Talk:Person of color/Archive 1

Coloured people
I'm probably coming at this from a position of huge ignorance, but what is wrong with the term coloured poeple, which I gather has fallen out of favour. "People of colour" just sounds so clunky. As the two terms mean the same thing, why has one been replaced with the other? 86.136.31.176 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This phrase is inherently somewhat ridiculous, implying as it does that the alternative is "people of no colour", i.e. transparent or invisible people. What is really meant is presumably "people of colours other than white (which is a clumsy alternative to "non-white people"). However that precise phrase highlights the discriminatory as well as the evasive nature of the phrase "people of colour".

The cause against racism would be surely be better served by omitting reference to colour at all, excepts where it is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.8.118 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the point of a talk page; this isn't a form for discussing the topic generally. Please see WP:Talk page:"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. Talk pages are useful such that they may contain information that is not on the article, but such information is often unverified and thus unreliable. Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." -- Irn (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one's answered my question, which has relevance to the article, as African Americans used to describe themselves as 'colored' (I think there's an Association for the Advancement of Colored People or some such) and there should be a reference to this and the reasons for the change of use of 'coloured' to 'persons of colour' in the article. 86.136.31.176 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, as the article states, people of color does not only refer to African Americans, and, thus, is not the equivalent of colored. Also, coloured is different from colored in that coloured is still used in South Africa to refer to people of mixed European and African ancestry. As for the relationship between the three terms, I don't know the history (or that people of color necessarily derives from colored, although it makes sense that it does), but if you can find a reliable source, by all means include it.--Irn (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."
Added the NPOV tag. The article contains some subjective-sounding statements that need to be fixed.

As always, the answer is to provide good cites to reliable sources; i.e., not "People of color is preferred... because it frames the subject positively", but "In his article 'What should we call people?', Joe Blow stated 'I prefer the term "people of color" because it frames the subject positively'."[cite] -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. As far as I can tell, it never should have been placed, as this is more a concern with sourcing than neutrality. And I think almost all of the sourcing problems have been addressed. -- Irn (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Misnomer
I think that the term is a misnomer since it refers to minorities but some white populations such as the Pourtugese can have dark skin, but some minority groups such as South Asians (ie:Indian or Pakistani) can have light and in some cases pale skin.
 * I don't think you understand the point of a talk page; this isn't a form for discussing the topic generally. Please see WP:Talk page:"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. Talk pages are useful such that they may contain information that is not on the article, but such information is often unverified and thus unreliable. Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." -- Irn (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of peoples of color
The entire section consists of original research without a single source. This is obviously a very contentious topic, and the current edit warring isn’t helping the article. Usually, I would try to look to reliable sources in this situation, but I think I would have to seriously question any source that purports to delineate racial categories in any sort of authoritative way. While I think that having a list of peoples of color makes sense for the article and is potentially useful, at this point I don’t see how it can be salvaged and propose removing the section altogether. -- Irn (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help when others are unwilling to do research before adding non-POC groups (i.e. Slavic people) to the list. This is not a "contentious topic"; 'person of color' is a very well-defined term, but there are many people who obviously do not understand it. Adding Slavic peoples to the list of peoples of color and deleting what was posted about 'Latino' not being exclusive to any one particular race or culture is a classic example of talking--or in this case, typing--without knowing. An argument like "Slavic people are not WASPs or Aryans, therefore they are people of color" is based on personal beliefs and not facts. (Not to mention, it is completely illogical: Slavic people are not only considered "white"--and therefore, not included in the actual definition of what a person of color is--but are also considered Aryans.)


 * If the authors of the edits which I am referring to made these erroneous additions and deletions out of ignorance, then perhaps they can start by educating themselves. (Understanding basic concepts of/about 'whiteness', white privilege, race and ethnicity would help a lot in this situation. Knowing the difference between a person of color and an ethnic minority is also useful!) If the users editing this page are doing so for self-serving reasons, their actions are not only ignorant, but disrespectful to the identities and lived experiences of those who are in fact people of color. The fact of the matter is that Slavic people are not considered 'of color' and being Latin American does not make someone non-white by default.


 * I find this entire situation frustrating because it seems as though this was an attempt by the editors in question to re-define a set identity and a term which they are apparently unfamiliar with, while also crying "Vandalism!" to those who correct it. Adding Slavic people to a list of non-white, non-European, (mostly) non-Caucasian groups is the only vandalism I'm seeing in this situation. Readers deserve to be correctly informed, not mislead by other peoples' personal agendas. --Tweeheart (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Tweeheart's anonymous opinion, suggesting that Slavic peoples are excluded from the definition of person of color, underrepresented minority or any other racial categorization that denotes disadvantaged status relative to Anglo-Saxons is very offensive to Slavs. The word "slave" is derived from the word "Slav", and as the original slaves, Slavic peoples are arguably the original people of color. Slavic peoples suffered incredibly during WWII, and were met with more discrimination when and if they were exiled as refugees to the United States. Unlike other people of color, Slavic peoples are seldom benefited by affirmative action programs or their equivalents, making their plight even more desperate. In addition, historians debate the origins of Slavic peoples, and many groups have Asian or Arabic roots as well. Slavic peoples are not simply of European origin, and to suggest as much reveals a lack of knowledge. The fact of the matter is that Slavic people are the original slaves, historically and currently disadvantaged in the United States (see Anti-Slavism), and excluded from the American power structure. (To this day, there has never been a Slavic American president.) Therefore, unless the term is restricted to African Americans, Slavic peoples ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT PEOPLE OF COLOR. To suggest otherwise is disrespectful to the identities and lived experiences of those Slavs who endured centuries of discrimination in Eurasia, followed by continued and systemic discrimination in the United States.

