Talk:Black people/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Citation apparatus

There are numerous citations in this article that completely lack content. My guess is that these were once second or later invocations of citations given in full earlier in the article, but someone removed the first citation and didn't move the content to the second one. Someone who is working on this article should sort through the history and restore these. The citations in question are the ones with the following names: DSouza, Boulaga, Risch, serre, Shahadah. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've browsed back in the edit history and found those references and readded them. --Ezeu 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove latino

I removed latinos as brown latino doesn't mean nothing racially it only means someone from a coutry where a latin laguage is spoken!!. If you meant race mixed Mexicans, write the correct word "mestizos" or mixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.226.252 (talk • contribs) 28 December 2006.

u r correct Tony Braxton is latino and she is African-Caribbean--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for reorganization

Replace the Historical section with a couple of links. That would leave an article focused on modern definitions, and other modern viewpoints. All of the historical stuff exists in Race (historical definitions) and Hamitic myth. As written, what might be marginally useful background information dominates. Jd2718 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Superimposition of Eurocentric linguistics

Munto doesn’t mean black peole, it means people just like in Arabic zanj doesn’t mean black, this is a Eurocentric superimposition. i.e. European world view is imposed on African linguistics thus our word for normal people (as we see ourselves, everyone is different from us hence we are normal and they are white) however Europeans have imposed one standard on the world where their world view & perception is suppose to be everyone else’s. Hence people is African languages means "black people" as they see us. All of this is discussed in the linguistics article referenced on this site.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My brief review says that Bantu is the plural of Muntu (person or man/ people), though if it is not needed for the article, it doesn't need research. Jd2718 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

HalaTruth, can you point me to the referenced article you mentioned above that discusses this issue. Africans do have specific terms for white people. In the languages I understand there are such terms, ie mzungu in Swahili and other lanugages in East Africa. In Luo there are even synonyms, eg. munu (which means white person), or combinations of the words "white" and "person", eg. jo apar or jo mapar. There are certainly innumerable other examples. I am not entirely sure what point the "muntu" reference is meant to illustrate, but it seems somewhat astray.--Ezeu 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaquh seems to be referring to this edit,[1] which seems to turn a sensible statement into nonsense. The original point was well expressed. Now we have the tautological assertion that the majority population of Sub-Saharan Africa is "African". The point of the sentence is to say that the word for person implicitly means what in in English would be called a black person, since there isa a separate term for a whitey. I don't know how true this is, but the point is clear and it has nothing to do with "Eurocentric superimposition". Paul B 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

do not mistranslate words to mean wht europeans think thy r. In Wolof Tumbaa, the word for person is not black person it is person. imposing white thinking on African languages, like zanj means black . again in English it would be person. Mzngi would be white person-BAKA!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You merely demonstrsate that you did not even understand the original paragraph, and insist on the unhelpful and unsupported claims about "europeans". The original para very clearly stated that the word meant simply person, but pointed out that it was used implicitly to mean a black person because a different term is used for whites - in other words the normative model of a person is black. If you want to argue against that you will have to show that this is not true of actual usage. Paul B 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

then the correct word would be African people, because indians in Africa, tamils in Africa dont get called "people", and by the def of black people it is an inclusive term.so to avoid confusion, p,s i did understand it. but u did a good job re explaining it--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From the above discussions I think we all agree in principal its just probably the wording. I understand the concept might be a little difficult to grasp. I included the information to add a local african perspective. In actual fact the word "african" is from latin and "black" is english. I can imagine before the europeans came to africa, africans would not describe themselves as blacks or even africans for that matter but as people. They would probably identify themselves with their empire, nation, tribe, language etc. When the europeans first set foot on african soil they must have looked odd and their ways strange-thus they were given a different name.

This legacy still remains in some african languages where in conversation, person(muntu) may implicitly mean black person when trying to compare or contrast with a white person(muzungu). This is not eurocentric because all the words in question are african.

The opposite is in the US where society expects African-Americans to be labelled as so but does demand the same from "european americans". Muntuwandi 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It still looks like original research to me (the part about "muntu" = implicitly "black person"). If it is true then there must be regional differences in the usage of the term "muntu". A reference would be nice. --Ezeu 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

if one examines terms for black people in Bantu languages, many are simply derivatives of the word african eg swahili "mwafrika", which obviously entered the language recently after the arrival of europeans. Early africans viewed themselves as "the people" and the outsiders as foreigners(muzungus). This concept was not pejorative on both sides but just the reality of the demographics. Even a white person is a muntu, but if there is need for differentiation he is a muzungu. Interestingly the word "muzungu" has nothing to do with skin color but more with the behaviour of the european explorers.Muntuwandi 06:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

External links (add link to Black Peoople)

I think my link should be included on the Black People page of wiki because the website has over 250,000 pages of information 100% of the content is about black people and by black people. The website has been on the internet over 10years. 100% relative to the wiki page content. Same content.

