Talk:Black billionaires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black billionaires article.
Articles for deletion This page was previously nominated for deletion. Consider the following prior discussions before re-nominating:

Contents

[edit] Recent Changes

EditingOprah, please discuss your opposition to the changes I made here. Many of them were minor fixes, adding citation notices, and fixing grammatical structure. I understand the problems created by multiple edits within a short time frame and I'll try to avoid doing it again. Contrary to our discussions leading up to this point, I'm not here to wreck your favorite article, but to work on what I can. Since it's apparently sticking around for good, please accept my good faith effort to improve it. Thanks! --S0uj1r0 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to note that most of my edits had summaries, contrary to what your reversion summary stated. Please try to be thoughtful when undoing others' work. --S0uj1r0 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to please address your opposition to the changes I made on the talk page without immediately reverting. You attest about them:

His changes are very drastic & I don't have time to correct all his mistakes. He accused someone of alleging racism with a cite, he removed huge sections & Forbes classifies billionaires as selfmade

I never 'accused someone of alleging racism with a cite'. Please make your reasons for reversion more clear by discussing them in-depth on the talk page. The article simply states "Racism was also suspected" with regards to Oprah's run-in with Hermes. This is speculation. Who was racism suspected by? Please cite your sources. Since the article was implying that Oprah had alleged such racist conduct, I added a "[citation needed]" tag for this claim. I also removed a phrase which was stolen directly from the Arizona Daily Star which you restored with your revert. I fixed numerous spelling, grammatical, and structural errors. As for "self-made", I believe it's a somewhat loaded term, and it was repeated excessively in the article (5 times in just that subsection). If its absolutely necessary to keep every instance of it, please argue for that here. Just because Forbes uses the word as a type of classification doesn't mean it needs to be repeated 5 times. As a show of good faith, I will attempt to await your detailed reply here and look to integrate some of the changes I think the article needs afterwards. Thanks. --S0uj1r0 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

S0uj1r0 the article goes into graphic detail about all the people who suspected racism when Oprah was not allowed into Hermes (with exact quotes) so I don't understand why you're asking questions like "suspected by who?". Also, you claim a phrase was "stolen". Well I'm not sure if your definition of plagiarism is any more reliable than your definition of "original research" and "future research" but you removed a fascinating part of the discussion. Surely you realize that quoting sources is not plagiarism? And I can understand why you think the term "self-made " is POV, but once again you're taking things too literally. Obviously no man (or woman) is an island, but the term is used only to distinguish those wealthy people who did not inherit a substantial part of their fortune, and used in that sense it's quite objective. CJ Walker has been called the first self-made woman millionaire and became the richest African American, so that fact that Oprah too has become the richest African American and is also classified as self-made (she’s actually more self-made than most since her mother was on welfare) is a parallel worth pursuing. If the term was used too frequently, the last place it needs to be removed is from the photo caption, because those are often the only things people read, so the main points in each section should be summarized there. Editingoprah 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed 4th AfD

EditingOprah,

If it helps to understand where I'm coming from, here is the full text from the first point under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball":

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

Nothing can be said about Tiger Woods becoming a billionaire that is not speculation at this point. The fact that he makes a large amount of money every year and if he continues to do so he will reach one billion dollars is not sufficient to meet the above criteria because it is not almost certain to take place in even close to the same way that the 2008 Election or the 2012 Olympics are. The inclusion of a few given sources that speculate on Tiger's income are not encyclopedic. I can present you with all sorts of similar speculations that find their way to newstands in the form of tabloids that are no more or less encyclopedic than this article. The fact that it's filled with numbers pulled from financial publications doesn't mean it's useful. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate publisher of magazine hype, nor is it a data dump for statistics from Forbes. You further state:

There are all kinds of Black scholars who have all kinds of theories of why ther aren't more Back billionaires. You may call that a POV launch pad but I call it sociological theories, and reporting on theories is what encyclopedia's do. If you feel the theories are too slanted to the political left, then feel free to add right-wing theories. But please stop advocating the deletion of this article because it's my favorite article on wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This includes original research and opinions of current affairs, both of which apply here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This isn't about stating both of our opinions and battling it out so that each gets equal airtime in a discordant and conflicting article full of unsound theories. This is about deciding if the article as a whole has sufficient merit to be worth keeping, and I believe I've established that it fails to meet the criteria for such in several areas. As for your last statement, plenty of articles full of vanity and original research are created and deleted every day, and they were all someone's pet project. I will, and ought to, vote for the deletion of any aticle that fails to meet Wikipedia standards, regardless of whose favorite article it is. This is one such article, and I'm in favor of deleting it and merging anything useful in it with African_American#Economic_Status. --S0uj1r0 06:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Souj1r0 I already explained to you several times that the article is not about only African-Americans so how could it merged into that article. Do you think America is the only place where Black people live? Anyway the interpretation of all the wikipedia rules you cite are so subjective that I have no interest in debating them because there's no objective right answer. Sure things could be changed, and things should be taken out but the basic data in the article is useful. It may not be important to you but it's survived 4 nomianation so obviously a lot of people find it useful, so why in the world would you want to deny people the opportunity to read it? I don't understand. And if you honestly feel that racial economic disparity at the highest level is not an important subject then we're living on different planets. Editingoprah 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, please read all the policies over again - you're completely misapplying them. Wikipedia ain't a crystal ball would prevent us from saying Tiger Woods will become a billionaire (a prediction) but it doesn't prevent people from going Hey look, Tiger Woods is pretty rich (verifiable). Similarly, Wikipedia ain't a publisher o' original thought means you can't use it to publish your opinions - opinions published elsewhere can be repeated here. Maybe it wasn't clear that this means only Wikipedia is not a first publisher of original thought but also everything in here is either original thought or original research by someone at somepoint, published somewhere else, then republished here. That's how encyclopaedias work, and a general requirement of an empirical outlook. WilyD 12:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am thoroughly familiar with the policies I mentioned. My argument about crystal ball statements and original research hinges upon the fact that Tiger woods, according to the article's sources, has a disputed net worth of about a half-billion dollars or less. The article does not simply say "Tiger is rich", but rather "Tiger woods is likely to become a billionaire", and extrapolating on the given data without citing a source that claims he is likely to become a billionaire is a prediction and original research. --S0uj1r0 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That said, there's not much point in debating about it now. The article is still around, and, like all articles, should cite its sources and not offer up original claims. Fortunately, it's pretty good about that right now, but could always become better. I've decided to devote some time to improving the article since, after four AfD nominations, it seems to be around for good. --S0uj1r0 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In other words you hadn't even read the article before advocating its deletion. Please discuss major changes on the talk page, since many of the regulars don't have time to track a rapid fire series of edits. Thank you. Editingoprah 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add emphasis to my comments on the talk page or otherwise modify them. They exist as a matter of record to other editors and should not be changed unless they exhibit personal attacks as per Wikipedia policy. I read the article before advocating its deletion, and I'm not sure where your allegation that I haven't originates. Please address the changed I made above. --S0uj1r0 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up