For the Flipinios they are Asian true but part of the heritage is also Eurupean. That is Spainish that's part of their culuture and plus many of them are of different culutures, races or ethnicities aswell So basically due to these true statements The Spanish is still in their blood so therefore Filipino people are not pure Asian at all.

Finally, if people want a term for persons with no European traits or heritage, it might be best to adopt a new term that does not refer to skin color. Many Slavic peoples have much darker skin than Asians or Hispanics.--Crystalseas (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Being directed to this by a listing at WP:3O, I can't help but post the following opinion: you, sir or madam, are spouting utter gibberish. Go advocate for the poor, disadvantaged Slavic Americans (of which I am one) elsewhere. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Clearly Slavic peoples have suffered from centuries of discrimination, both in and outside of the United States. Is the term person of color just for black people? If so, it's not an inclusive term and arguably racially divisive. In that case, this entire article is biased and should be deleted. Is the term person of color just for non-European people? If so, why the hating on Europeans? Many groups of Europeans have suffered as much discrimination as any other group currently listed.

I hate to say it, but the people advocating the exclusion of Slavic peoples only seem to make one argument: Slavs are, in whole or in part, European, and Europeans by definition either cannot be discriminated against or somehow deserve what they get. The discrimination against Slavic people in the United States is documented. And if it's true that there's never been a Slavic president, that's a damning indictment of America. Racism is still alive and well today, and the people who suggest otherwise tend to be racists.--Puremoney56 (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please limit yourself to one account. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that the way Crystalseas has responded to my logic is not only ridiculous (disjointed comments, copying my writing), but abusive (typing in all caps, assuming that somehow those who argue against him/her are restricting the term's usage to Black people). Crystalseas has no argument whatsoever, everything they have posted is based on personal opinion. Not only do they come across as a user who is only editing this page for their own personal gain (having done no research and portraying every person of color as nothing more than a victim), they are justifying their beliefs with statements such as, "...Slavic peoples are arguably the original people of color," "The fact of the matter is that Slavic people are the original slaves, historically and currently disadvantaged in the United States (see Anti-Slavism), and excluded from the American power structure," and "To this day, there has never been a Slavic American president." The first statement ("Slavic peoples are arguably the original people of color") is nothing but an opinion (and a disrespectful one to be stating here at that) - something which should be kept out of Wikipedia edits and talk pages. The second statement ("The fact of the matter is that Slavic people are the original slaves, historically and currently disadvantaged in the United States (see Anti-Slavism), and excluded from the American power structure") doesn't back up their assertion that somehow Slavic people are persons of color, either; by their logic every individual living in North America who has ever been discriminated against is, by default, a person of color. This is a fallacy, and if they knew anything about U.S. history they'd know that many white people, other than Slavic persons, have been discriminated against - such as Germans and Italians. Does this make ethnic German or Italian persons people of color? No, it doesn't. We may even go so far as to include every person, whether or not they are categorized as white and/or of European descent/heritage and Caucasian, to the list - such as those who are GLBTQ-identified or differently abled. The last statement ("To this day, there has never been a Slavic American president"), while true, adds absolutely no value to the talk page. There has never been an openly gay or Jewish president - and that has nothing to do with what or whom a person of color is, either. Like I've stated before, none of the comments made by Crystalseas are productive, nor do they determine whether or not a group of people who are actually classified as 'white' (and not currently racialized the way people of color are to this very day) should be added to the list of people of color. Personal opinions, biases and unfounded assertions have no place on Wikipedia. --Tweeheart (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much like those who made the addition of Slavic people to the list and deleted the comment regarding Hispanic and Latino Americans, you do not seem to be familiar with the term 'person of color'. Absolutely no one here is "hating on Europeans"; the people who are disputing the seemingly random and totally unfounded addition/inclusion of Slavic persons to a list of people of color are, however, trying to correct what appears to be an erroneous edit. Crystalseas seems to be implying that they can re-define and appropriate a term and identity to suit anyone who has been historically discriminated against or oppressed in any way, whether s/he is wrong in doing so or not. While it is important to recognize that Anti-Slavism exists, it also crucial to have a full understanding of a term and it's history before making incorrect and sweeping statements that ascribe various discriminations (such as Anti-Slavism) to being a person of color or to the racism that non-white, non-European, non-Caucasian people face on a daily basis in the United States and elsewhere (mainly Western societies). The identities of people of color are much more complex than what the comments here make them out to be.

Tweeheart's comments seem dismissive and racially insensitive. Simply stating that other people's arguments are disrespectful and unhelpful is, well, disrespectful and unhelpful. Tweeheart alleges that Slavs are classified as white and are not people of color, but cites no authority for that proposition. Tweeheart also fails to address why Asians would be people of color if Slavs are not, when, as a matter of fact, they are lighter skinned than many Slavs and may share their genetic heritage with many Slavic peoples.

Furthermore, Tweeheart's statement that calling Slavs people of color constitutes "making incorrect and sweeping statements that ascribe various discriminations (such as Anti-Slavism) to being a person of color or to the racism that non-white, non-European, non-Caucasian people face on a daily basis in the United States and elsewhere (mainly Western societies)" is ridiculous and extremely insensitive, because it implies that Slavs face less discrimination in America and the world than Asians, Blacks, etc. That is a statement of opinion by any standard, and many people would disagree with it. Still more would be offended by it. Slavs face discrimination on a daily basis in the United States and in many Western (and non-Western) societies. To suggest that they face less discrimination than all of the other peoples who are listed with Slavs as persons of color on the wiki page is a sweeping statement that purports to define and measure the combined life experience of an entire race. That's a pretty bold call for anyone to make, let alone someone who I sincerely doubt is a Slav.

