User talk:Middayexpress/WP:RACE

Next steps
, now that the move review closed as no consensus, I'm not sure what the best next steps are. should we put together a community-wide RFC to confirm that lists or categories that are race-based should not be allowed? I found the following lists which are race-based:List_of_black_astronauts, List_of_black_superheroes, List_of_black_supervillains, List_of_black_animated_characters,List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees, List_of_black_Nobel_Laureates, List_of_black_Golden_Globe_Award_winners_and_nominees, Black billionaires. There is a category at. It would be good to find whether we have other race-based lists besides black - such as "Asian" (where Asian is taken to mean ONLY east asian, and excludes people from Asian parts of Russia, South Asia, Western Asia, etc). Should we start a wiki-wide RFC? Where should it be placed? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Obiwankenobi & User:HelenOnline: The closing admin recommended a centralised discussion on all such articles, so that would indeed be a logical next step. However, I think that centralised discussion would be greatly facilitated if we were to first submit this WP:RACE guideline for adoption. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am confused about the "no consensus" move review outcome. Does that mean there is no consensus on the move review and/or that the move is overturned as there was no consensus on the move? Regardless, I agree the next step should be to propose the guideline. Helen  Online  16:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The admin means there is no consensus on the original discussion itself ("No consensus. Both sides have made valid points about both the closure and the arguments in the original discussion itself"). For a conclusion on the whole issue of titles, he recommended a broad-based, centralised discussion covering all such articles ("I would suggest a centralised discussion that covers all those articles would be the best route of coming to a sensible conclusion on this issue"). It's a great idea, and one which Obiwankenobi also appears to suggest above. However, I think we should first consider submitting this WP:RACE guideline for adoption, as that would greatly facilitate that centralised discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that clear. According to Move_review, a "no consensus" at MRV is equivalent to "endorse close", which means the original move stands, but this was a complex case since it was about title + scope. I see the value of proposing the guideline, but if we can't get consensus to fix those other articles, which would be in violation of the guideline if adopted, then I don't know how the guideline could pass. What we also have to address, for example with articles like List_of_black_fashion_models or Black billionaires is there are reliable sources which create such racially-focused groupings - but of course reliable sources regularly discuss "white" fashion models and "white" rich people, etc, but creation of such lists focused on "white" people would lead to banning. How those sources go about creating the "black" lists is beyond me - maybe they just look for dark skin and curly hair and decide accordingly that person X is "black"? Or it could be like "porn" - e.g. hard to define, but "everyone knows it when they see it"? I found this which lists people "inaccurately considered non-black" - which begs the question... by whom?? You have ainu in Japan, negritos from SE asia, andaman islanders from India, khoisans in South Africa, and indigenous groups from Oceania. I still can't figure out what is our authoritative source on who really is considered part of the "black" race, and who isn't...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Black", "brown", "red", "white" and "yellow" are terms whose meaning and application vary over different time periods, as well as from society to society and often between different strata in a given society. They are thus inherently subjective. Regarding WP:MR, a "no consensus" verdict can mean either essentially the same thing as "endorse close" or instead "relist". In this case, it clearly means "relist" since the admin explicitly recommended that we start a centralised discussion covering all such articles in order to sensibly conclude this issue ("I would suggest a centralised discussion that covers all those articles would be the best route of coming to a sensible conclusion on this issue"). However, I believe adoption of this WP:RACE guideline should be our first priority, as that will greatly facilitate that centralised discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think adoption of the guideline first, and then, assuming that passes, go revisit the articles that are in violation and start new move requests accordingly (most are populated in the majority by African-Americans, so it wouldn't be that hard to move most of them to List of African-american x" and clear out the non-AAs, or perhaps split to "African X" if such a list is merited.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Other potentially race-based articles: List_of_white_Africans_of_European_ancestry, Articles_for_deletion/List_of_White_South_Africans, Articles_for_deletion/List_of_white_people,Articles_for_deletion/List_of_White_Latin_Americans--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sort of. Adoption of the WP:RACE guideline will greatly facilitate one followup, broad-based, centralised discussion covering all such articles as the admin suggests. Not sure yet where that centralised discussion would be held, but that can be decided in due time. Middayexpress (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More articles: List_of_Asian_astronauts --> ("Asian" in this sense refers to people from the continent of Asia, exclusive of Asian Russia, who are not of predominantly European, African, or American ancestry.); List_of_Asian_pornographic_actors (debates on whether this is only for "East" asian or could it include russians or turks; List_of_Asian_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees - this one seems ok now, the lede was just updated to note that it is for all citizens/nationals of the Asian continent; List_of_Asian_politicians_in_non-Asian_states seems ok, as it focuses on politicians from any country in Asia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. It's interesting that the "list of white x" pages were all summarily deleted. The WP:RACE guideline already contains provisions on how to handle such pages. Middayexpress (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I would consider White South African and similarly named articles to be ethnic groups similar to African/Black Americans. Helen Online  19:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, White