I didn't vote in the AFD for this article, however I do believe that the article should be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards if it is kept. OSU80 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of black

The only way we can keep this thing somewhat NOPV is by providing Forbes' definition of black, not yours or anyone else's. There will never be an agreement here as to who black is or not, especially with some editors making pronouncements such as "He's Blasian" and "many feel Chinese is the genetic opposite of black". Furthermore, refrain from rumormongering, and leave your own assumptions and conclusions out of the article. This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. --Ezeu 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you feel the defintion of black in the article was racist? Everyone agrees that modern humans started in Africa so what's wrong with defining blacks as those with a majority of ancestors that stayed in Africa during the original out of Africa exodus? That's how scientists define it. To me the one drop rule is racist, and also virtually everyone on Earth has at least one drop of black blood. Kobrakid 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The article you cite does not define "black", it deals with the subject of human migration out of Africa, and in any case, Oppenheimer's theory, as plainly noted on the linked page, does not reflect general scientific consensus – and actually deals more with the origin of Europeans than what is relevant here. So if you are going to use it in an encyclopedia, you should make it clear that it is not a generally held view. But I beg your pardon for calling the definition racist, I should have called it flawed. --Ezeu 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems good enough for our purpose which is defining black. Yes scientists may disagree on some of the fine points, but there's a basic consensus that modern humans started in Africa, and those that left Africa went on to form the non-black races. Do you honestly disagree with that? Now if later on another study finds it wasn't just one migration but two, or that it wasn't 70,000 years ago but 60,000 years ago, we can always update the definition, but it's more important to define black in a precise and scientific way, just as billionaire has a precise and objective definition. I vote we put it back in. If we don't put it back in people will start adding all sorts of nonsense to the page (i.e. so and so has a great great grandmother who is black and thus he's a black billionaire too). Just as the line defining billionaire is clearly drawn, the line defining black should also be clearly drawn as it is by geneticists who say most of your ancestors have to have stayed in sub-Sahran Africa for a certain amount of time for you to genetically qualify as black. Kobrakid 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Defining who is, or is not black cannot be done as easily as defining who is a billionaire or not. Your definition categorically disregards from all non-African people who self identify as black, which is extreme POV. It is not within the scope of this article to make sweeping definitions about something that cannnot be agreed upon. --Ezeu 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I consider myself to be fairly educated when it comes to race, and this is the first I've ever heard of non-African people calling themselves black. Obviously there are billions of people in the world, and the term black is going to be used in a lot of different ways, but as an encyclopedia I think we need to stick to scientific conceptions of black. Obviously black can be used in all kinds of informal ways, some of them even metaphorical, like when Toni Morrison called Clinton the first black president. But cultural, social, and metaphorical definitions of black should be given much less weight in an encyclopedia than scientific definitions. Even the definition you wanted to use "African ethnicity" acknowledges the importances of African ancestry, the only problem was it was vaguely defined and insufficiently precise. Keep in mind that "billionaire" is also sometimes used informally by people to describe anyone who is super rich, regardless of whether they actually cross the billion dollar mark, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia has to stoop to that level of inprecision. The definition of black that was being used is very middle of the road (not the extremes of the one drop rule or the opposite extremes of Brazil). Like your definition it emphasized African herritage, the only difference is that it precisely explained what that means (since all people started in Africa) and also precisely drew the line at how much African ancestry is required (since all humans are mixed to some degree). We have a very precise definition of billionaire. It would be nice if we could also have a very precise definition of black. It will certainly save us headaches from later editors if the definition is clear to everyone from the outset. Kobrakid 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sure you think you are educated. You can however not pick a definition of "black" that suits your "education" and impose it on others. Not in wikipedia. You may not consider Papua New Guineans and aboriginals black, but that is your point of view. --Ezeu 20:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
True. It's also my point of view that one plus one equals two, but I'll be sure not to impose that on anyone :-) Kobrakid 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about those Black trillionaires?

I want to see more commentaries about the Black trillionaires. The world is overrun with Black billionaires, so there is not real reason to speak of those commonplace people. The Black trillionaires are more rare, and therefore they are significantly more interesting (to me). Superslum 21:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

if you're going to pass sarcastic commments dont make a new heading for them atleast. However I do feel that this article is completely arbitrary. --204.92.192.254 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This topic is excellent