Also, the suggestion that users who revert the deletion of Slavic peoples from the list of persons of color are "editing this page for their own personal gain" reveals something sinister about Tweeheart. He or she perceives a sort of racial privilege in the term person of color which he or she wishes to exclude others from and keep for his or her own personal gain. This attitude is beyond the pale, and inappropriate for a wiki discussion.--Freedomforallyaaaa (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another biased, POV post from someone who obviously isn't familiar with the term 'person of color', hasn't backed up the "Slavic people have been discriminated against, and so therefore, they are of color!" argument and clearly hasn't understood or thought about any of the thoughtful and patient posts I've made regarding this assertion. Editing a Wikipedia page does not make one a person of color, but since I am doing this on my own and there has been a tag team editing the page I'm sure this vandalism will fly. However, no people of color would take assertions like Puremoney56's and Freedomforallyaaaa's and attacks like Crystalseas' seriously if this pointless argument weren't being conducted on the internet. The fact that I am being ignored and regarded as "dismissive", despite doing my best to educate those who are actually in the wrong here smacks of white privilege on the aforementioned users parts, actually. How odd to edit a page prior to even grasping what and whom a person of color is, and then to marginalize someone's voice when they correct it because they know what they are talking about. I'll say this once more: I am not interested in personal bias, nor do I believe that Wikipedia is the place for it. I'll say this once more, too: a person of color is anyone who is not white, not European and (usually) not considered Caucasian, not to mention racialized on a daily basis - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE DARK SKIN. The identities of people of color are much more complex than Freedomforallyaaaa and Crystalseas appear to understand in that aspect, and that's fine, because I can already tell there's a lack of actual lived experience on their ends. (Just like Freedomforallyaaaa "sincerely doubts" I'm a Slav, therefore implying that I wouldn't know what it is to be a person of color--something which, as most people of color already know, a Slavic person would never be considered on any basis in today's society--or even discriminated against...something which I have never once denied that Slavic people have been, despite all the false claims on here by the three tag team posters.) There is also something called 'facial features' which people look at and take note of (THIS is where most of that racialization comes into play), and they matter more than many people may realize. People in the dominant society take note right away when an Indio from Mexico walks into a(n) mostly-/all-white room, not when a Slavic person does. It seems to me that Freedomforallyaaaa and Crystalseas are suggesting that every person viewed as white or classified as European who either has a tan or is slightly darker (I would love to know both of their definitions of "dark skinned", by the way) than someone who is of color or classified as "not white" (and in turn racialized) is more oppressed than someone who is, for example, a "light-skinned" Asian American person or a Black person who happens to be albino. This is not only a fallacy but also quite laughable. Being a person of color goes beyond having/being discriminated against because of dark skin - if you were a person of color, you would know this. (Once again, I am only responding to the projections which you both have made upon me whilst arguing against all my logic without sincerely attempting to understand or thoroughly read anything I've posted about why the term 'person of color' is set/so specific and why Slavic people are not persons of color and never would be considered persons of color by the dominant culture.) Since no one is bothering to do any research of their own while asserting that Slavic people are "of color", I'll spell it out on here: concepts and issues such as whiteness, European origin and heritage, white privilege and power/power imbalances all go into determining whether or not someone is of color. Most white people will never even admit they're white, let alone use 'white' to describe themselves - and that's fine, it is important to identify with one's ethnicitiy and culture rather than just accepting socially constructed ideas of race. It is also important to acknowledge and recognize the plight of European ethnic minorities (of which many Slavic people belong to) and the historical discrimination of those who are not people of color. However, in a 21st century North American context, 'white' is not just determined by whether or not someone has "light skin" as Crystalseas constantly asserts. In fact, I am beginning to think that victimization is all this is about because comments like this have been made: "Unlike other people of color, Slavic peoples are seldom benefited by affirmative action programs or their equivalents, making their plight even more desperate," and "Finally, if people want a term for persons with no European traits or heritage, it might be best to adopt a new term that does not refer to skin color. Many Slavic peoples have much darker skin than Asians or Hispanics." Slavic people are not "benefitted" by affirmative action programs, just like many people of color are not - however, there happen to be things such as scholarships awarded to white people just for being white, and SLAVIC PEOPLE WOULD APPLY FOR THAT. As far as the comment regarding skin color goes: so, because Crystalseas CLAIMS that "many Slavic peoples have much darker skin than Asians or Hispanics", I am supposed to believe that Slavic people are, by default, people of color? Nope, not buying it - because 'Asian' is a very broad term for a very diverse group of people (which includes East/Central Asians who scientists have classified as "Mongoloid", Southeast Asians and South Asians - some might even use it as a pan-identity to include many Middle Eastern Arabs), and Hispanic is not even a race or a specific ethnicity - something Crystalseas would know if they ever bothered to read anything I've linked. I'd also like to point out that bringing up people who are racially or ethnically Asian time and time again (as they have on this talk page and in the edit history) is leading me to believe that this user is bitter because of past discriminations and possibly resentful towards those who may have lighter skin but are racialized and considered people of color, nonetheless. Crystalseas has handled this in a very defensive and immature way, making illogical and overly-emotional comments, while also being given the benefit of avoiding the research it would take them to clearly understand what a person of color is (seeing as how Puremoney56 and Freedomforallyaaaa seem to be their tag team and defending their assertions without question). Notice how I've never had to justify my "knowledge" the way Crystalseas or Freedomforallyaaaa has (by making borderline ad hominem attacks) or the way Freedomforallyaaaa would probably like me to (by bringing up personal information - like disclosing whether or not I've experienced racism or discrimination, which Freedomforallyaaaa seems to be suggesting I do if I must counter assumptions like, "That's a pretty bold call for anyone to make, let alone someone who I sincerely doubt is a Slav") or by playing victim like Crystalseas has (whom I am starting to sincerely doubt is anything BUT Slavic) because, "Oh, well, there's never been a Native Pacific Islander/Indigenous North American/East Asian president!" Copying my wording/sentences and then twisting them around to suit their point of views, which both Crystalseas and Freedomforallyaaaa have both brilliantly done, doesn't really add any substance to the argument that Slavic people are persons of color, either. The page was edited not too long ago to include Aboriginal Australians, fix the grouping of Pacific Islanders (who were all just lumped under the category as 'Polynesians') and to correct the misconception that all Latino persons are people of color regardless of the fact that not all of them are Indians/Mestizo/Black. Then, randomly, 'Slavic people' pops up later on. Where were Slavic people on the list of persons of color before all this started? Could it be that they weren't there because, despite the unfounded and mislead arguments for their inclusion on this talk page, they are not considered people of color? I think the answer is pretty obvious. --Tweeheart (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavic peoples are people of color. No one has denied Anti-Slavism and the discrimination that it entails. Tweeheart does not dispute that the word slave is derived from the word Slav, because Slavic peoples were the slave class in Eurasia for centuries before the modern era. Tweeheart does not dispute that millions of Slavs were murdered during WWII, because Hitler and the Nazis believed them to be an inferior race that must be (a) sterilized or (b) exterminated. Tweeheart does not dispute that persons of Anglo-Saxon and WASP heritage (i.e., white people) discriminated against Slavic peoples when they immigrated to America, largely as a result of the massacre in Europe during WWII. Tweeheart admits that there has never been a Slavic American president in the United States. And, in fact, Slavic peoples are dramatically underrepresented in the current American power structure both in and outside of politics.

