were semi nude, It was the garden of eden. the word Paganism should now be discredited because all it means is "any religion other than my own". Africans have always been a very spiritual and mystical people. This is the reason why African American churches have always been more lively than white churches. The success of african american gospel music can thus be traced to ancient african spiritual tradions and songs.

The asian people are the most sucessful population wise. 60 % of the worlds population is in Asia. My personal view is not to use technology as the only means of judging society. If africans survived for 200, 000 years without technology why should we judge them.

I don't think Rushton's racist. He's describing the history of racism in a chapter about the history of race & racism. I doubt he's racist because he's not claiming his race is the most intelligent. In fact he argues caucasoids are a mediocre race. Orientals superior in intellect & social order, blacks superior in personality, sexuality, athleticism, rhythm etc, and Whites in the middle on every important dimension. Many credible people have defended Rushton:

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (one of the two co-founders of the r/K selection theory Rushton's racial model references) came to Rushton's defense:“I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species__a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk for, example__no one would have batted an eye.” But, Wilson added, even though society should be able to “handle” most areas of sociobiological debate, “when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed.”

And even science journalist and Ruston critic Peter Knudson admitted: "Despite the occasional media stereotype of Rushton as some sort of incompetent scientific adventurist, he has throughout most of his career as a psychologist been seen as a highly competent researcher. He has published more than 100 papers, most of them, particularly those dealing with altruism, in highly respectable journals."

Also even if Rushton is racist, I think it's important that for the article to be complete we know how black people are defined from a Eurocentric perspective, especially since Eurocentric ideas are what affect blacks in every day life. It's important for black readers to get a full understanding of how blackness is defined, not just Afrocentric sources that dominate the article Iseebias

yes i remember being nude in Eden 4 real. It is Eurocentric, to discuss intellegence from a place that fits them. Like ants judging us by there standards and saying "we conclude they are stupid" they cant chew grass like us. Why dont they judge civilization on not pissing in the bath tub you r in. we dont have no more whales, we dont have no more ozone, we runing out of trees, all the elephants are gone, the fish are dead. the birds stop flying, the polar caps are melting, man marry men, racism is everywhere, they bomb peoples countries, children slap their moms--IS THIS CIVILIZATION!!!--HalaTruth(????) 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rushton agrees that you can't judge one race as being superior to another. "Oh, no!" exclaimed Rushton when asked if he himself believed in racial superiority.  He went on to explain that "from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value--if it even means this.  And we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments."  But Rushton predicts that ultimately the mongoloids will outdistance caucasoids as they did through much of the last 3000 years.  As you say, the caucasoids are slipping into a state of chaos with environmental polution, domestic disorder, Arab caucasoids at war with caucasoids of European descent, meanwhile the mongoloids are sitting back watching and waiting Iseebias

A problem with this section it is unbalance and not in context
In a lexicographic analysis, philosophy professor Lansana Keita noted that the word "black", "negro", and "African race" are all defined in terms of one another and can be regarded as logically equivalent Although the earliest known references of the English word "black" with reference to African descent were in the year 1400, the use of the "color" black as a metaphor for Africans may be as old as recorded history. J. Phillipe Rushton writes "in 1200 B.C. the Egyptians of the Nineteenth Dynasty painted polychromatic human figures on the walls of their royal tombs depicting peoples of different skin color and hair form: red (Egyptians), yellow (Asiatic and Semitic), black (sub-Saharan African), and white (western and Northern European, also shown with blue eyes and blond beards)".