This topic permits anyone to understand why human beings wage wars to establish homelands. Oprah Winfrey is a descendant of slaves who lives in someone else's country, so she is under a microscope. The Catholic church is very rich, but no one has created any article that is titled Catholic billionaires. (I have not seen any such article). Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In the United States of America, Negroes of 2006 are relatively poorer today than the Negroes of 1956 had been, when compared to other peoples over those 50 years of time. Percentagewise, their salaries have declined, compared with the salaries of other peoples. Modern Negroes sleep in abandoned railway tunnels in some cities here in the great "Superslum" where I live. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Caucasians who own the United States of America know that the money in the banks is theirs. Oprah Winfrey does not own anything that the Caucasians who own the banks cannot extract from her. She could lose all of her money in two seconds ... as she is incapable of protecting it. Human beings who own their own nations are rich people. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually even dictators who own their own countries can have their money taken away from them if a more a powerful country decides to do so, or if there's an internal revolt. Your arguments apply to everyone. Not black billionaires only. Editingoprah 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
A am not arguing anything. I am claiming that Oprah Winfrey is in a position that resembles the position of the Jews of Russia before the beginning of pogroms. She can be eliminated in a flash. She does not resemble a dictator, of course; she resembles the landless, nationless types who draw attention to themselves as soon as they outshine the members of the land-owning group and achieve some success. I am not shocked by the appearance of this article called Black billionaires. It was just a matter of time until some unhappy individual created that page. Superslum 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Former U.S. President "Ron" Reagan teased Negroes by ordering them to "work your way out of poverty." He knew that he could snatch money out of poor peoples' bank accounts by signing new laws which give tax breaks to rich landowners. The smirk on his face was there because he was a rich landowner whose assets are protected by the U.S. Army. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Black trillionaires own North America, Antarctica, and they may take over Asia, too, including Siberia. Black trillionaires intend to own Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury real soon. Superslum 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ignorant, Superslum. But there *are* more black billionaires than listed here. Obviously, not a WHOLE bunch more, but a few more... keep in mind, to make the Forbes list or any other list, you have to TELL them about your money, and it has to all be in ONE bank... plenty of billionaires put their money in more than one bank, and thus it wouldn't all be counted. Plus, many billionaires also don't want people to KNOW they're billionaires.

[edit] Problem

The identification of billionaires with a USD billion is problematic. Other countries certainly don't use billionaire to mean USD billion - Canadians use CDN, British use pounds, Aussies use their dollar, et cetera. This needs to be fixed. WilyD 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this work for you?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like that's been solved by the title change.--M@rēino 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Okay, a reversion war isn't needed (or allowed), so let's try to hash out a version of the article that's acceptable to everyone. I'll bring up a few points

  • The article already links to Black people so an in depth discussion of what "makes a person black" isn't needed here. A short mention of the irregularities on this issue is sufficient.
  • As long as the discussion on the first Black guy to make Forbes 400 should make clear that he is not considered a billionaire - but a mention at the end should be fine, for historical context and the like - especially in the context of things like inflation.
  • I know there's a strong urge to editorialise a sensitive subject like this, but we have to remain objective.
WilyD 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Agreed. This article is about Black billionaires. It is not about the meaning of "black", the question of who is black, or racial theory. We have plenty of seperate articles for that. Keeping articles on the topic stated in the title helps people find what they are looking for, and helps to keep all the articles in top condition. The best way to keep to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all those other important principles is to stick to the topic at hand, which is the phenomenom of black billionaires.--M@reino 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its fine as it stand save for that last sentence of Black-Asian Billionaire. That's editorializing.

It is in fact fine if we can attribute it to Black Enterprise magasine (or whomever). As I read things, that's where this opinion comes from - it would be better if we directly attribute it to someone. But since there is a dispute about whether he's black, it's not for use to decide, per WP:NPOV WilyD 11:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading Wily's comments and re-reading the whole article, it might be best to move Michael Lee-Chin into the billionaires list and out of his own section. After all, if Forbes and Black Enterprise consider him black, who are we to say otherwise? I think we're probably committing original research.--M@reino 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Is this true? I can't find it, but I was under the impression that Forbes did *not* count hiw as black, and that's where the origin of the whole issue is. Am I mistaken? WilyD 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, to be most accurate, Forbes does not break down billionaires (or anyone else) by race as a matter of policy. They don't even mention that Oprah Winfrey is black.[1] Here's Lee-Chin's entry (along with a MUCH nicer photo; it's a shame that it's under copyright) [2]--M@reino 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Are we sure they've never said anything about it? It seems like the kind of thing they might mention as an aside someplace? Anyways, if we can't find any such source, then he should go onto the chart, I agree WilyD 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Forbes does not consider Michael-Lee Chin Black. They made a huge deal about how Bob Johnson and Oprah were the first 2 black billionaires they could ever confirm, even though Lee-Chin was on their list before either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.1.195.5 (talk • contribs).
            • Okay - good. Do you know where the source for this is? WilyD 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Two things: one, that means that CBS is defining black, not Forbes. Two, your source is from early 2003, and it says "...two years after Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson became the first black billionaire." Lee-Chin only cracked the billion mark in 2001, so maybe he did so after Robert Johnson. I don't know. But yes, it does look like CBS was disputing -- or ignoring -- Lee-Chin, either b/c he's not American or because he's only half-black.--M@reino 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
CBS was not the only one to report the same statistics. USA today had an almost identical story. Both get their data from Forbes, unless you're suggesting that CBS themselves went through the hundreds of billionaires on the list themselves to decide who was Black. Also, in Forbes profile on Bob Johnson they categorically describe him as the first black billionaire even though both Bob Johnson and Michael Lee-Chin appeared on Forbes billionaire list for the first time in 2001. And Forbes only creates its international billionaire list once a year and based on market value on a specific day of the year (in January?), so as far as Forbes is concerned both Michael Lee-Chin and Bob Johnson became billionaires at the same time, yet only Bob Johnson was described as the first black billionaire. This is probably because people of mixed race parents are assigned the race of the non-Caucasian parent, but when both parents are non-Caucasian (i.e. Michael Lee-Chin, Tiger Woods) they are just described as bi-racial....72.1.195.5 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The changes

To this article need to stop. Someone needs to lock it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max1975 (talk • contribs).

  • I'm very impressed that you know about locking already, since this was only your third edit! I always like it when knew people educate themselves into Wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree. In this case, I think it's a sign of healthy and constructive group editing of an article that is brand-new (created yesterday) on a rather important topic, and therefore is bound to need lots of editing. --M@reino 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Several of us have been guilty of violating WP:3RR, but since we've settled down, there's no point in blocking us now to let us cool off, since we're already cool. I don't believe a lock is necessary yet, anyhow. WilyD 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does genetic opposites discussion keep getting edited out?