In the face of that, Tweeheart continues to allege that "real" people of color, who he or she defines as races with no European heritage, are "racialized on a daily basis," whereas Slavs are not. My only question is whether Tweeheat has a sick sense of humor and is joking, or if Tweeheart is a racist.

Slavs ARE RACIALIZED ON A DAILY BASIS. They are excluded from the American power structure, they are made fun of for being stupid, drunk, lazy and having ridiculous sounding names (see Polish jokes). Due to past discrimination, their parents and grandparents don't have generations of wealth and connections to pass on to them in the United States and in most Western nations.

Tweeheart has not disputed a single one of these facts; probably because he or she knows as well as I do that all of them are true. Instead, Tweeheart alleges that anyone who disagrees with him or her smacks of white privilege and fails to "grasp[] what and whom a person of color is." In fact, Tweeheart goes so far as to feign surprise that other users don't appreciate his or her attempts to "do[] [his or her] best to educate those who are actually in the wrong here." Tweeheart's posts have become increasingly disrespectful and racially charged. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are poorly informed or biased. Really, the only person who seems to lack a serious understanding of race relations and meaning of the term person of color is Tweeheart. MLK envisioned the term to include as many races as possible until the term white fell out of use. By deliberately excluding various races from the term, you are, in effect, creating a new racially exclusive term like white, which entails racial privilege and bias.--Crystalseas (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
Here's your 3O: Slavs are not people of color. Side comment: the number of SPAs on here is staggering. If you don't like my answer, then start an WP:RFC. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's your 40: If Slavs are not people of color, no one is. Slavs are mos def people of color. Anyone who says otherwise is (a) not a Slav and (b) a racist. I'm prayin for you.--Blueman554 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * H'excuse me, but my Mother and her people are Slavs, and to be honest, I think that they would be interested to find out that they are now "people of colour". DOes that make ME a racist for saying that my Mum ISN'T a person of colour? 95.131.107.40 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell


 * Thanks for the "fourth opinion", but no thanks. This topic hasn't been listed on the Third Party Opinion page for quite some time, now. Go distort information/throw tantrums elsewhere. (i.e., Quit making new accounts to vandalize this article.) --Tweeheart (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here from the community portal page and I am kind of amused by the heated debate over Slavic People being people of color. Slavic People are white by most people's reckoning. The more important issue is why is this even an article?  It is a made up term with a subjective definition, what is the point of arguing over this.  I think as the notice on the top of the article proposes, This article should be blended into the article on Racism. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Made up term or not, it's racist to imply that a people as discriminated against as Slavic peoples are not people of color. Either they are, or people of color is some kind of racist power term designed to exclude the most oppressed in society.  Also, this Tweeheart person sounds like a college freshmen who thinks she can blame her C in English or History on a "white" person who oppressed her great, great, great grandmother.  Kinda sad....--Mrs. Policy (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way: LOVE the knock about a great, great, great grandmother...especially since you are confusing me with yourself. Take your bizarre agenda and go rant about white "people of color" on a white nationalist website. I heard they're big fans of Slavic people...you know, them (Slavic people) being Aryan and all. You are using this page as a platform for your OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS. This is Wikipedia, not a message board. --Tweeheart (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your temper tantrums are getting funny, Mrs. Policy - a.k.a. Crystalseas/Puremoney56/Freedomforallyaaaa/Blueman554, et cetera. It's funny that you have to resort to ad hominems every time you come here. What's funnier is that you couldn't be any more further from what I supposedly sound like/am. My English is just fine, thank you. Can't say the same for your English, though - let alone your writing and reading comprehension skills. Also, I am not even in school right now, let alone a college freshman.