'''This research is projecting, Egyptian never said this, the drawing is being understood by a biased whiteman. Ethiopians make the same distinction between them and the Nihlots. furthermore Egyptians used skin colors different. Many photo of A Egyptians show all colors being used. I would also question who re-painted the image. Ohh U didnt know Europeans repainted stuff? chopped off noses? Further more the article is about Black people this is about someone modern comprehension of a past empire that had no concept of black people or sub-Africa. And it has undue weight being so high in the article.See how they also painted King Tut in jet black, and that Dog God he was black as well. Dont think Black paint meant Black skin'''.--HalaTruth(????) 22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added it as the earliest example of how the color black was used to describe Africans, if not linguistically than visually. I'm not sure what you feel is misleading about it.  Are you saying ancient egyptians didn't use the color black when drawing dark skinned Africans? I suppose it's possible the image was falsified but I'm not sure why Eurocentrics would want to falsify such an image.  If anything Eurocentrics would want to make it look like there was no blacks in Egypt, rather than make the pictures darkers.  I'm not sure why you feel it's a Eurocentric bias.  If anything it implies that sub-Saharan Africans were a big part of ancient Egyptian society which proves the Afrocentrics right.  It also proves Muntuwandi may have been correct after all when he said blackness was widely understood concept all along, not just something that was socially constructed during the enlightenment.  And the ancient egyptians may have no concept of sub-Sahara but if the first egyptians were black they must have migrated from sub-Sahara because very dark skin can not be indigenous to North Africa or the southern most region (see skin color map) Iseebias

the map is wrong, ask yourself the question, is the desert smaller or bigger now than in history? Start there. The San are very light skin, if u c them in real life it is shocking. I dont know why deserts produce this because deserts r hot. But u dont only get light people in the deserts see Australia. i think something else is at work. sea level is another factor. Eurocentrism had 2 change to avoid looking silly. Remeber when they were white white white now they say "we know they werent white they were Arab" because too much info is out there, so now they say they were" brown" not "black" and they use that img to say "c they werent black people" but a dif race (but they know thy looked like ET poeple_so now u c the link Y ET has to be less black, is a historical clean up.--HalaTruth(????) 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about all that but if you feel very strongly that section was distorting history we can leave it out. One thing though.  The Khoisan are light because as Muntuwandi pointed out, the live below the tropic of capricorn.Iseebias
 * what happens below the tropic of capricorn. they were not called black in Cape Town, they were called colored, also what needs to be added was they were not classified as Negro but Negrito (a sep race from Bantu people).--HalaTruth(????) 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They were called negrito? Are you sure about that? The term negrito is normally reserved for a short statured South east Asian people that have nothing to do with Africans (unless you believe in Afrocentricism) but I suppose it could have been applied to short Africans also.  And were they called coloured?  Nelson Mandela is khoison but he was classified as black not coloured in South African law as far as I know.  The term coloured in South Africa was reserved for Afro-multiracials, so perhaps a few khoisan were called coloured because they were mixed with South Africa's early European settlers (small populations are quite vulnerable to mixing).  But for the most part their light skin is not caused by white genes-even "pure" khoisan should be relatively light because they are below the tropic of capricorn.  It is the geographic region South of the tropic of cancer and north of the tropic of capricorn that causes ethnic groups to evolve the darkest skin because that's where the sun is most intense.  So if you see light skinned "Africans" in this region, there's a good chance they have Arab genes because light skin is not indigenous to this region.  However even dark skinned "Africans" can have Arab genes if they are mixed with dark skinned "pure" Arabs, as some of the Arab world is South of the tropic of cancer (but north of the tropic of capricorn) making dark skin indigenous to some Arab populations and not a reflection of African admixture Iseebias
 * Mandela isnt pure San or Khoikhoi, Yes in the 18th century there were not part of the Negro group. In Cape Town they pure Khoisan were sometimes considered esp if they were very light. did had little test to get included. Politically there was tension between them and the Zulu etc so it helped deepen the divide. If a tutsi went to SA they would be colored it isnt linked always to actually being mixed.pure Malay r colored, pure not indian not African not white r colored. Also see non-US def of an Arab it isnt a race Arabs can be white Asian etc, Berbers r called Arab and they keep telling the world they r not.no one listens 2 them.--HalaTruth(????) 10:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well according to former South Africa's Populations Registration Act, any person who was a member of an aboriginal (indigenous) tribe of Africa was considered Black or Native. It's possible they made exceptions or that the law was different before.  And Arab is primarily a geographic ancestry term.  It is defined as a member of a Semitic people inhabiting much of the Middle East and North Africa.  Historically the Arabs were among the most racist people and they would not allow people lacking middle Eastern/North African ancestry to call themselves Arab.  Today multiracials can be considered Arab as long as they have an Arab father.  Arabs were never considered a race, but an ethnic group within caucasoid race Iseebias


