Talk:Colored

Southern United States
The article says:

However, usage of the appellation "colored" in the American South gradually came to be restricted to "negroes".

I find this statement a bit dubious. The term was a catchall for both Negroes and Mulattoes. And this became the standard meaning throughout the United States. Generally speaking, in the US, colored means having noticeable sub-Saharan African ancestry, in any given proportion, as opposed to people of color, which seems to mean all non-white people. I know race is a sensitive subject, and I'm not going to add "original research," but I think most Americans would agree this is an accurate description of the terms. 73.194.85.220 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Historically, this was most certainly the case. Interestingly, i recall reading a lengthy essay written by some judge from south Carolina written in the 1840s, in which one of the things he discussed was the ambiguity of the term "people of color" and why he thought it should be avoided in favour of precise terminology (Negro, mulatto, etc) (this was of course a time when racial categories had legal implications)

Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Globalize
Uamaol, regarding this and this, Template:Globalize does not apply because this topic primarily concerns the United States. Even if one wants to go by the "This article is about a term used in the United States and the United Kingdom." hatnote, and there is some United Kingdom material to be added, the tag isn't needed. Adding that tag gives the impression that this article should not be primarily about the United States and that it should be expanded with material from other countries. And this is despite what the hatnote states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Adding that tag gives the impression that this article should not be primarily about the United States and that it should be expanded with material from other countries." To say this implies that the article does not represent the worldwide view equally. The issue here is that the article places a heavy emphasis on the United States, whilst it states prefectly clearly in the About template and lead that it also covers the usage of the term on "the United Kingdom with its former colonies". Excluding the lead, which summarises the usage in different countries/regions (of which the US is only a small part of), there is a huge section on usage in the US, but non such for anywhere else. On this basis, this article in my opinion does not reflect a worldwide view as most of its content is concerning the United States and not the rest of the world which the term is used in. As you stated in your most recent edit summary that "This topic primarily concerns the United States", you are incorrect, it clearly does not, hence the usage of this tag being necessary.UaMaol (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything else I state on this matter will largely be me repeating myself. The tag you added doesn't belong, per what I stated. What reliable sources do you have showing that this term was used in other countries just as much as it was used in the United States? The hatnote needing tweaking or the article needing fixing does not mean that the globalize tag belongs. Yes, the article currently mentions that "In South Africa, the term coloureds is used to describe people of a mixed parentage. Thus South Africa has people broadly classified as four races, namely Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians." and that "In other English-speaking countries, the term – often spelled coloured – has varied meanings.", but "coloured" is a different topic/term, which is why it has its own Wikipedia article. Do you want to bring in other editors to comment from the WikiProjects this article is tagged with? Or start a WP:RfC on this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Anything else I state on this matter will largely be me repeating myself." I am going to save you the bother by repeating you myself. Anything else I state on this matter will largely be me repeating myself. I stand by my point that the lead is incredibly misleading if this article is solely based on the US like you claim. Can you provide sources that this article is based on US usage because the very first sentence, which is usually the summary of the page, says otherwise. I disagree with your point and you disagree with my point so maybe an RfC is necessary. Usonification of Wikipædia is a joke when considering the majority of the users of English Wikipedia are not in the US and therefore strongly believe that this should be reflected in coverage! UaMaol (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You've come back months later to comment on this? I can start a WP:RfC now if you agree to that. Per Template:Globalize, the onus is not on me. The onus is on you (and anyone who agrees with you) to show why this article should have a globalize tag. Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." I don't see why you are pointing to the unsourced "United Kingdom" part of the first sentence as though it supports you. It's unsourced! And even if it were sourced, it would mean that the topic is centered on two countries and still should not have a globalize tag. Even the first source (a BBC) in the article focuses on the United States. The most it relays about the UK with regard to the term is the following: "In the UK the term is, at best, seen as old fashioned and 'something your gran might say'." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