I think it's interesting to point out that not only is Lee-Chin only half Jamaican (who are mostly black) but that his other half is the exact opposite of black. Someone posted a genetic chart showing that North East Asians are the opposite of Black, so overall he may be less black than most white billionaires (who are neither Black nor the opposite of Black). And yes North East Asia was extremely cold when it was colonized.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.1.195.5 (talk • contribs).

Several reasons
    • It reeks of original research, and is at the very least uncited
    • It adds nothing to the discussion of Black billionaires, especially nothing that's appropriate for this page. There are already several links to discussion of multi-racial people here, where this kind of thing would be more appropriate (if it could be cited)
    • It's pushing a POV
There are probly others, I wasn't the one who excised it, but those are the obvious problems with it that I see WilyD 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'll add a fourth thing: those edits kept on insisting that NE Asia (which in this context means China, not Siberia) is the coldest and last-colonized place on earth. That's simply not true. The entire Western Hemisphere was colonized after NE Asia, and huge swathes of Europe, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, and Patagonia are much colder than China. So even if this information were relevant, it's wrong. --M@reino 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the climate today with the climate of ancient times. The North East Asian race had more exposure to the ice ages than any other race, and that's one of the reasons they have their unique features. And genetic evidence suggests they and their cousins (the Native Americans) are the youngest human race, and they split off from the parent population of Caucasians and Caucasians split off from their parent population which are Africans. Thus while Europeans are once removed from Africans (Africans are their parents), North East Asians are twice removed from Africans (Africans are their grand-parents). That means that Blasians are who are a mix of Africans and those twice removed from Africans are on average only once removed from Africans (just like white people). For this reason, on the genetic level, Blasians are genetically no closer to Black people than white people are, so if you're going to call Michael Lee-Chin a black billionaire, then Bill Gates is one too. Are you guys following what I'm trying to say?...72.1.195.5 23:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We understand your argument, we just reject it for the article on the basis that its original research, and that iit's not germane to the discussion at hand, and reject it on the talk page because its almost certainly false. WilyD 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you're calling it original research tells me you don't understand. Are you crediting wikipedians with discovering one of the most significant findings of modern genetic reasearch? It's the research of Cavalli-Sforza. And it's outrageous to claim it's not germaine to the discussion. The discussion is about whether Lee-Chin is black, and you say it's not germaine to report cutting edge research showing half his ancestors are the most genetically removed from Blacks. It's actually the single most encyclopedic thing in the entire article and it's extremely POV to try to to censor something so relevant to the discussion. It's withholding of information, and it's insulting to Robert Johnson's legacy to give the impression that Lee-Chin could be black (based on some obscure magazine) while withholding much more authoritative data.--Whatdoyou 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then put a link to Cavalli-Sforza in one of the see-also sections. Don't add it to this article. And the chart that you're trying to include is not from Cavalli-Sforza, it's from the website of a crank who writes for the Charles Martel Society. --M@reino 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't why you feel so threatened by this, but I just want people to understand that Lee-Chin is genetically not black because I don't want to see Bob Johnson's legacy threatened without justification. And the graph appears in Cavalli-Sforza's book the history and geography of human genes. It's cited by all kinds of people (cranks and credible scholars)--Whatdoyou 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a lovely point of view, but it simply isn't encyclopaedic, and not appropriate for an article like this - there are other articles where the research (without the commentary) are far more appropriate. Not all of us (if any of us, which seems dubious) feel threatened by this - I myself cannot give a flying fuck about who the first black billionaire is/was/will be, but I do care about WP:NPOV. WilyD 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just read Wikipedia's Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza article. It doesn't even mention the possibility that, once racial categories are acknowledged as genetically based, that any one race is "further" or more "removed" than any other race. You should focus on finding sources in Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's own work that would support adding this assertion to the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza article before you even try adding it elsewhere. --M@reino 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you guys are both great editors, but on this one issue I feel you are not well informed. Cavalli-Sforza's book is over 1000 pages and contains mountains of data showing the genetic distance between different population groups. It's not mentioned in his article because people feel so threatened by the link between genes and race that the second anyone adds it massive editing wars break out. But by withholding the genetic data while citing other sources calling Lee-Chin black, you are not being balanced, and you are leading people to conclude that perhaps Bob Johnson was not the only confirmed billionaire black man in history after all. This is extremely unfair and extremely dishonest when modern genetic data confirms that Lee-Chin is no more Black than Europeans are. If you literally take the mid-point of the genetic distance between Blacks and North East Asians (i.e. Blasians), it's about the same as the genetic distance between Blacks and Europeans, which means that Blasians are no closer to Black than Europeans are. Hence it's EXTREMELY misleading and dishonest to give the impression that Lee-Chin could be black. I'm not trying to go into graphic detail about this topic in the article. I just want it briefly mentioned in the interest of full disclosure. It looks like we might have found a compromise--Whatdoyou 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look, here are the important points:
  1. This may all well be good research, but this simply isn't the place for it. Take it to Black people or whatever - the article on Canada does not go into a long speil about what is or isn't a country, and the history of countries - it merely wikilinks to an appropriate place for the discussion. That he's multiracial and that this causes some to discount him as black is all that's really appropriate here. We really have no business rehashing the whole argument here.
  2. Even if it turns out that East Asians are farthest from blacks, with whites closer to each, crossing the first two doesn't necessarily equate to the third option, that's original research (that would, for example, be rejected by the adherents of the one-drop theory, I imagine.
There are likely more, but these are the most pressing two WilyD 17:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's outrageous to claim that this is not the right place for the research. This is the only article that discusses a dispute about whether a Blasian is Black, so there is no more relevant a place to discuss this. And I'm not trying to rehash the whole argument. I just want it briefly mentioned. You scaled my edits down and in the interest of compromise I accept that because at least you're letting it be mentioned. And I'm not even trying to reinsert the section about him being genetically no closer to Black than a European is (you don't want that in the article I understand) but it's a mathematical reality that if Europeans are 1 genetic step from Blacks, and North East Asians are 2 genetic steps from Blacks, and Blacks are 0 genetic steps from Blacks (since they are Black) then Blaisians who are an average of Blacks and North East Asians would equate to Europeans in terms of genetic distance from Blacks. But again I'm happy with your recent edit, and have no intention of pushing this any further as long as we can keep it as you left it.--Whatdoyou 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalli-Sforza

According to an article published in The Economist, the work of Cavalli-Sforza "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all."