 * There is significant mixing between the khoisan and Bantus. Languages such as Zulu and Xhosa imported the use of the Click consonant from the khoisan languages. This is the reason why many south africans and Swazi people have prominent khoisan features, such as Mandela. The bantus are darker because there are relatively new arrivals to the region as compared to the khoisan who have lived there for around 40,000 years. As mentioned earlier if there was a land mass connecting africa to the south pole, based on the hypothesis there would be indigenous white africans. Another interesting fact is some light skinned blacks are found right near the equator. Some hypothesize that the thick tropical rainforest helped shield much of the sun from the jungle tribes and thus they could have a lighter shade as opposed to those living in open deserts. An interesting fact that is a universal part of black folklore is the skin color diversity. According to this study blacks have the highest level of skin color diversity within population. It is common for an african family to have different shades, light skinned parents can have dark children, and dark skinned parents can have light skinned children.User:Muntuwandi 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything u said is 100% correct. A yes those bro and sis in the Congo are much lighter than the Bantu people. The image of African people is really the image of the "new" bantu people. who kinna over ran Africa only 500 years ago. Bantu migration. I see this in Ethiopia. One brother has straight hair and the other has kinky hair, one is dark the other is light. Usually the women have the curlier hair, but it is mad random, even with twins you can get different hair and skin types. But it makes sense because it was this diversity that allowed other races to come about, when certain African traits got isolated. Ever seen a brand new baby African?--HalaTruth(????) 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure
The article in its current form seems quite unstructured and is difficult to navigate through. There is some useful information in the article but one does not know how to find it. The contents or index of a well written article should flow and tell a story by itself. some titles need to also be simplified or made more relevant. for instance "Black vs Multiracial" could be a boxing match. The current contents look like this.

Contents

* 1 African ancestry perspective o 1.1 Sub-Saharan Africa debate o 1.2 Black vs. multiracial + 1.2.1 The Americas # 1.2.1.1 One drop rule # 1.2.1.2 Reverse one drop rule + 1.2.2 South Africa o 1.3 Black as a controversial ethnic term o 1.4 Afrocentric perspective o 1.5 Emphasis on racial classifications o 1.6 Biblical perspective * 2 Dark skin and appearance perspective * 3 Population information and distribution * 4 Gallery * 5 Footnotes * 6 See also

this is what I propose

Contents

* 1 Proposed structure o 1.1 lead o 1.2 race o 1.3 Human skin color o 1.4 Regional definitions o 1.5 africa= + 1.5.1 South Africa o 1.6 US               + 1.6.1 one drop rule o 1.7 Latin america + 1.7.1 brazil o 1.8 Oceania o 1.9 Other o 1.10 racism + 1.10.1 the bible

race

 * biological vs social construct
 * human genetic variation
 * single origin hypothesis

africa

 * the african diaspora

Latin america

 * reverse one drop

Other
dravidans, french, irish etc

gallery
User:Muntuwandi 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The structure you propose is not bad, but I don't think it's enough of an improvement to justify all the effort, especially when the article has finally stabalized. Also it doesn't provide a space for major debates like the Sahara desert debate, nor does it provide a space for the general comments in the dark skin color perspective that can't be pigeon-holed into 1 region or another. And the whole concept of regional variation is misleading because in some case we are talking about how different regions define blackness, and in other cases we're talking about whether people FROM different regions can be defined as black. It also draws attention away from the primary debate: Is blackness defined by African ancestry or is blackness defined by dark skin? Iseebias