21st century usage
In the section United States, the last para says, 'In the 21st century, "colored" is generally regarded as an offensive term,....' I have tagged this 'where?', although 'by whom?' might be more appropriate, since the same para goes on to describe the NAACP's justification for continuing to use the term. Although the section refers specifically to the US, the statement is so broad I believe it requires qualification. Curiously, the first ref cited is from the UK, which I think bolsters my argument. Since the article as a whole discusses other cultures, it would also be useful to know in which of these it is regarded as offensive—with cites, of course! --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding Template:Where there is like adding Template:Where beside "is an ethnic slur typically directed at black people" in the Nigger article. As for the rest, I stand by what I stated above. But I suppose I better get on to sourcing parts of this article soon. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, your analogy is a good one, because up until about WWII 'n--' was only a pejorative term in the US & maybe to some extent in the rest of North America, and did not specifically refer to black/Afro-american people, as I think that article makes clear. In the UK in particular, it was used without any intent to be offensive (well, no more offensive than the customary British attitude to anyone non-british) for almost any person of colour, American, African, East Indian, Jamaican or whatever (though the usage was distinctly lower class), right up until the WWII posting of US troops to England raised the Brits' consciousness rather abruptly. The ODE and other non-US dictionaries list 'coloured' as dated or offensive. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I get what Patriarche is actually intended to ask for clarification on (all this grumbling aside). It be better to have timeline and context information in there, especially since Colored (like Negro) did retain some use, even among African Americans, for longer than many preferred at the time or would like to remember now (cf. NAACP, UNCF).  And see my thread below; the entire US section needs work, starting from its opening sentences, which are [as of this timestamp] a trainwreck.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Peak of "colored people" in the US
>NPR reported that the "use of the phrase "colored people" peaked in books published in 1970."< With the allover English or American English corpus from 2102, is 1970 one peak. A higher peak is 1886. With the corpus from 2019, the highest peak is 1876.

In British English in the corpus of 2012 and 2019, the peak of "coloured people" (with u) is 1970.

coloured people,colored people,people of color,people of colour

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 12:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found that "1970" claims suspicious myself, or at least too imprecisely worded as to "highest peak in what context", to be encyclopedically useful, though it remains in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Dubious, kinda mangled material in US section
The "United States" section begins with material that verges on nonsensical, in which I have inserted some cleanup tags (after massaging the content enough to not just be blatant nonsense, though it still verges on that):

The term "African American" was not in use during most of the period that "Colored" was used, and certainly not when retro-colonization was an active endeavor. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that "Colored American" was ever a term in wide use. There's only one source cited in this entire block of material, and the odds that it is a source for more than the last sentence are very low.

I think what this is intending to say is something like the following, though with more sources (which I don't have on hand):