 * The only one having a humorous temper tantrum on this talk page is you (Tweeheart). When I stumbled on this page and saw the racist nonsense you were spewing that somehow African Americans and Asians are "racialized" daily, whereas Slavs are purportedly not, I felt that it was important to set the record straight.  I agree that Wikipedia is not a place to forward your personal beliefs.  Please take your racist philosophy to a Neo Nazi message board.  I heard they are big fans of people who hate Slavs, seeing as how their man Hitler killed millions of them during WWII for being sub-humans.--Mrs. Policy (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll go off whining to all the people who may have rolled their eyes at you in real life (that is, if you put up with anyone who disagrees with you) pointing at this page and justifying your bitterness with, "Look! I am just like these people! It's true because I...I mean, because WIKIPEDIA says it's so!" Never mind the fact that you don't realize that the term isn't all about discrimination and feeling sorry for one's self - the former being all you've focused on what with your ranting and raving about how hard this world is for Slavic people, and the latter being something which you're very good at. By the way, Crystalseas part 2 a.k.a. "Mrs. Policy", et al.: are you still seething over the fact that there has never been a Slavic president of the United States? Never mind there finally being a U.S. president who IS a person of color, let's focus on YOU and how put-upon Slavic people are. Forget all the people of color who have experienced more vicious forms of racism than you have. (Seriously, who cares about the peoples this country was built off the backs of and who've been here longer than white immigrants like Slavic people? What would *they* know about colonization and occupation? ...least of all, racism!) Forget European ethnic minorities and other Caucasian people who faced *more* or just as much discrimination as your *favorite* Europeans to make it in the United States - like you stated above on this talk page, "Slavic people are the original persons of color"! They may as well be the ONLY ones, too, as far as you're concerned, Mrs. Policy/Crystalseas. Oh well, at least most people know better than to believe everything they read on the internet. Unfortunately, and especially with this article, I'm seeing why people call Wikipedia--as useful a site it is--the bottom of the barrel for information: because there are spineless individuals like yourself vandalizing pages they personally don't like and have therefore deemed okay to "fix" - people who tailor articles to their hearts' desires or until they feel the body of the article suits them and their personal beliefs/needs best. Good luck with that tactic and your inane diatribes. I'm sure throwing fits will suit you well when it comes to real life interactions with people who will not care for your uneducated world view. Ignorance is best ignored, though - so I'm no longer engaging with you. Your parroted comments (you must not really believe I received a "C in English or History" since you've copied so much of my writing while twisting it around to push your nonsensical argument) have gotten old and are impossible to take seriously. Quite frankly, your stupidity bores me to death. --Tweeheart (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to go to debate preschool. It's probably best to learn how to write and read first, though. However, this still wouldn't make your beliefs based on the skewed view you have of the world around you true. (Talk about victimhood! I had no idea all Slavic people felt this way. Do they also all feel that the world is out to get them the way you do?) In that case, maybe you should try re-defining the term 'person of color' off in a homogenous little community all your own, where no one will bother challenging your biases. Try creating it in Poland or Ukraine (you'd have to do that, since it IS a North American term) - then you can get other people to join you in advocating for the inclusion of the downtrodden white/Slavic people "of color" on a page on the internet...on Wikipedia, of all places.

Wow. Everyone take a chill pill. "You might want to go to debate preschool." "[Y]our stupidity bores me to death." These statements are beyond childish. They are disrespectful.

"Talk about victimhood! I had no idea all Slavic people felt this way. Do they also all feel that the world is out to get them the way you do?" It seems like Mrs.Policy and others are expressing their feelings of oppression in exactly the same way that other minorities do. If Slavic people are "whining," "seething," and "spineless" to point out their historical and modern day oppression (which I don't think that anyone seriously disputes aside from Neo Nazis who also deny the Holocaust), then I suppose that African Americans are "whining" about slavery or Jim Crow, Mexican Hispanics are "whining" over being exploited by immigration laws, and Native Americans are "whining" about the genocide of their people and culture. MaybeTweeheart is one of those individualist Republican types who don't believe that people should complain about historic discrimination, but his wording is waaaaayyyy beyond the pale. Let's have a respectful debate here. If I was a Slavic person, I'd probably be peeved about someone attacking my race and culture like this.

Statements like these--a mixture of attacks and subjective statements with no factual support--have no place on Wikipedia:

"Are you still seething over the fact that there has never been a Slavic president of the United States?"

I don't know if it's true that there's never been a Slavic president of the United States, but if it is, wow. There are A LOT of Slavs in this country, and if there's never been a Slavic president, that's a pretty sure sign that we still have some serious work to do in embracing the Slavic peoples. America still needs to work on diversity, that's for sure.

"Forget all the people of color who have experienced more vicious forms of racism than you have." This assumes that (a) Mrs.Policy is Slavic, (b) she hasn't experienced "vicious forms of racism," and (c) people of color other than Slavs suffer more racism than Slavs.