Has Whatdoyou even bothered to check that little fact? He mentions the work of Cavalli-Sforza as though it’s monumental in pointing out the differences between races, which incidentally has been the excuse for all kinds of human tragedy. That statement really doesn't belong there because its Whatdoyou's opinion -- which is not even a real interpretation of what Cavalli-Sforza thought of his own work.

Pointing out so called genetic differences has lead to sentiments of race superiority which in turn historically has led to: 1. Nazis killing Jews; 2. Slavery of African Americans, poor whites, and even Chinese in South America; 3. Japanese killing Chinese and Koreans; 4. The Rwandan massacre; 5. Modern day racism and oppression of minorities in America; 6. Arabs/Muslims versus Jews and Western Society

And the list goes on and on...that would be some of the points behind NOT putting in this piece of information into this article.

Finally, let's add the fact that there are no really and truly "black" people in the America's. Not many people may have seen it, but Henry Louis Gates recently had a special (DNA heritage among blacks) in which he showed that the majority of Mae Jemison's (first "black" female astronaut) genes were ASIAN. However when one looks at Mae Jemison is that what you see before you? I'm sure many people (including Mae Jemison) would say no. Therefore being black has way more to do with how you self identify rather than so called genetics.

We have to be balanced and show all sides. Tiger Woods does not sel-identify as Black because of his Asian ancestry. And some who self-identify as Black are not percieved that way by others. That's why it's important to look at race from a genetic perspective. If a Blasian were to tell a doctor that he was Black and get medical treatemnet based on Black genetics he would die, so medical text books talk about how important it is to make sure people know what race they are and to look past self-identification and appearance.....72.1.195.5 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The majority of Mae Jemison's genes were NOT Asian. She has ONE Asian Grand parent. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06032/647467.stm
Can you add references to these medical books? I've never heard of anyone dying because they didn't tell their doctor that they are black. Mapetite526 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Distance Tree

Stop arguing with genetic data. It's extremely well documented:

Image:Genetree.gif

[edit] That chart and this article

Says nothing. Everyone knows that in America particularly race matters. In this article it matters even more because the assertion that is being made and has been made overtly is that blacks are incapable of being billionaires and BEING BLACK. That the real racism behind adding that piece.

Most of you on here: Let's look at all the components of a person! Especially if he or she is "black"! They must have some other genes that account for their achievement. All or most so called African Americans or Africans in the Americas have other genes the majority Caucasian genes. So let's follow your ignorant argument that Asians and Caucasians are closest on the tree. That would mean by proxy, as a result of slavery most African American (who have been removed from African for damn near three centuries!) are the FURTHEST thing from African possible, and closer to Asians that you think. That is what makes that chart UNAPPLICABLE!


It does not take into account the mixtures that have happened as a result of chattel slavery and generations of Afro-European mixtures.

You're not making any sense. African-Americans are on average 83% African and 17% Caucasian. They are Black because Black is the single largest chunk of their gene pool. No person on Earth is 100% pure so race is defined by the single largest chunck of ones ancestry. It's been pointed out that Michael Lee-Chin is 45% Black, 5% white and 50% Chinese so he's not predominantly Black, and any doctor that gave him medical treatment intented for Blacks would be fired especially since the Chinese gene-pool is the opposite of the Black gene-pool.--Whatdoyou 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Medical treatment intended for blacks?!? You mean like Tuskegee Syphilis Study? That's hardly appropriate! And how does someone become 1/20th white, or 1/20th anything? Shouldn't it be a factor of 2? --M@reino 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There are certain (although uncommon) cases where race does play a factor in medical treatment - there are certain diseases where different drugs are perscribed based on race, et cetera. As for 2 factors, that's only a single ancestor case. With a mixture of ancestory, one can approach arbitrary fractions. WilyD 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to see references here. I have never heard of anyone dying because their doctor didn't know what "race" they were. Mapetite526 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CALM

DOWN!

We're trying to write an encyclopedia here. Wikipedia never solves disputes, we just report on them neutrally. If anyone wants to take this "who is black and who's not" discussion to blacks, be my guest, but on the Black Billionaire page, all we have do to is note "look around, and you'll see some well-meaning people who disagree", and then move on. Sorry to shout at the start of this section, but I would really like it if we'd just try to get along and move on to other topics. --M@reino 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Points

  1. Science is always arguable - any scientist can tell you this, but if you want an obvious example, see Modified Newtonian Dynamics. There are few if any scientific theories or observations that don't have detractors.
  2. Whatyoudo, you're still trying to make the point that whites are somehow "more black" than orientals. This is a pretty controversial claim, one I (frankly) don't see the logic in. Blue light is closer to X-Ray light than Red light is, but a beam of light that's 50% red light and 50% X-Ray light is just as "X-Ray-y" as a beam of light that's 50% blue light and 50% X-Ray light, as both blue and red light are "0% X-Ray-y".