link below. Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.81.140.185 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Black People

- However interesting that website is, Wikipedia is not a link repository, and links to websites that do not add encyclopedic value, however interesting they are, will be deleted. You can rest assured about that. --Ezeu

Statistics Canada

The article currently says that "Statistics Canada uses the term Black as a synonym for African", and uses this webpage as its source for that assertion. Looks like nonsense to me--Ezeu 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, its original research, SqueakBox 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistency of spelling

The rule on British spellings vs. American spellings is, if I remember correctly, that whichever way an article starts it should remain that way. Recently someone changed a spelling in another article, apparently just thinking that the American spelling was wrong. In that case I had no trouble being sure of which side of the pond the article had started on since I had created that article some time ago.

It would save me a lot of trouble if every article had a note (in "comment" format) at the top stating whether the spelling standard was to be American or British.

If we don't keep to this standard, then people will start changing things back and forth. P0M 04:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I have included a picture of a non-african black person from the south pacific. This article discusses who is "black", therefore pictures are helpful. Any suggestions on this

Find a more photogenic image. Though if we add this image to White people I'd have no problem with it.

Image:P7032101 small2.jpg

A homeless Frenchman in Paris.

futurebird 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(some comments seem to be missing... hmmm...)futurebird 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by a more photogenic image? The man looks dashing to me. --Ezeu 09:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cartert man.jpg

A man from the Carteret Islands in the South Pacific.

A Kenyan man

An image where the person looks their best, is well lighted, and with a flattering expression on their face. This image represents a group of people. The current image is an excellent example of the right kind of image for this article. (Though, I do wish the Kenyan man was identified by name.)

If I added the homeless frenchmen to white people I know it would be removed for similar reasons.

futurebird 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not able to load the video untill just now. Is there a reason we can't pull another still from the video? futurebird 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A trumping issue is that it's non-free. We should not use it under WP:FAIR, as it's entirely plausible we could create a free equivalent. — Matt Crypto 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So then, the whole debate about "photogenic images" aside we can't use the image of "A man from the Carteret Islands" because of the copyright issue? futurebird 13:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The legal issues aside, the Wikipedia policy is that we can't use it under fair use if a free equivalent could be created. This article is about black people, and it's clear that photographs of black people can be obtained under a free license. — Matt Crypto 14:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled accross the video of the carteret islands watching cnn. It was interesting because if anyone met the man walking down the street they would assume that he was of recent african descent. His appearance is almost indistinguishable from African people and yet he is not from africa but from thousands of miles away in the pacific. I think it is a good photo for this article in the discussion "who is black". I agree with ezeu, he looks dashing. I suggest we keep the photo until a more "photogenic" photo can be found.

I am also thinking we should re-establish the gallery with pictures of black people from all around the world (Africa, US, Caribbean, latin-america, brazil, europe, oceania). The previous gallery was too USA-centric.

Oprah Winfrey is black by all definitions of the term. According to genetic tests done by PBS' African Lives, she is 89% Sub-Saharan, 8% Native American, 3% East Asian.^[1] which means that most of her ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. On average, African-Americans have about an 83% African ancestry.^[2]	SenatorBarackObama.jpg Barack Obama self-identifies as black and could identify as black or multi-racial by many definitions, some definitions would dispute his right to identify as black because only half of his ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa^[3].	TigerW.jpg Tiger Woods coined the term Cablinasian to describe his ethnicity. He could self-identify as black, Asian, Native American, white, or multi-racial, some definitions would claim that he is not black because only a quarter of his ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa instead of most.	Michaeljacksonmugshot.png As a child, Michael Jackson fit the dictionary definition of a black person because he was a dark-skinned person whose ancestors come from Africa. As an adult he is no longer dark skinned and thus does not meet the first part of the dictionary definition; however, he is still black according to census.
Nelson Mandela is the only living black person to have ranked among A&E's 100 most influential people of the last 1000 years. ^{[citation needed]}	Some scholars created controversy by claiming that ancient Egyptians, like King Tutankhamen, were black.	Warren Harding may have had black ancestry,^[4] making him the first "black president" by some definitions.

Muntuwandi 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That gallery is great! It could have a title like “Who is black?” It needs more people who are not from the USA. futurebird 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and names

Ideally any images we add should name the person in the photograph. Is it dehumanizing to simply present a series of random nameless people? What do you think? futurebird 12:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding an image?

What do others here think about adding this image?