"(Seriously, who cares about the peoples this country was built off the backs of and who've been here longer than white immigrants like Slavic people? What would *they* know about colonization and occupation? ...least of all, racism!)" People "who've been here longer than ... Slavic people"? Wow. This exact attitude that is used to discriminate against Mexicans who immigrate to work in this country on a daily basis. Is this Wikipedia or Tancredo palooza?--Moderationmaster (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't be bothered reading this whole discussion about specifics and I don't really care, but I seen this on the Rfc so I am adding my two cents. Latinos are brown and are therefore people of colour. Latinos have always been associated with people of colour, infact they are the most common ethnic group with this association after Blacks. Before you all debate on the semantics let me leave you with something to think about. White people aren't the shade/colour white, nor are Black people the shade/colour black. Remember that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LatinoAussie (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources regarding Slavs
AFAIK, there is no history of Slavic slavery in North America. The article is about a North American concept. Could someone provide an actual source that names Slavs as People of Colour, specifically in the context of the United States or Canada? Without a source, the mention of Slavs is original research. Lpetrazickis (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This may not help much, but even a simple search for a website that contains resources (support groups, education, et cetera) for/about people of color wouldn't contain ANY resources for/about Slavs - being they are not considered a separate race from 'white people', and are therefore not persons of color. Because distinct group does not = separate race, obviously. Simply put, the term 'people of color' has always referred to individuals not strictly of European descent/heritage--thereby including Mestizo/Mulatto/Metis/Eurasian (in the biracial context) people--or groups of people who have never been considered both Caucasian AND white. (Therefore, outdated social constructions from the turn of the century are irrelevant, here.) In North America, Slavic people fall into that category (of strictly European descent/heritage and Caucasian - therefore, white) which goes against any argument for their inclusion in the list, no matter what points the dissenting user(s?) engaging in the edit warring have made. --Tweeheart (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. There was actually no Slavic slavery in North America, so I don't know why Crystalseas or the various SPAs think the "'slave' is derived from the word 'Slav', therefore they are people of color" point is even relevant to their argument. You are also correct in your comment on original research. The list was actually correct AND complete prior to their adding Slavic peoples, but I checked just in case to make sure the individual(s) editing the list weren't getting some unreliable information elsewhere...lo and behold, there was not only no self-published or even fringe/extremist websites counting them (Slavs) as such, there also weren't any RELIABLE sources that mention them.

Merger proposal
I looked at Person of color - to me this is a dictionary definition and connotation so intertwined with racism, I think it is better to redirect it to this page, with some sentences on the term in an etymology and history sections.

Support

 * 1) . Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) . Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Person of color is much more than a dictionary definition; for example, the entire "Political significance" section would not be found in a dictionary. Too much content to merge into this already long article. -kotra (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - racism has plenty to deal with. Do not add in "Person of color", which is both a term and a socially constructed fact; we make distinctions based on what we see; what we do with the distinctions is a different matter.--Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose – per both kotra and Parkwells. The connection between person of color and racism is not strong enough to justify the merger. And the person of color article is significantly more than just a definition. -- Irn (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Although some might use "Person of colour" in a racist fashion the term is not exclusif to that realm, it would be innapropriate to limit such a broad term a narrow minded aspect of humanity.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - this is a phenominally well-known term with groups adopting the phrase. This really should be expanded as a language article explaining the etymology, history usages and impacts. I don't think it should be merged anywhere. -- Banj e  b oi   18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Moni3 has suggested an alternate merge place of Political correctness, though she has not voiced an opinion on whether a merge is needed as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "person of color" isn't an "-ism". Why are we wanting to merge these? Apples and oranges. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ism is but a suffix which makes nouns. Person of colour may or may not be a belief, but it's a label nonethless. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A label is just that a label, it's what we do with them that makes them good or bad. I am many things, American, Canadian, English, French, Québécois, Michiganian, these are all labels. Warning, Warning! Personal opinion is to follow: It seems that we are in a time of over political correctness, when it offends people to even be asked if they are human.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I understand the thought, Wikipedia has aught to do with sundry notions of good or bad, it's about verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was not about Wikipdia, what wikipedia is or isn't or any of it's procedures, but that labels are only labels. Humans have been labeled in so many diferent ways, by so many different people, even by one-selves. Racism is not uniquely about labels, and labels are not the only aspect of racism. There are valid (good) reasons to use labels, but there is never any reason to be racist (bad). Racism is also not uniquely about "colour", it can be about heritage, language and many other distinctions betwen people. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The person of color article deals with a distinctly American euphemism central to the "separate but equal" doctrine. The article on racism is far too broad to deal with the term, racial segregation in the United States would be a more appropriate target to merge to. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Person of color needs to be merged anywhere. We merge when articles cover the same content, an article is too short to merit its own article, or an article needs to be inside another article for context reasons. I don't see Person of color matching any of these. It's an idea that can't really be shunted into any one category (racism, political correctness, racial segregation [though racial segregation would be the closest], etc), and it stands just fine as its own article. Link from those other articles, maybe even add an introductory section to them with a main or see also link to it, but keep it as its own article. -kotra (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As there seems to be no consensus for merging, I've removed the merge tag. Jafeluv (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proceedural comment
When this closes please save to the POC article rather than the racism article. -- Banj e b oi   18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Put this into wiktionary
This article should be put into wiktionary. I think that might (a) improve wikipedia, and (b) focus people's minds on how the phrase has been used, rather than on how they feel it should be used. At the moment people are mixing up the phrase itself and the phenomenon the phrase might refer to, as the topic of the article. There are other, better, articles on racism in America. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really believe that 'person of color' is a mere term that any-and-everyone can choose to just 'self-identify' with based on something as simple as historical discrimination. (I even mentioned above that it's not only POV pushing, but also quite selfish to keep asserting the belief that Slavic people are 'of color'--or "the original people of color" as Crystalseas has said--seeing as how other ethnic groups have been discriminated against since the United States governments' inception. Many different groups of people have been discriminated against, and not just based on race or ethnicity...so going by the logic displayed on here by the SPAs, it's not just Slavic people who could be added to that list.) It's more of an umbrella term used to describe several groups of people that North American society ascribes as non-white based on the social construction of race, AS IT IS VIEWED TODAY. (Slavic people have not been considered a separate "race" from WASPs for *well over a century*, now, and have *never* been considered "colored" - so even if the individual/s advocating for Slavic peoples inclusion have, to be blunt, been "stuck in the past" with their arguments, they are still falsifying information.) I think most of the problem lies in the fact that many people in the U.S. think that if one is not a WASP, one is automatically non-white and therefore, a person of color. This is just not true, especially since 'white people' is also an umbrella term used to describe a very diverse group of cultures and ethnicities - not just WASPs, as the person(s) above has insisted. Just so you know, my reply is not exclusive to you so much as it is only me reiterating a lot of the points I've made because I agree with what you've stated about there being more informative articles about racism (in America and in general). In fact, though the term 'person of color' may be intrinsically linked to common experiences OF racism, the article isn't about racism so much as it is about identity/identity politics. I realize I probably didn't word any of that well at all, so I'd just like to state that whether this article is included in Wiktionary or not, I think the list is potentially helpful in clearing up any confusion there may surrounding the question of "who is and who isn't" and needs to be left the way it has been (that is, *without* the erroneous inclusion of Slavic people). Most importantly, the individual(s?)/SPAs above need to quit using the article as a platform to get their POVs across. I was hesitant to call 'vandalism' as I am not an admin., but I now think it needs to be considered as such since they have used nothing but completely original research to back up their sudden and random addition (as well as sockpuppetry). To boot, there are absolutely no reliable or legit sources on the internet or elsewhere that would validate their assertions. --Tweeheart (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for input, VsevolodKrolikov. I'm not exactly sure how this would work, but perhaps it is a good idea. I DO think that this IS a useful article (or was, rather); especially since 'person of color' has become such a well-known, widely used term and, although it is not really tied to any common histories, it IS tied to shared experiences of oppression and racism. There lies the problem, though: the SPAs engaging in the edit warring on here have nothing to back their claims EXCEPT for non-resourced examples of discrimination and what they *perceive* to be racism. I can tell by your comment that you already know this (that 'person of color' is not as cut-and-dry as simply meaning "people who have experienced racism"), and due to my frustration with all the SPAs, sockpuppetry, edit warring and vandalism on here, I don't remember if I even made that point. If I did, it was obviously ignored by said individual(s).
 * With the greatest respect, I think you're trying to put original research in. This article should not be about anything other than how reliable sources have used the word. Editors' opinions on the term have absolutely zero weight in and of themselves. This is an encyclopaedia, not a debating shop. And please could you locate the return key on your keyboard. Paragraphing has a purpose. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, on Wikipedia you begin new paragraphs by entering 'line breaks' - the 'enter' key (or "return key") is virtually useless on this thing. My spacing is just fine. In fact, I've had to fix the page several times due to others' (mainly the SPAs) inability to enter line breaks before and after their posts. If any spaces are missing, it's due to edits which were not done by me. What's your point? Anyway, you might want to check your usage of spaces since you didn't include one between your post and mine. Foot --> mouth. --Tweeheart (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'm still the only person responding to the baseless arguments put forth by the sockpuppets and SPAs who understands the term and knows what groups it's inclusive of. The list of peoples of color may not contain any footnotes in itself, but it is still correct and complete in its original form. One need only check the other sources cited in the article to see that *white people* (those of European origin/heritage/culture who are also Caucasian), and therefore *Slavs*, are not and have never been considered persons of color. Pretty simple. I fixed the article after 'Slavic people' was randomly added to the list (other people have responded to this, as well), I was attacked for doing so (in the edit history AND on this talk page), so I responded. If anyone doesn't realize that this is an encyclopedia (funny you say this, I've mentioned it several times), it's good ol' Crystalseas and their sockpuppets.


