User talk:Patrick0Moran/Black people (ethnicity)

Black people versus Black people (ethnicity)
This article (as of my signature date) is identical to the article Black people. User:Whatdoyou remarked his intention to split the article based on ethnicity versus skin color identity, but we already have an article Black as a skin color identity, so I don't get what the point is. Of course, the point may just be on top of my head in this case ;) For now, I'll sit back and see what changes are planned, but if there isn't an effort to make a substantial split in the near future, I would then recommend the articles get re-merged (which, for identical articles, means one gets redirected to the other, as I did earlier today).  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The current black people article is too general. It defines blackness from every perspective imaginable.  The point of the Black as a skin color identity and Black people (ethnicity) articles are too focus in on the completely different definitions of what it means to be black.  For example most Australian aboriginals are far blacker than me by skin color definitions but they are not black at all by ethnic definitions, because they're not of African descent Timelist 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is actually a place for an article on the ethnicity issue, but the voting is going strongly against this article. One reason is that it does not have all that much to do with ethnicity.

One thing that is obviously missing is language. Black English is a dia-lect (i.e., splitting away-tongue) of "network radio" English. The person who has only a slightly darker skin than the Italian truck farmer might be treated as a "white" until the moment the person speaks and is recognized as speaking with a "black" accent. Harry Belafonte was something of an anomaly as a new singer on the radio because he did not have such an accent, and some people probably had a bit of a conversion experience when a face was attached to the beautiful voice.

Another thing that is obviously missing is culture. In The Silent Language, Hall points out that "white" people and "black" people learn two different conventions for who looks at whom when speaking. For the white person, it is respectful to disattend to your (e.g.) teacher's face when s/he is speaking to you, and to watch his/her face while you are speaking yourself. For the black person, it is disrespectful not to watch your teacher's face while s/he is speaking to you, and it is disrespectful to look at him/her while you are speaking. So guess what happens every time a "black" person and a "white" person have a conversation. Both individuals get—at an unconscious level—an "I don't respect you" signal from their counterparts. (I got reamed by one of my teachers in Taiwan for just that mistake. Chinese people and "black" people code the same way, but for my teacher my disrespect was not happening at a level unconscious to him. I had read Hall, so I could explain.)

Music is a cultural thing that forms part of one's ethnicity, and Western culture does not easily fit in. Just try playing along on an instrument having fixed notes (anything with notes that can't be "bent" for instance) with Miriam Makeba singing "Jikale maweni." (Sorry about the spelling, I'll check it later.) Rhythm is different, and I suspect that a skilled musician in some traditions, given a guitar that hadn't had its frets set down yet, would put the frets in slightly different places because the rules that determine a "tuning" are different. Then there are the so-called quarter intervals, blues notes, etc., and music that "rocks." It makes for beauty of a kind much different from that of Vivaldi or Bach.

Take a close look at the Ethnicity article to see other things. If this article had more actual content it would have a better chance of survival. P0M 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