I think the article is stable not because it is in good condition but I think many editors are tired of edit wars. Yes there is still more information that can be added to the proposed layout. As this article has many editors anyone can place a section in the middle at the top etc. While the information may be cited and relevant without a decent layout the article becomes a structureless construction of data.User:Muntuwandi 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just feel like it "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". We've tried organizing the article a hundred different ways & through trial & error I think structure gradually improves.  We now have a very simple structure that accomodates all the diverse view points because it is based on the 2 main definitions of blackness: Ancestry/racial perspective and color/appearance perspective.  The structure grew out of the content itself.  The structure you are proposing requires bringing in new content already covered in other articles on race, and also eliminating relevant cited material that is directly related to blackness.  Nothing against your proposal, but I just don't feel it's worth all the trouble.  The editors of this article are very sensetive to change as the article deals with delicate issues, hence unless the reason given for change is compelling, I don't think it's worth destabalizing an article we worked so hard to stabalize Iseebias

I think the article is broke. There is a disconnect between the titles and the information in their sections
 * African ancestry perspective- the section seems more about race in general than about african ancestry
 * the sub-saharan africa debate- what is being debated. Hefny is an interesting case but I believe is one of the many exceptions that prove the rule.
 * black vs multiracial-this once again sounds like a boxing match between black and multiracial. I think it is not necessary to have this as a title. but each region has conventions in the way multiracials are identified.
 * black as a controversial ethnic term- this title is long. the article does not say what is controversial about the term. Maybe "terminology" "alternative terms". I guess the aim of this section is to compare terms like "african american" vs "black". But the title is not suggestive of this.
 * Afrocentric perspective- this section is more about melanesians and dravidans then it is about afrocentrism. therefore I would suggest renaming it "Oceania" under regional definitions.
 * emphasis on racial classifications- who is emphasizing racial classifications and why. I think this title is too long and read alone does not carry any meaning. almost everything in this section seems to be a repetition of what is in the african ancestry perspective.

Finally the word "perspective" is quite ubiquitous.


 * The reason you think the article is broke is because you are strongly opposed to social constructionism, and hence are opposed to any sections and titles that draw attention to the ambiguity of blackness. You feel the definition should be scientific and that any disagreement about black identity should be marginalized to regional quibles of little importance & a single sicentific definition should be imposed as correct.  Hence I don't think you are concerned so much with better organzing the article as you are in shifting its focus from social constructionism to science.  Every contribution you have made or proposed: population, skin color, your support for a monolithic gallery and now race and single origin hypothesis seems designed to present blackness as a scientific rather than a social construct. Iseebias


 * And part of your problem with the article is you have failed to differentiate between headings & sub-headings. The African-ancestry section is not just about race.  The notion of african race (and race is defined by ancestry) is one of many, many subtopics within that section. The Sahara debate is in there, the termonolgy debate, the Afrocentric debate.  Iseebias

I think social constructionism is more relevant in complex multicultural countries like the US, Brazil and South Africa than it is in more homogeneous places like nigeria. That is why I propose bit more breakdown in to regions. My main issues are on the organization of the article not so much with the content. With poor organization we may end up mentioning the same point several times in different sections thus cluttering the article. Issues regarding definitions should be found in on place. Something unique to the US in one place. Scientific issues in one place etc User:Muntuwandi 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you feel you can organize the same content in a more coherent way, why don't you use your user page to do so. After you've taken the time and effort to come up with a quality product, invite all of us to comment on it and make constructive criticisms & edit it.  If the version you create on your user page achieves stability after all of us picky editors have had a chance to get our hands on it, and is prefered to the current version of the article we can dump the current version of the article for the one based on your vision.  But until then, let's not destabalize this highly volatile article with yet another radical change & more pointless whining on the talk page Iseebias