 * There is no evidence that Slavs have been called people of colour, so they should not be included, of course. But it's part of a larger problem with this article. Too many of the references are simply not reliable sources (one is unfinished, another is a blog, and a couple of opinion pieces without data to back them up). Your comment that "In fact, though the term 'person of color' may be intrinsically linked to common experiences OF racism, the article isn't about racism so much as it is about identity/identity politics" suggests that this article be merged with identity politics. My point is that "People of colour" of itself is not a phenomenon, it's a phrase. It should have etymology, history, current usage and no more. To have a "list of people of colour" at all is rather bizarre. It's not a scientific definition. (I burst out laughing at the "list of peoples not of color: White people". It looks like satire.)
 * I sincerely apologise for appearing stroppy earlier, and I appreciate that you've had to put up with a certain amount of unencyclopaedic behaviour on the part of others. I don't mean to discourage you with my clumsy phrasing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that this should be about the phrase and therefore more to do with etymology than human taxonomy. The lists really should go. RashersTierney (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted the lists. By the way, in regard to the "list" you added, points are best expressed directly in discussion. -- Irn (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some citations could be added to the list of people who are considered of color, but as far as the list of people who aren't goes, well, I think the footnote is useful but an entire section? Not so. I am not responsible for adding that section (the 'list of peoples not of color'), though.
 * I didn't know that the other citations were unreliable, actually, so thanks for pointing that out. I understand the issue with the list of peoples of color itself: it is unsourced. However, I do think it serves a purpose since there seems to be much confusion surrounding who is/who isn't. (One of the many reasons why this article has been edited to mention a group the term isn't inclusive of.) I don't really know what to suggest at this point.

--Tweeheart (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

c.1290, "person who is the property of another," from O.Fr. esclave, from M.L. Sclavus "slave" (cf. It. schiavo, Fr. esclave, Sp. esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav), so called because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.


 * "This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery." [Klein] online etymological dictionary.