WilyD 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Willy D it would be like having an article about tall billionaires and including someone as a tall billionaire because half their ancestors are tall, and then withholding from the reader the fact that the other half oth their ancestors are short so it cancels out. That's both misleading and dishonest. Just give the reader all the imfo and let them decide if he's black or part black or multi-racial. We shouldn't censor information, especially first-rate science.--Whatdoyou 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, here's the point we're making. If we say Half his ancestors were tall, half were short, that's appropriate, just as we now say Half his ancestors are black, half are oriental. It's the attempts to say So it cancels out that everyone is objecting too (or at least, it's the part I find objectionable). That much fails both WP:NPOV and WP:OR in terms of elidgibility for inclusion. Beyond that, this is not the place to discuss what makes someone tall, that's an appropriate subject for discussion at Tall people. WilyD 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I agree with you that the smaller picture looks much better. WilyD 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes but what some others here are trying to do is say half his ancestors are tall, and the other half comes from this part of the world (without allowing it to be mentioned that that part of the world is short, and thus dishonestly giving the impression that the billionaire is more tall than not). The reason this bothers me is that by withholding the fact that North East Asians are genetically the most distant from Blacks, we're allowing people to believe that Michael Lee-Chin could be Black, when in reality Blasians do no better with Black organ transplants than white people do, and indeed are hardly any more Black than Europeans are at the genetic and biomedical level. The reason this bothers me is because Bob Johnson has earned his place as the first and only Billionaire Black man in the history of capitalism, and people are challenging his title by giving the unscientific impression that Michael Lee-Chin could be Black too. I like the idea of keeping this article nice and precise and mathematically objective. Forbes defines you as a billionaire if you have a net-worth equivalent to at least $1 billion in U.S. dollars (the most universal currency) and not one penny less. Similarly in biology, your Black if your number of ancestors that stayed in Sub-Saharan Africa during the homo S. Sapians original out of Africa migration(s) reaches MAJORITY, and not a single ancestor less. Unfortuantely however we will get all these wishywashy editors who will argue that even though person X's ancestry is less than majority Black, person X is Black because he gets treated like a black man when he tries to catch a taxi. Next we'll have people arguing, even though person X is only worth $600 million, he's a billionaire because he lives the life of a billionaire, socially identifies as a billionaire, and gets treated like a billionaire when he shops at fancy stores.--Whatdoyou 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but this is just an opinion about what makes someone black - and we don't get to make decisions about what does (or doesn't) make someone black. Plenty of people would disagree. IFF some reputable source starts calling everyone with 500+ million a billionaire, well then it'll be tough shit for us, they'll be included. Similiarly if some reputable source identifies someone as black, we can't decide they're wrong - we can only say something like, others disagree. We can't even try to sneakily make the argument that they're wrong, that still fails policies like WP:OR. It's fairly obvious that in standard english usage you can be "black" whilst having a minority of black ancestors - you may wish this wasn't true, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox - it's an encyclopaedia. WilyD 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It really depends on the time, place, and individual. During the days of the one drop rule, someone who was 1/32th Black was considered Black, but in much of Latin America and Africa, terms like mulatto and quadroon frequently differentiate those who are part Black from those who are mostly Black. Even within the United States there are a lot of people who are half Black who are not identified as Black. Generally people who are half-white and half something else are defined by their non-white ancestry and that's probably because a lot of white racial traits are genetically recessive and so white ancestry is less visible in mixed race phenotypes. But when 2 non-white races mate, the offspring is more balanced-in someone like Michael Lee-Chin you can really see the Chinese, especially in the first photo, which is probably why it was replaced. Because I understand that different people draw the line in different ways, I redesigned the chart to accomodate those who take a one drop rule perspective vs. those who define Blacks the way every other race is defined (by preponderance of ancestry). My main point is that the truth about Michael Lee-Chin's ancestry should not be censored. Yes it's POV to say that his North East Asian ancestry cancels out his Black ancestry, but it's important for people who consider mullatoes Black to understand that Blasians are genetically much further removed from Blacks than mulattoes are. If this is not mentioned, Bob Johnson's legacy could be jeopardized and that would be an enormous tragedy.--Whatdoyou 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
But we're not censoring information about his ancestory - we're moving the parts that aren't about him, but about blacks in general, to a far more appropriate article black people or something of that ilk. Would you call him black if he was half-white half-black, but not half-chinese, half-black? This seems unlikely (but not impossible, after all under the one drop rule, you can still have a bunch of indian ancestory and be white) - so that's not really on topic here. To not say anything about what his ancestory is would also be inappropriate, but we're delving deep into here for reasons that can't really be justified - there are better articles to do that (hence "see also:") WilyD 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not just call him Canadian? Mapetite526 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson, but I think that the section on him right now is potentially libellous, in that it implies that he actually tried to spread the story that he's a billionaire, when as it came out in the media (and the Slate article demonstrates it), he was just the victim of an idiot reporter. Since everyone's freaking out about any changes to the article, I'm posting this to give 24 hrs notice before I try to rewrite the section again. --M@reino 15:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Given that the verbatium is right there, can you maybe be more specific about what you think is objectionable? WilyD 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • After looking at the evidence, multiple people (such as Barbara Walters) seem to have taken him seriously - it isn't our place to conclude he's not being serious. WilyD 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • He was being serious, it's just that "over there" doesn't mean "more than", it means "close enough". Read the Slate article. --M@reino 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Besides, I don't think we should list it everytime someone claims to be a billionaire. Open up a community newspaper, and you'll find all sorts of crackhead homeless people claiming to be billionaires or the King of Zaire. Doesn't mean they are. --M@reino 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, though if reliable third party sources are documenting it, then they may be ... in any event, a major news source seems to have taken Jackson seriously enough to investigate it - it's thus reasonable to address the issue - there's no reason to take the Slate article's view that Jackson didn't mean Over a billion any more seriously than 20/20 view that he did. I myself speak neither American nor British English and I would certainly say that Jackson sounds like he's claiming to be a billionaire. As for other cases, we can address them as we come to them. WilyD 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD/Article Purpose