IMPORTANT: Something is missing!!!!
(sorry pls make smaller) Sadat is a Black man by some definitions. We need to add Black and Arab into this article and discuss Sudan and the so-called Arabs. Lets take sometime as oppose to moving stuff around actually develop more debate and content on the racial issue of African Arabs. Sadat and Tibbu Tipp being 2 good starting points about Blacks who are not Black due to reverse rule in Arabia. iSSEBias seems 2 like wiki research so y not develop this?--HalaTruth(????) 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But Hal, you can't on the one hand claim that there are blacks passing for Arab in Egypt unless you are willing to admit that there are Arabs passing for black in Ethiopia. To a certain degree blacks and Arabs blend into eachother, and there's a huge blarab population in North/East Africa,  but it's POV to say many socalled Arabs are really black without presenting the opposite argument: Many socalled blacks are really Arab. Iseebias
 * i say so-called Arabs would b black due to being Directly mixed raced. I.e Sadat mom was an African his dad was Arab (MIXED RACE). See def of Arab it isnt the same as black people their is no def of Arab which makes Ethiopians Arab. Yet the janjaweed are called Arab. I know urnt from this world so it must be confusing. But this is why this article is an Pan-American article. So Sedat and Tib Tibb where of multi-racial backgrounds, yet called Arab. i am not talking about looking black i am talking people who were half-Arab, like Al Moudi. al moudi looks Black but is 1/2 Ethiopian, 1/2 Arab. however he looks like any other Ethiopian dispite actually being mixed. In Et Moudi is Black, in Arabia he Arab because they know his father, but on the street he would be called Habasha. No Ethiopian in Egypt is called Arab they have a word for them Habasha, the minute they see you they call you Habasha, if not Habasha they call u Nubian. There is zero confusion about what you would call Blackness in Egypt, notice in Egypt they dont call people black, they say Habasha or Nubian or Sudan. again, get on a plane and c. We have to not reflect our opinion or conclusions but what is real in the real world as it related to black identity. and as a balance it would be good to add Half-African half-Arab people are classified as Arab. While this same mix in US would be Black.--HalaTruth(????) 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually there are definitions of Arab that would include Ethiopians. The Arab article specifically mentions a Genealogical definition of Arab: someone who can trace his or her ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula and the Syrian Desert  The best geneticists in the world claim Ethiopians can tace 40% of their ancestors to the Arab world, some might put the figure as high as 62% but I don't believe it is that high.  Millions of Ethiopians self-identify as Arab and look down at blacks, but when they enter the Arab world they are not accepted as Arabs however they are far more respected than full sub-Saharan Africans. And people who are half sub-Saharan, half Arab are considered Arab in the U.S. There have been many sub-Saharized Arab politicians who have been described as Arab not black in the U.S. media Iseebias
 * Did u know all Arabs genes go back to Africa 40,000 years ago? Did u know the Lemba have more Jewish genes than most White Jews and Arab Jews in Israel? now here is the trick is it Arabs with Et genes or ETs with Arab genes? watch the politics.  Arab isnt a race, The Arabs in Algeria and Liban are white people, 100% white, like the Arab in Iran pure Aryan people, blond hair and blue eyes, Arab in UAE and Yemen black skin and look like pakistani. If Condi went to Darfur or Chad with her skin color she would be called Arab. We need 2 b careful what Arab means 2 u in the west is nothing like what it means, so 2 use it in a western sense 2 say people call themselves Arab is misleading, the best example is in Some parts of Ethiopia people say "are you Amhara or Arab" meaning "Christian or Muslim" . In Sudan South any Muslim is called Arab.--HalaTruth(????) 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Arabs have only 5% sub-Saharan DNA. Some of it comes from the close relationship between Arabs & Ethiopians over the last 3000 years.  Most of the rest of it comes from the Arab slave trade. Anyway I added a brief section about the Arab world & Sadat in the black vs. multiracial section Iseebias
 * Good, it might be a good idea to add that when African Slaves went to Arabia the children of Arab fathers where classified immediately as Arab. I have one source on this from another place i will add it. there was a hot debate around another 1/2 Arab but ill keep that location on wiki a secret as you may help out the opposition lol.Sadat he looks like my grandad--HalaTruth(????) 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BOBBY JINDAL IMAGE
Please delete Bobby Jindal's image. He is a Punjabi and of Aryan Descent. He is more Caucasiann than an Arab mixed with Negro Blood!