Tweeheart seems to be a racist who will make up facts to fit the racist agenda. The same sort of nonsense was spouted by the nazis against the jews so make up facts such as slave is not derived from slav.Alnpete (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Steady on! First of all accept good faith on the part of other editors before throwing around poisonous terms like racist. Secondly, check your sources. The derivation of Slave from Slav is very well established (sclavus, the Latin form of Slav, which itself is probably derived from the pan-slavic word slovo, meaning word or speech (i.e. the people who speak our language - contrast this with the Russian "nemets" for German, meaning "mute" or unable to speak Slavic.). The quotation you disparage is from [here], a perfectly respectable source. I see from your contributions page this is your first ever edit on wikipedia; I strongly advise a less confrontational tone with other editors. It's the key to making things work here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper sourcing
Some of the claims in the article are not backed up by their sources at all. For example: By the early 1990s, it was in wide circulation is supported by one person's story of campus life.

''Because the term people of color includes vastly different people with only the common distinction of not being white, it draws attention to the fundamental role of racialization in the US. It acts as "a recognition that certain people are racialized" and serves to emphasize "the importance of coalition" by "making connections between the ways different 'people of color' are racialized."'' is an opinion from a blogger (not a proper source), who in any case is aruing that "people of colour" tells you more about the speaker's politics than anything else, and also asserts that "ethnic minorities" is "very mainstream".

Furthermore, the term people of color has been embraced and used to replace the term minority because the term minority implies inferiority and disfranchisement. links to an unfinished page by "a multiracial activist group based in Montreal, opposing capitalism, racism, and authoritarian government. They publish a zine, a number of articles, and hold workshops and other events" [|link here]. They are not a proper source for etymological data, unless they've done the research. Worse than that, the site does not even attempt show that the term has been embraced. That page embraces it, but that's not the same thing.

Then there's this: ''According to Stephen Saris, in the United States there are two big racial divides. "First, there is the black-white kind, which is basically anti-black". The second racial divide is the one is "between whites and everyone else" with whites being "narrowly construed" and everyone else being called "people of color".'' Who the hell is Stephen Saris? The only one I could find is a neurosurgeon. Why is his view important?

I don't want to wield the knife without consensus, but I think it needs wielding. There are too many unsupported and unencyclopaedic statements here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Source Material
Dear Wikipedia contributor and editor, I have a quick question. I am creating a "People of Color" article (from a very different perspective), and I have used your page as a source. I have read that Wikipedia prefers "secondary sources." I am requesting a source (refrence source) for the following quote:

"Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used, primarily in the United States, to describe all people who are not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism."

Thank you. C-ritah (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since that's the lead, the source material should be in the text. From sources with hyperlinks, I think references 9 and 12 should give you what you need. -- Irn (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Asian Americans are Not Considered People of Color
QuintBy (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversal of my reversal is unsupported by a specific reference to a specific page in the Guide. The earlier reference merely refers to the Guide as a whole, all 32 pages of it, which really should simply be removed altogether. Without specificity a reference is meaningless and there is nothing elsewhere in the Standford Guide which deals with how Asian Americans are to be characterized. The entire article is almost evasive as to who is and who is not included under the rubric of people of color. This is a singular moment of clarity and it is provided by one of the same and only three guides previously cited. QuintBy (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The cited reference only states that the term "Asian American" refers to "an American of Asian descent". That's it. It doesn't mention Asians in regard to the term "people of color". By the same logic, none of the ethnicities listed on that page qualify as "people of color" - for example "Chicano" is defined as "an American of Mexican ancestry". -- Irn (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the cited page (it was there before I removed it) and came to the same conclusion as Irn. If you have another source, bring it here, but this one doesn't say what you think it does; just the opposite.--Carwil (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, including that this guide says that "Asian Americans" refers to "Americans of Asian descent" is pointless. In other words: so what? That has no bearing on whether or not Asian Americans are people of color, and I see no place for it in an article on the term "person of color". -- Irn (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'fact' that another editor regards the edits made by another to be "pointless" is not sufficient reason to undo it. Wikipedia's guidelines state that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The reader is free to consult the reference provided and draw their own conclusion as to whether or not any statement made within a topic is relevant to that topic.QuintBy (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a perfectly valid reason to eliminate something from an article. Simply because a fact is verifiable does not mean it is appropriate. If that were the case, you could insert any fact you wanted in any article as long as you had a reliable source for it. That's absolutely ludicrous. Why should this information be included in the article? -- Irn (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to Another Section Being Blocked
Someone tried very hard in the "race" article to hide their bias on the subject. I know this can be an important topic and a tough one to talk about, but we can't bring our point of view into the subject, no matter how right or wrong it is. The article has NOT been changed in over 2 years, and needs to have specifications on color and cultural depictions. The talk page of that article, has been locked, and some users have have been surpressed from speaking openly, making me believe their is bias on this community. Still, I just wanted to bring this up, as I am neutral on all of this, and wanted to let somebody know I am concerned on how the informtaion on this site can be shifted to those in power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.13 (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Scientifically incorrect"?
The line about white being all colours of light combined is only correct for light. When it comes to pigments, which is what skin colour is describing, the mixed result gets darker as you add colours. It is in actuality scientifically more correct. Rather than make either argument, I'll just remove the line. -59.167.194.48 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Still, we see colours of a object beacuse the object reflects light into our eyes. If there is less light reflected or emitted from the object, we would see less colour on it, and thus it becomes darker. Black holes are extremely good examples. White is a blend of all colours, while pure black is technically not a colour. The term "person of colour" is still scientifically INCORRECT. Stop covering up for this nonsense term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.124.191 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Colour" means any hue other than black or white. Yet the term "person of colour" is used to mean non-white. This is simply incorrect scientifically and logically.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)