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: There was also an unsourced, weird-ass claim (which I removed) that "African" is "sometimes demeaning". I think this was intended to suggest that "African" historically was sometimes used in a derogatory way (perhaps like "Chinaman"?), though this would need high-quality sourcing and some serious clarity, including era, etc. WP cannot in its own voice suggest that "African" demeaning, FFS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Added images
, what was your thinking in removing the images added by ? I thought they were rather relevant to the article topic, and seemed like an improvement to me. Mathglot (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * All the newly added images just repeat the information already given by the one already there, i.e. that the word "colored" was used in the U.S. I don't see why they should be relevant, nor how they can be an "aid to understanding". According to MOS:IRELEV, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.
 * The word "colored" was used not only during segregation (which is represented by all pictures except the NAACP one). The article also references UK and South Africa, while all pictures are from the U.S. Finally, so many pictures have been added that (on my computer) the whole length of the article, including the South African section, is filled with pictures. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I understand your point, but it's usually inherently difficult to illustrate usage of a word, and I think having several examples gives a bit of the sense of the variety of ways and locales it was being used, so I don't find it repetitive or excessive. I partly agree with you, insofar as the U.S.-based images shouldn't push too far into the non-U.S. sections, so that the brief "South Africa" section doesn't have a picture adjacent to the text that isn't from South Africa; that would be reasonable, imho., how do you feel about that?
 * Speaking of South Africa, it would be good to add an appropriate image to that section; I searched briefly, but couldn't locate one. Maybe I'll make an image request at the WikiProject, and see if we can get some help finding one. Also, I think the term was used in British India as well; will have to look into that. Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Broken ping; readding User:Ooligan. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I have found only one file in Commons using the South African variant word "coloured" and have replaced a photo that I had added recently next to that section. Rsk6400, I suggest in the future you engage in constructive edits that specifically "fix" your concerns, such as actually searching and finding a photo that you prefer. To help this cooperative project and build pages together, please open a talk page discussion, instead of just reverting multiple images/ edits. Please, note that you also reverted a new category link (commonscat that I had added) without you mentioning it in your edit summary. Thank you Mathglot for initiating this discussion.
 * Additionally, I have looked for other similar files within categories of South Africa, India and the United Kingdom. I could not find a single UK, nor India file with the word "colored"- Mathglot, an image(s) request would be most welcome. If an example from the UK and India, let's place those in the article for geographic diversity. As for South Africa, it appears that there were many word variations used- other than "coloured." Here are examples from files within Commons Category:Apartheid signage- "Whites, White only, White persons, White persons only, White Race only, European, European only" conversely, "Non-White and Non-European." Again, only one file with the word "coloured." --Ooligan (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS for showing the relevance of material is on those seeking to include disputed content. I removed those pictures that are of poor quality (the South African and the Salvation Army ones), those that just repeat the information given by the lead picture and those that distract the reader by focussing on non-related subjects (Hitler's love life, the person in front of the NAACP logo). Mathglot, the word was used in too many different contexts for us to be able to try to illustrate them all. Ooligan, pruning something is also "constructive". --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This one might be interesting: File:First Colored Senator and Representatives.jpg. I'd like to add it, but I feel that the article is too short for more than two pictures. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice image; I added c:Category:Reconstruction Era to it, to make it easier to find. Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Word as word
User:Rsk6400 reverted my edits where I made the title italics as per MOS:WAW. This is a clear case where the article is discussing the term "colored", not colored people themselves (I know that term is now offensive, I'm just using it for the flow of the argument). The hatnote at the top says This article is about the term; the lead sentence starts with Colored (or coloured) is a racial descriptor; find a single sentence including "colored" but not "term" or "word" or "descriptor". Is there something I'm missing? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 20:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I did a short search for similar examples: "Mongoloid is an obsolete racial grouping", "In the English language, negro is a term historically used", "Mulatto is a racial classification to refer to people of mixed African and European ancestry. Its use is considered outdated and offensive." - all are without italics. On the other hand, "In the English language, the word nigger" uses italics, but there the word word immediately precedes nigger. The closest one to "Word as Word" should be the "term" negro, then the "descriptor" colored, then the "classification" mulatto, and last the "grouping" mongoloid. My goodness, I'll go to sleep now and think about it again tomorrow. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * User: Deisenbe, could you please explain how italics here is against the MOS? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 02:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I will, give me a second. deisenbe (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, the question is not "why are you removing the italic", it is "why was italic used in the first place?" To use italic the word(s) have to meet one of the criteria spelled out in the MOS which I'll put at the end. Colored isn't a foreign word. It isn't the title of a work of art. It isn't a scientific term. It isn't a term you're trying to emphasize. The use of italics here does not meet any of the MOS criteria, so they shouldn't be used.


 * Perhaps what is wanted is some way to say that it's not an acceptable term today. The way to do this is with quotation marks. If I were writing _Martin Luther King was called a "colored" leader_ the quotation marks say there's something seriously wrong with the category.


 * MOS on italics: [[[User:Deisenbe|deisenbe] (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it not fall under MOS:WORDSASWORDS? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 22:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Deisenbe, but you didn't answer to the reasons BappleBusiness gave in their very first comment (the one with the nice timestamp 2022-02-02 at 20:02). Why should "colored is a term" be treated differently from "the term colored" ? This article is NOT about colored beings, but about the word / term / descriptor colored. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit my mistake. I'll fix it but give me a day or so. deisenbe (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can fix it, don't worry about it. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirection
I searched "coloured people" it redirected me to the south african one. I searched "colored people" it redirected here. Any reason why? Luwuyi (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because "Coloured" is a souther African ethnicity (which is not spelled "Colored"), while "Colored" is an obsolete American term for "African-American" (not conventionally spelled "Coloured". only occasionally that way by foreigners).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And new talk-page posts always go at the bottom of the page, not the top.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: please replace "enumerated" with "counted"
Please replace this The first 12 United States Census counts enumerated "colored" people, who totaled nine million in 1900. The census counts of 1910–1960 enumerated "negroes". with this The first 12 United States Censuses counted "colored" people, who totaled nine million in 1900. The censuses of 1910–1960 counted "negroes".

Explanation for non-native English speakers: "enumerating" is correct only in a context where a finite known number of items is listed, it is therefore synonymous with "listed". This is not the case in a census with an open-ended outcome where the result is a number, not a list. Example: "He enumerated his three reasons for resigning: harassment, low pay, and garlic in the canteen food." Therefore the general word "counted" is the correct verb for the Wikipedia article. 86.132.48.232 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. That seemed reasonable enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)