I saw the AfD for this article and decided to give it a look. I made the following comment in the AfD discussion -- a response suggested a Move might be in order and that discussion might be more appropriate for this Talk page. So here's my original comment: If this article were only about billionaires who happen to be black (however you want to define that), it would be fine although the article title should be plural. However, most of the article is about other things: poverty rates, women, racism, rumors, claims, businesses, and people who aren't even on the list yet -- a list which currently has only one person on it. This effort would be better directed as something like Economic Advancement of Black People. Calling it "Billionaires" is too limiting for what the article is trying to achieve. HalJor 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't care much for the title, either. But the article is not really about poverty, women, or racism, at all, even though it refers to those subjects. It's more aptly titled "the richest known black people", but that doesn't sound very good, either. --M@reino 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That seems to be a far more general topic than what the article is - it really only addresses the issue of black billionaires (of which the current number isn't really important - Wikipedia is more like a history text than a newspaper), and/or richest black people. Of course there's a strong theme of the economic position of black people, which is fairly relevent to the subject. WilyD 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the title of the article is perfect. The words Black and Billionaire sound good together (both have that B and L sound) and virtually everything in the article relates to Black billionaires or people who may one day become black billionaires. Yes some people discussed in the article are not fully billionaires (P Diddy) and some are not fully Black (Michael Lee-Chin) but the general theme is Black billionaires. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gottoupload (talk • contribs).
    • First, the "sound" of a title is hardly an adequate criterion for its justification. Second, anyone "may one day" become a billionaire -- it's just a lot easier for those who have a head start (and those people are merely "currently wealthy"). And finally, please sign your comments. HalJor 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should change the title since virtually everyone discussed in the article is either a Black billionaire or resembles one (i.e. South Africa's first half-billionaire Black, Michael Lee-Chin is a half-black billionaire, Tiger Woods is a quarter-Black Quarter-Billionaire, Bob Johnson is a former Black Billionaire, Michael Jackson's a self-proclaimed Black billionaire). So Black Billionaire must stay in the title but if it really bothers people we could change the title to "Black Billionaires & centi-millionaires" or go even broader and call it "Black billionaires & millionaires"--Whatdoyou 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Ok, the old title was kinda iffy, but "Wealthy black people"? No, no, no, no, no. What sort of an encyclopaedia article is that? Nonsense. Guettarda 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that my rename was probably not the best, so I will revert and delete my suggestions. But this article needs to be renamed.--Ezeu 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I really am not sure what the point of this page is - I looked at the AFD debate and I couldn't make up my mind how to vote. But there are a few things to bear in mind
  • Race is based on self-identification. Calling Lee-Chin "half black" doesn't make any sense unless that is how he considers himself. Most African Americans have substantial non-African ancestry, but "quadroon" and "octaroon" are terms that hearken back to the early days of slavery. Classifying people in ways they haven't classified themselves isn't acceptable.
  • "Black" means different things in different places. It isn't a precise term. Be aware of that.
  • "Billionaire" is a very US-centric expression - $1,000,000,000 isn't a billion is Britain, and J$1,000,000,000 is very different from US$1,000,000,000. Guettarda 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Most African-Americans have about 17% not-African ancestry. Michael Lee-Chin seems to have about 55%. It's equally offensive to describe him as Black because then we're promoting the one drop rule which is based upon the assumption that a drop of Black blood contaminates. The article simply reports the number of Billionaires who have predominantly African ancestry, any known African ancestry, and the total number of billionaires.

We're not promoting the one drop rule - Chin's ancestory is clearly explained, and then readers are invited to decide whether he's black, partially black, white, or whatever else, based on their personal racial classification system. WilyD 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Where do you get that 55% figure? Shouldn't it be 50%? Jamaica has a very large population that is 100% African, genetically. --M@rēino 22:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! No one's 100% African, not even people who live in the most isolated parts of Africa. People from the Caribean are 90% Black 10% White. Half Lee-Chin's ancestors are from the Caribean so to the best of our knowledge he's 45% Black, 55% non-African.
Jamaica is described as being 90% black, not Jamaicans. As for calling him black being insulting - that's your opinion, to which you are entitled, but blood quantum is meaningless. Most African Americans are a lot whiter than most Black Jamaicans (as opposed to mixed Jamaicans - after all, Bob Marley was rejected as a white man early in his career). Regardless, it isn't up to us to decide what constitutes "black enough". Lee-Chin has been described as a black businessman (I have not, on the other hand, heard him described as Chinese, though I'm sure he'd have been called "Chinee" in Jamaica).
If you really are insulted by mixed people being passed off as black, there are a lot of African Americans who are a lot less black than Lee-Chin - like Bob Marley. And while you're at it, maybe you should raise the issue of whether Beyonce, Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X are "black enough" for you. Guettarda 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No there've been genetic tests on Black Jamaicans and they have 10% European DNA admixture, probably infused into the gene pool during slavery. Also, as we've argued about before, Blasians have a genetic profile very similar to pure whites who are actually 65% East Asian and 35% African on the genetic level because East Asians split off from Europeans who split off from Africans. So a mulatto is more Black than a Blasian. A Blasian is about as Black as a quadroon, and quadroons are not usually considered Black.--Whatdoyou 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Additional reasons why the race of Blasians is ambiguous is because hypodescent was used to assign people to the the race of their non-white parent. Both the parents of Blasians are non-white so hypodescent doesn't work on them. Also a lot of white racial traits are genetically recessive and so white ancestry is hidden in mulattoes causing them to be identified as Black. But Asian racial traits are not genetically recessive so you can actually see the Sinoid features when you look at Blasians.--Whatdoyou 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction?