South African does seem more like an ethnic group - is it a container that Afrikaans lives within, or is it considered separate? Race is such a complicated topic in South Africa we'll have to take your word for it. However, People from any of the 54 countries of Africa who had some ancestors who at some point in the last 400 years came from continental Europe and who still have fair skin seems like a bit more of a racial category to me, because I presume membership in this category is not determined solely by your parentage, but by the skin colors of your parentage - e.g. a British-Indian family who had lived in England for 200 years who then moves to Nairobi and has a child, is their child considered an "African of European descent"? Probably not - even if members of said Indian family had intermarried with brits, as long as they retained their "Indian" look their children wouldn't qualify. Or would a half-french, half Egyptian born in Cairo in 1900 qualify? Perceived race is often used as one criteria for admission into an ethnic group whether we like it or not - that's a simple fact - I just find it problematic when Wikipedia attempts to draw a line, and say "This person is white, this person is black, this person is Asian" - based almost entirely on racial characteristics. See  for the challenges faced by "black" people who have white skin...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pretty arbitrary overall. This becomes even more obvious when actual scientific data is examined. At any rate, "White South African" is indeed one of the exceptions mentioned in the guideline. As it turns out, there's also a formal WP:PROPOSAL process. Middayexpress (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, yes Afrikaners are Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans (most of the rest speak English as a first language and are assimilated into the British diaspora in Africa). These groups were historically quite distinct whether they liked it or not as while blacks were segregated from whites, Afrikaners were also to a large extent segregated from English-speakers (by virtue of language-based schools, work as state employees e.g. were predominantly Afrikaners under the Nationalist government, and even churches which were Dutch Reformed versus Anglican, Methodist or Catholic). This distinction is not as strong in smaller towns for practical reasons (less schools and churches etc). There has been intermarriage between the two groups, which is why we have English-speaking South Africans with Afrikaner surnames and vice-versa. This distinction is also lessening over time parallel to the integration of blacks and whites, as people become more integrated in general. English is now the predominant business and teaching language overall (depends on where you are) and traditional religion is in decline so language-based influences are lessening.
 * Race is definitely a component of white South Africans, as it is for African Americans. For people born before 1991 when the Population Registration Act, 1950 was repealed, our legal identity documentation specified our race. Today we are asked to specify our race in the national census (self-identification) and race is a factor used in employment equity legislation to redress past imbalances (for people born after 1991, presumably the only way of applying this factor is based on how they self-identify based on how their parents were classified or the colour of their skin). When I was much younger, "European" was synonymous with "white" but "European" seems to have mostly disappeared from common usage.
 * I am not too concerned about White Africans of European ancestry. I just don't see how White/European South Africans can be treated as different from African/Black Americans. Helen  Online  09:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps White Africans of European ancestry could be moved to something like European diaspora in Africa? (Incidentally, I moved Anglo-African, a neologism someone was trying to promote here, to British diaspora in Africa). Helen Online  09:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's better, but how would that jibe with the phrase "Southern African ethnic group" on Afrikaner? Would "Africans of European ancestry" be more or less confusing? Middayexpress (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * European diaspora in Africa is better, but the question is, European since when? There has been interchange esp amongst peoples of the Mediterranean for time eternal, and certainly some exchange of genes. But as long as "European" isn't taken to mean "white skin", this should be ok (in the same way, African disapora in the United States should not exclude Egyptians or white south africans... OTOH, I think White South Africans specifically is a different case - that is a specific and identifiable ethnic group, which does, like African American and other ethnic groups, have a race-based component, but it goes beyond that; if I immigrated to South Africa today and took a citizenship, I wouldn't necessarily be welcomed as a "White South African", I'd have to marry into the group and live there for a while before being accepted as a member of that group - and indeed I may never be so. Thus, I think a list of List of White South Africans or List of Afrikaaaner people and associated categories would be fine. I think if such an article was created today it would survive, due to many other examples of lists-of-people-by-ethnicity. Indeed, there is also a category tree at Category:European_South_African and Category:South_African_people_of_European_descent, which is nationality vs racially based.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see White Africans of European ancestry is linked to Category:African people of European descent so that is also an option, but I think European diaspora in Africa is more specific to historical migration?
 * The Afrikaner ethnic group is a Southern African ethnic group because that is where it was formed (and not only from Europeans as covered in the article). I don't see a contradiction with "African" (in the non-racial sense) or "of European ancestry/descent". Helen  Online  17:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Afrikaner issue is made easier by the fact that Europe is indigenously inhabited by only one so-called "race", whereas the other Old World continents of Africa and Asia are more complex because they each have several different autochthonous "racial" groups. Something along the lines of Africans of European ancestry or African people of European descent could thus work here. Middayexpress (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Existing race-based lists
Let's keep this section just to catalog race-based lists that exist already:

Black

 * 1) List_of_black_astronauts
 * 2) List_of_black_superheroes
 * 3) List_of_black_supervillains
 * 4) List_of_black_animated_characters
 * 5) List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees
 * 6) List_of_black_Nobel_Laureates
 * 7) List_of_black_Golden_Globe_Award_winners_and_nominees
 * 8) Black billionaires
 * 9) List_of_black_fashion_models
 * 10) List_of_Afro-Latinos
 * 11) List of composers of African descent (hard to tell, this could just be for anyone from the continent - not clear)
 * 12) List_of_first_black_Major_League_Baseball_players_by_team - this one could be an exception, since it is not "all black players", it is focused on firsts, for a league where a de-facto rule preventing black people from participating was put into place, thus first "black" is notable
 * 13) List_of_National_Hockey_League_players_of_black_African_descent
 * 14) List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture - actually more of a DNA-based list. The only one I've found to date. I've requested that it be moved to be of an ethnic-group based list.

Asian

 * 1) List_of_Asian_astronauts --> ("Asian" in this sense refers to people from the continent of Asia, exclusive of Asian Russia, who are not of predominantly European, African, or American ancestry.)
 * 2) List_of_Asian_pornographic_actors (debates on whether this is only for "East" asian or could it include russians or turks)
 * 3) Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ice_hockey_players_of_Asian_descent_(2nd_nomination) (rather funy, deleted even though the black list was kept - here the argument was that we have no definition of "Asian", whereas apparently we have a good definition of black??

Asian, but not race-based

 * 1) List_of_Asian_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees - this one seems ok now, the lede was just updated to note that it is for all citizens/nationals of the Asian continent;
 * 2) List_of_Asian_politicians_in_non-Asian_states - seems inclusive of all parts of Asia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

White

 * 1) List_of_white_Africans_of_European_ancestry
 * 2) Articles_for_deletion/List_of_White_South_Africans
 * 3) Articles_for_deletion/List_of_white_people
 * 4) Articles_for_deletion/List_of_White_Latin_Americans