(with a caption, of course.)futurebird 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many men

The images are looking more international, but there are far too many men! futurebird 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Current state

I am sorry to see that this page has languished and settled into a torpor of sorts. It could be far more interesting, but the vested interests have driven off all others. It makes me sick to see all the valuable content that has been placed here, then deleted, over and over for months and years. But oh well. I do not think much can be done about it since fevers run so high and each group is so convinced they are correct and no one else should have any input.--Filll 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the language of this article is very complicated and could do with some simplication. By reading this article, one would think that only someone with a PHD degree could understand who black people are.Muntuwandi 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I tried to simplify the English, I was attacked. This is not rocket science. It is not that complicated. But people want to make it complicated. And certain people have decided they own the term. Unfortunately all the people that feel they own the term "black people" disagree with each other. So, it just devolves into a nightmare. And droves of editors leave. And huge amounts of great material get thrown away. Because who wants to waste time fighting about nonsense when it is of no consequence anyway? It is unappreciated. There are better ways to spend one's time. Too many people with agendas who are too angry. So...I just have given up. Too bad, because this could be a fascinating subject.--Filll 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the history of the talk page and the article, you will see all kinds of great stuff. Tons of amazing pictures and material. Scientific stuff. Social stuff. Historical stuff. Different views from around the world. Amazing and interesting. However, the subject is too politically charged to allow anyone to write it, except a very few people who have taken ownership of the article off and on. And so, that is what we get. For example, I loved the idea that Jablonski's recent work could be featured here with at least a sentence or two. Nope. Not allowed. I wanted to have some discussion of the science of genetics. Nope. Not allowed. I wanted some discussion of blacks in history around the world. Nope. Not allowed. Discussion of disagreements over definitions? Nope. Not allowed. I wanted a family of pages where all the material could be collected and featured, since we had so much. Nope. Not allowed. Now of course there are tools like RfC etc to settle these, but who wants to get involved with that nightmare? If someone is so angry and determined, let them have it. I dont care. I will work on other pages.--Filll 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is one of the most objective articles on Wikipedia. This was extremely informative. there may be a few things to touch up- like more clarification about the poltical term Black in the Civil Rights Movement. But for the most part, I though this article really covered everyone's side and the history behind the term very well. Dkceaser 02:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Dkceaser

Gallery

I am not sure why the gallery even exists. But the current version is awfully large and awfully homogenous. It looks like every person in it is of at least partially Bantu origin. The heading "famous people" is hopelessly POV. Is there a reason to keep it? And if there is, could we get a few (not 16) photos of people from the different groups that this article is claiming may be called Black? Jd2718 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words-

This article is about black people, not just about Africans or African-Americans that have their own seperate articles. I felt reinstating the gallery would be a good idea particulary if it showed notable people considered Black from each continent or sub-region of the world.Apparently President Bush once asked Brazilian President Cardoso "Do you have blacks too"[2]. Muntuwandi 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But the current gallery does not show anything close to that variety. Fewer, but more diverse, that would be better. Jd2718 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was attempted earlier on but we had some controversies regarding using fair use images. My efforts to find free images of black people from the Australia and Oceania region have been thwarted by complicated image laws and policies that only a supreme court judge could understand.Muntuwandi 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If I recall back a few months, there was also a lot of hostility to various images. After a while, it becomes too tedious to fight any more about just nothing. I start to understand why so many have suggested to just AfD this article. It just makes too many people too angry about almost nothing. And it is tiring.--Filll 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, if I had only understood your intention in adding that image I might not have given you such a hard time. I thought you were a white supremacist who was trying to make it seem like black people never bother to shave! I rushed to judgment, but in the end, we don't have the copyright for that image. So, let's move on and find one that we do have the copyright for. Maybe we could inquire at some international message boards. I bet someone would want to offer up their picture. But, they have to be photogenic!! :P futurebird 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also understand more and more why someone wanted an article called Bleople. I could imagine an article or two about bLack pEople or Black folks or Blax or whatever. But the political correctness police will attack any of those.--Filll 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but I think it should be a diverse as possible. So, find some uh-- non-bantu photos! The word "famous" should go.futurebird 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton is not racist

I was disturbed to see Deeceevoice remove the single best definition of a black person from the article by libeling this professional academic as a racist. Rushton is a professor at one of Canada's top universities and a member of the American Association of Advancement of Sciences. He was recently a guest on CNN's Paula Zahn discussing sex differences in intelligence, so I guess we're going to try to claim he is a sexist too. Rushton has devoted the last 20 years of his illustrious career studying racial differences in behavior, intelligence, brain size, genitalia, DNA, and hormones. His ideas may be provocactive, but there's not a shred of evidence to justify libeling this man as a racist, and even if he were, an unpopular ideology does not justify excluding his views from the article. If that were the case then we should remove all the Afrocentric opinions from the fringe pseudo scholars who are mentioned in the criticism section. It's bad enough that Rushton's widely cited theory was removed from the article. I'm willing to let that slide, but to remove the single best definition of a black person from the article simply by libeling the source is completely unaccepatable. Kobrakid