POV fork
This is a POV fork and I think it needs an AfD. I dispute it's neutrality, it only exists because some editors at the Black people article would not accept anything other than their own POV. Alun 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No this article is about the term black used as an ethnic origin classification (i.e., The U.S. census for example, defines a black as a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. The Census Bureau however notes that these classifications are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. ) The other black people article is a general discussion of the term black used in all kinds of contexts inclusing to describe those with dark skin (Indians) and people who are swarthy (black Irish). This article is more specific. It focuses exclusively on black as ethnic classification Timelist 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to AfD it tomorrow if no one else has and we'll see if it survives. It is clearly a POV fork. You cannot keep claiming that you are above wikipedia's rules. Why do you think rules are only for other people? Alun 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wobble I think it's unfortunate that you wish to deny people of recent sub-Saharan African ancestry an article about our own ethnicity under the termonology we've adopted, termonology officially recognized by the census. Wikipedia is all about notable topics and census categories are clearly notable. Please don't delete us, work with us Timelist 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't delete this article. I can only request it's deletion. Please read Articles for deletion so you are familiar with the process. I am not a deletionist by instinct, I have only ever nominated one article before. It did get deleted, but only after a long discussion. There is a five day process before it can be deleted. Have no fear, you will have plenty of time to defend this article, it cannot be sumarily deleted, unless an admin decides it fits the criteria for speedy deletion, and I don't think this does. What I really want is all points of view covered fairly in a single article. But you have made that impossible. Alun 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alun all points of view are covered fairly. This article simply focuses on black as an ethnic classification.  Black is also a skin color description which is why we have the black as a skin color identity article.  Personally I've never seen the term black used in the latter context but I still respect the right of alternative views to exist on wikipedia.  This article by contrast represents a mainstream view as evidenced by its reference to the U.S. census Timelist 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's reference on the US census which everyone else except you agrees does not exclude people who are not of recent African descent. Alun 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alun, the U.S. census defines black as "having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian." So where do you get the idea that people lacking African descent can identify as black on the census.  I don't see any mention of Australian aboriginals or people from India.  There are other census categories for those groups.  They do not have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa and thus are not black by U.S. lawTimelist 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The US census defines Black thus:"Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as 'Black, African Am., or Negro,'or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian." It includes people who indicates their race as Black. So anyone who self defines as Black. Is this not clear? It seems crystal clear to me. Anyone who self defines as Black. You are deliberately ignoring a part of the definiton because it does not conform to your POV, just as you did with the UK census. This was settled in August by mediation, where the mediator came to this same conclusion. I said it again on the Black people talk page earlier today. You just seem to ignore everything that you disagree with as if it doesn't exist. You took part in the mediation, and yet you have just dismissed the findings as if they were unimportant, just because you don't like them. This is not how wikipedia works. We do not ignore verified material because we do not like it. We do not give a single point of view. We do not POV fork articles because we only want to have a one sided article. Why can you not just accept that other points of view exist? Why can't you just accept that in fact it is not an official definition of Black, even in the US census? I just don't understand this blind and uncompromising attitude. I can only assume that you edit wikipedia, not because you want to make a good encyclopedia, but because you just want to promote a single unrepresentative point of view. I find it very sad. See WikiProject Countering systemic bias and One-sided argument. Alun 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alun please read the definition more carefully. It defines ther term upfront saying A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Australian aboriginal do not have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. PERIOD! If they wanted to include ALL black racial groups they would have just said "having origins in ANY Black racial group"  Of COURSE this definition INCLUDES people who self-identify as black,  but this is different from saying all people who self-identify as black are included in this definition.  The definition includes liberals and conservatives too, but that doesn't mean all liberals and conservatives are black. And btw, 99.999% of people who self-identify as black do indeed have origins in the black racial groups of Africa  Timelist 22:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You only quote a part of the definition. This is dishonest to say the least. What's the other part? Oh yes that's the bit that says It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, There is no proviso here, it does not exclude any groups. There is no other way to interpret this. Alun 16:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

African AMerican is good enough
this is crazy, this needs to be deleted. You cant do this, I have a view on White people should i create a new page and go on a rant? can i do this, if so i will and see what happens.--Halaqah 11:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

we all suffer from a danger of sinking into our beliefs and reason suffers, we go blind. this is not even a good article, i mean is it me or "who looks black" this convo belongs on Oprah, very talk show, very poor. Okay i would over complain about it but the entire piece is a reaction, and reactions are poor academic articles. Ethnicity, I cannot see how black could be an ethnic group. it could be a political term for various ethnic groups, a social term for various ethnic groups. as said in the other artcile there is no blackia or blackistan so where is the home land or ethnic origin of blacks?--Halaqah 11:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the census, the homeland for the black ethnic group is Africa. It says black people are those having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.  Black is far more than a just a description of dark skin.  In much of the world it has evolved a meaning of ethnic pride exclusively for those of us who are descendents of the African diasporas.  Why in the world anyone anywhere would feel threatened by this fact is beyond me, but if you must delete this article, there's not a lot I can do, as I am extremely busy this week.  Timelist 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