The oprah image caption states: "A year before becoming the world's only black billionaire, Winfrey became the first black woman billionaire." Out of curiosity, how can she be the world's only black woman billionaire before being the world's only black billionaire? Did all the richest black people die in that year? It seems logical that as soon as she became the "first black woman billionaire", she also (by logical necessity) became a black billionaire. So who died in that year? --Storkk 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • What's his face got divorced and lost a lot of money, so he was no longer a Billionaire. Bob Johnson? WilyD 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

If this article's going to exist, at least make it accurate. What about Ethiopian billionaires Tessema Dosho Shiffera (inventor of Bowflex), Noah Samara (inventor of XM Satellite radio), and Sheikh Hussein Mohammed Al Amoudi (who may be 1/2 Yemeni, but I haven't verified it; only one listed by Forbes and resides in Saudi Arabia)? There are some "half billionaires" too, I believe. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Iffen you've got some verifiable sources, please feel free to add them. I have none ... WilyD 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of those men are not billionaires. The only one listed by Forbes is Al Amoudi who is mentioned in the article and the chart even though he's only half Ethiopian (and Ethiopians themselves are racially ambiguous) Editingoprah 23:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Ethiopians are not racially ambiguous, and why do you say that the other two are not billionaires? Just because Forbes hasn't listed them doesn't mean that they cannot be billionaires. Just give me some time to get some reliable sources. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yom I already explained to you on the other board that Ethiopians are in between Blacks and Caucasoids, some argue that they're the first Caucasoids, or that Caucasoids are Ethiopoids if you prefer, but for now it doesn't matter since the fact that Forbes (the bible of the financial world) does not list them as billionaires is a reliable source that they are NOT billionaires. Many times people are described as billionaires simply because they own a billion dollar business, and people are incorrectly described as billionaires all the time. Editingoprah 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Wait a minute. All over the Black People article, you went on and on about how Black people should be recognized by the classifications of the US Census and what not. Well, they are black Census wise. Another thing you keep overlooking. Being Caucasoid has nothing to do with not being Black. Many Black people in the USA are caucasoid (DNA wise and cranium wise), we are not going to say "you're not black" Shall we go through all the American celebrities whose features are caucasoid or who are of a substantially White/European admixture and say "not black because they are caucasoid"? No. I thought not. We don't want to rob the black race now do we. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First the U.S. is unique in that it adhears to the racist one drop rule (countries like Brazil take the opposite perspective). Second, the Caucasoid features in African-Americans comes from race mixing, where the Caucasoid features in Ethiopians may be much more pure (i.e. some speculate they're the first Caucasoids who mutated off of Blacks instead of just a mix of Caucasoids and Blacks). In other words, unless Ethiopians are the product of racial mixing, the one drop rule and hypodescent doesn't apply to them. Not that we should be following those rules anyway since they're both racist and unobjective. Editingoprah 11:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just follow those rules when you feel comfortable right EO. Good objectivity! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropological wording is inappropriate

"Peoples of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry (formally known as Negroids in physical anthropology) are 8% of the world’s population"

Firstly the mention of "negroids" and then the use or the entire sentance worded as it is is inappropriate because it's speaking from an Anthropological perspective, totally uncalled for in this article. It distances the dignity and dehumanizes the people in question. It's unnecessarily anthropolgically worded. Need I elaborate with more clarity? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The word Negroid is used because the reference describing the percent of Blacks worldwide is based on the population of anthropological races so people wont no where the 8% figure is coming from unless we mention the term used in the article. Also the way you keep broadening the definition of Black in the Black people article to include Indians etc, we may have to retitle the article Negroid billionaires. People like you are the ones that force us to use such archaic terms. Editingoprah 11:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thats a tough choice. Either describe us in the article like gorillas and lemurs or use an archaic word. Hmmm.. what to do. Oh I know, how about you clarify and use the phrase "Black African Diaspora" There are so many OTHER choices. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm taking it out anyway, it's inappropriate. Let's do the 3revert rule and see what happens when the moderators get their hands on it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EditingOprah I added another for you

I had noticed how concerned you were about the recognition of black people in Africa being respected and since it's obvious that this respect is only earned by money, I decided to add a Black African whom surpasses them all. Mobutu Sese Seko. Seeing as how you find it humiliating to recognize black Asians as being truly black, I did you a favor on this article. If you want I can participate even further in this article and any other article you are involved in. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zaph, thanks for your help. I tentatively reverted your edit, only because Forbes was never able to confirm Mobutu's billionaire status, the article you cited claimed he was worth "up to $5 billion" meaning it wasn't for certain, and this article claims he's worth much much less [[3]]. Editingoprah 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't care about this article either way. It's not something kids are going to learn much from. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy

I do not think categorising billionaire lists by race is what Wikipedia should do. A section on African-American Billionaires would be fine, since they represent a nations ethnic group. The blanket term "Black" seems distasteful at the very least and irrelevant to the goals of an Encyclopedia.

--Eggman64 05:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent rise in the usage of the word "Black" is tied to the demise of colonialism in Africa. President Kennedy and his administration were interested in becoming involved in South Africa. He introduced the word "Black" at his press conferences. Radios, newspapers, magazines, etc., reproduced his words, and the word "Black" is now the standard descriptive, after having replaced various other words, particularly Negro and Colored. The Kennedy administration sent Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Attorney General Robert Kennedy to South Africa, even though the fighting of the Vietnam War was being increased at that time. After the slave trade died down, Americans had always avoided Africa until the Kennedy administration. I was a mature adult by the time of the 1960 Presidential election. I saw what took place. My "source" of the commentaries is my own memory. GhostofSuperslum 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

This article comes across as having the assumption that Michael Jackson is not worth a Billion. It has not being proved or disproved that Michael Jackson is not a billionaire. Ridiculous statements such as

"Barbara Walters was quick to set the record straight. “As for his claim to be worth over a billion dollars,” Walters explained, “industry sources tell us that Jackson’s last CD was not profitable and that his actual worth is in the two or three hundred million range. That’s hardly bad, but it’s nowhere near a billion.”

highlights my point. His last album isn't his only album by any means. This sort of infomation isnt strong enough to be added to an encyclopedia because it is speculatory in its nature, so I have removed it. --81.152.48.58 10:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hava made some changes as I thought it was not NPOV. I have made it has fair as possible. The fact that it had Jacksons mug shot instead of a regular picture says a lot on its own. --OnesixOne 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • One free picture versus another is not a big deal. But Walters directly says that her investigation showed Jackson is worth less than $1 billion, and this is backed up by Forbes et al. Furthermore, she doesn't connect the last album with billionaire status as you seemed to read into it, and there's actually no reliable sources claiming Jackson is worth a billion apart from Jackson himself. WilyD 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/Talk%7EBlack_billionaires_27bb.html"