African American is more strictive than what Timelist intends by this article. This article is about a category of people bigger than African american, but smaller than Black people. It is about an intermediate category of people. It is about African Americans plus the people of their ancestral homes plus other recent African ancestry people, in particular those with dark skin (but not always given the One Drop Rule).--Filll 15:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Does such a group exist? I'm not sure that it does. What of the African diaspora? This article at least needs a name that better reflects what it intends to be. It has a very North American flavour, and as such suffers from systemic bias. If it is about Black people with a recent African origin, then it needs to avoid portraying all such people from a North American point of view. Most people that this article are about actually live in Africa anyway, so it should reflect an African point of view as per undue weight. Alun 16:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article could be merged into African diaspora, probably, or relabeled as people of the African diaspora if there is too much material for one article. This article however, is meant to have a particularly American flavor and view, I believe, and focus on ethnicity and culture and a social group and view, and American view. The diaspora article is meant just to trace where all the people went. --Filll 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research
There are now a series of articles devoted to US Blacks, Black Africans, Africans, and others describing dark-skinned people from around the world. The choice of division likely constitutes Original Research, and you should review the relevant policy: No Original Research. Jd2718 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think an article on Black Africans exists, although I think it would not violate any rules to create one. African Americans are not always dark skinned. Not even close. African people encompass a wide range of people found on a continent with almost a billion people, and therefore is completely reasonable. I think that "the black ethnic cultural group" as defined in the USA is broader than the African American group. It is also somewhat uniquely defined by the USA, and different than what is found in Europe or the Caribbean or South America or Australia or Asia. It is widely recognized by the pubic, media, dictionaries, and government bodies. For example, there is an official Black History Month and a Congressional Black Caucus. This group is also highly influential because of its wealth and productivity; rap, hiphop, jazz, language, dress, food, all manner of popular culture such as dance, songs, music, movies, comedy, etc. It is not synonymous with dark skin. American citizenship is not required. It includes segments of African and world populations. It does not necessarily even include all of African Americans, although exactly who is excluded is probably disputed.--Filll 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "the black ethnic cultural group" as defined in the USA is broader than the African American group.
 * This may be a reasonable point of view for you to hold. I cannot comment, but we still need cites and sources. If it is a widely held point of view then we should be able to cite this very easily. Personally I am sceptical that such a group is not just identical to the African American group, but I'm no expert. I'd also like to point out that this article should reflect a world perspective. If it's about a "North American Black ethnic cultural group" then this should be reflected in the article title. We also need to be specific as to why this group is different to the African American group. Alun 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need to cite it and document it carefully. This current article is pretty sad. I do know from living here in the USA that African Americans in particular, and Americans in general, have a very specific view of the world that is very provincial. And they are so wealthy and numerous that this has a large influence on the world. The title is potentially a bad one and might need to be changed.--Filll 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be even more hostile to any concept of a black African. As i maintain, the problem with this article is that it offers no encylopedic value, it is a POV, it can be merged into either African American or black people. Black Africa isnt offering any solutions, is it. because who looks black African makes no sense. so the content here is more applicable to African American, or African Diaspora. I dont think hausa sit down and debate "who looks black" really now, it isnt a worldview, so merge, delete and move on.--Halaqah 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bantu article seems to cover, and less controversially, the intended concept. Jd2718 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request
I am not sure that we should go against User:Strothra's suggestion.--Filll 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you have a good argument, it's just that there are many interested individuals involved who should have a say and thus an AfD is more appropriate than a prod. Perhaps it would also foster debate which might be productive for your purposes. --Strothra 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If we cannot stop it from being deleted then we will be back to square one again, and back to fighting at black people. I do not want to go back to that. I want to go forward. And if it takes some division of articles in this way or another way, so be it. I am more interested in writing than fighting.--Filll 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fill you cannot resolve one problem by creating a new one. I dont like the fighting. It reminds me of Ethiopia and Eritrea, something close to me, so easy to say lets split off and do or own thing, it never works, make the process of arbitration and democracy work, let plurality and process run there course. black as stated is not an ethnic group, so it isnt even a correct article--Halaqah 20:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a change of name? What other compromise is possible?--Filll 20:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Think things through
I am getting a little frustrated with people whom I consider to be friends and well-intentioned people fighting among themselves over nothing but badly used words. I am also getting my ego involved a little because it seems that the only way to get one's ideas taken seriously is to start making unpopular changes in the "Black people" article itself. I've seen both kinds of things happen before.

Two of the contributors on the RFD page said something about the suitability of the title of this article that gets close to the root of all this confusion. Frankly, I do not know what an ethnicity is. If a certain senior editor were present I am sure he would offer a reading list so that I could educate myself on the subject, but I doubt that any amount of sophistication with regard to the term "ethnicity" would help.

It is counter-productive to name something before you know pretty clearly what it is that you are trying to name. The evidence is clear in the case of the "Black people" article. Everybody has a different idea of what those words ought to mean. As Zhuang Zi once pointed out during an argument with a prominent sophist in his circle, even if one person wins such an argument the truth or suitability of the winning position may still be in question. Appealing to an additional "expert" only leads to more piling on of opinions.

Fortunately we live in a culture that understands a standard for deciding things that goes beyond merely asserting: "I get to decide what you must believe." The price of our alternative method of deciding is that we never get to assume that we have things absolutely pegged down. But we can at least ground our assertions in empirical research.

What we have is an increasingly clear picture of a family of man that has descended from one source, and has done so in several semi-independent paths of migration and accommodation to new environments. More than 50 years have gone by since the genetic basis for this study began to be teased out from the bodies of individual humans, and the picture has grown progressively clearer. It is possible that some stunning new kind of evidence will prove our current picture false on more than details incorrectly interpolated, but we are fast running out of new places to look for extraordinary proofs.

If we use that picture to look at Africa and the migrations we see clear evidence of growth in populations, migrations of populations, back- and cross-migrations of populations, adaptations by selection and mutation to newly entered environments, and the gradual accumulation of changes in the genotypes of remote groups that have no known functional significance but are helpful in dating changes and documenting the progress of migrating populations over the surface of the earth.

But the facts of genetic differentiation are only part of the picture when we are concerned with how people live and how they fare at the hands of others. Language and cultural features are learned, but human groups are highly conservative of these features, and differences among them that are purely matters of convention can influence the third leg of the tripod upon which individual social identities rest. The third leg is the constructions that people, and especially people in positions of social dominance, place upon the other factors.

Calling this article something like "Black (social construct)" may a bit nerdy and a bit too narrow, but that suggestion from the RFD page strikes me as moving in the correct direction.

One phenomenon that needs to be explicated, but not in this article, is the genetic inheritance of human groups and individuals.

Another phenomenon that needs to be explicated, but not in this article, is the social and linguistic inheritance of human groups. They need not follow their genetic inheritances in any exact way.

The third phenomenon, and one that it appears to me that this article is taking at least faltering aim at, is the constructions that may be placed on anybody who has a black skin if they happen to venture into the United States or certain other quarters. If somebody has certain "silent language" characteristics, s/he may be categorized with a certain group. If one speaks a certain language, s/he may be categorized with a certain group. If one's skin has a certain hue, s/he may be categorized with a certain group. Cross-coding of these features can be confusing. The more consistent all the possible "marker characteristics" are, the more certain the people doing the impromptu characterizations will be sure that they know how to "correctly" pigeon-hole and deal with the individual in question.

Many of the characteristics that go into any of these assessments are positive, and the presence of a positive characteristic in one group does not necessarily imply the absence of a similar positive characteristic in other groups. What a poor world it would be if each little group were strictly limited to the consumption of their own group-specific cuisine. (No Mulligan stew for the rest of you! -- But, wait, that would mean I couldn't have any more yakisaba. Bad deal, I withdraw my original command.)

But we need to understand exactly what has been done and is being done to people who under casual observation are judged to be "black." My preference would be for those judgments always to be made by the "Black is beautiful!" crowd, but I know it is not so. P0M 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For my friends who are so sure they know what a "black person" is in the USA
Take a look at these Americans: Which of these famous Americans, some of whom you might recognize, would you think is black? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC). oops--Filll 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)
 * 21)
 * 22)
 * 23)
 * 24)
 * 25)


 * No fair peeking! Just tell me which of the people in which of the pictures you believe is a black person.--Filll 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)