I suspect this user to be one of several sockpuppets/meatpuppets, namely User:Timelist, User:Editingoprah, User:Gottoupload and User:Kobrakid. This person/people have been trying to peddle this same tired old line, against consensus, for quite some time. They disappeared for a while recently when the going got quite heated, but now they seem to have made a reappearance, presumably thinking that the coast was clear. I think this user is using sockpuppets to try to create the appearence of support for their dubious POV. I think there is and always has been a consensus on this page that people like Rushton, and his ilk are not reliable sources and do not constitue authorities in this field of research, indeed most academics shun people like Rushton because of the overt racism of their conclusions. It is clear that Rushton is not actually a biologist, and so certainly does not constitute an authority for biological definitions anyway. I also think there is no consensus that only people with a recent African origin are considered Black people, which is what the definitions this user included state, these contradict the rest of the article. I am going to look into this group of editors histories and determine if I can get a case of sockpuppetry against them. Alun 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sounds feasible to me, you need to get a user check Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, SqueakBox 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not anybody's sockpuppet or meatpuppet and don't appreciate the PC police using the same tired personal attacks to silence a diverse range of view points. Fill has also complained about the PC police removing cited reliable information from the article. How can you speak for what most academics think of Rushton. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that race is a meaningful biological category is smeared by people like you. Well I've had it. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in view point and I'm tired of you silencing, smearing, and censoring accomplished academics simply because they don't support your narrow view point. Your charge that Rushton is racist is the most serious violoation of wikipedia's civility rules I've ever seen. Please think about the consequences of your personal attacks as this forum is read by many people. Gottoupload

What do you mean, the personal computer police? Several people think Rushton is rascist and that clearly doesnt even violate civility rules as these apply to editors only. I think people will draw their own conclusions, SqueakBox 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true. You're not allowed to use wikipedia as a vehicle to make seroiious career threatening smears against people, regardless of whether they are users or not. This is very very serious. Gottoupload

For the soockpuppetry please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08_Black_people. Paul B 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Before making claims that make you look like an idiot I suggest you check my contribs, Gottoupload. What you just did is incivility, please desist your aggressive attitude. Freedom of speech meansd if we think an academic is rascist we can say so and use this to justify their non inclusion in an article, SqueakBox 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech used as an excuse to censor Rushton. LOL! If that's not an example of talking out of both sides of one's mouth I don't know what is. In any event I want Rushton in the article because he represents the view that MOST of your ancestors must be from a certain region of the world to be considered black as opposed to the one drop rule cited above and as opposed to the extreme 75% of your ancestors cited by Levin. His more controversial ideas are not being pushed, but his definition represents one view out of many on what it means to be black and in order to build a better encyclopedia, it should be included. Gottoupload

Calling him rascist isnt censoring him and anyway his not being included here would not be censorship. I see he has his own article, it would have been helpful to link to it in the first place. His ideas look very extreme and he hardly comes across as either pro or even balanced abouit black people. I think we shouldnt include this section about him, SqueakBox 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't include his controversial views in the article and I'll support you in keeping those out, but simply citing a basic textbook definition of a black person that a lot of people agree with makes sense to me. Why the resistance? It's no secret that are many different ways to define a black person and his is no more offensive than any other. There's really no reason for your resistance Gottoupload

Rushton is a quack when it comes to race, and he is a psychologist, not a biologist. His methods were faulty, and his conclusions have been widely criticized by other academics. He promotes what has been called scientific racism. Even the highly-whitewashed J. Philippe Rushton article (and the links on that page) point out that he has an undeniable political agenda. And again, he is not a biologist so should not be cited as an expert on biological matters.~~

You might want to tell the University of Western Ontario and the American accoociation of Advanacement of Sciences and academic journals like Intelligence, Personality & Individual Differences, which regularly publish his work, that he's a quack. Rushton is what's known as a sociobiologist. The article makes clear that biological definitions of blacks are controversial and Rushton is not given undue weight. However it's important to represent the view that MOST of your ancestors must be from sub-Saharan Africa to be black because this view is quite common and not currently represented in the article. Gottoupload

1 white quak out weights the entire African world, this in itself is racism. One White person in Oxford can re classify Ethiopian and khoisan people if and when they want, they can redefine us out of history out of our own identity. Trying using a "black" source and leave the white academics to define white. crazy!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2 types of editors

There are 2 types of editors I see in this article. Those that contribute to the article by adding information, and those that narrow the article by removing things. When I added Rushton et al to the article I didn't remove any of the opposing views, I simply added a different perspective not already represented in the article. All views should be heard. Why would anyone want it any other way? Gottoupload

All mainstream views should be added, SqueakBox 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The view that most of your ancestors must be from sub-Saharan Africa to be black is very mainstream. Besides there is no single univerally agreed standard for deciding who is black Gottoupload

Mainstream USA, maybe. In Australia that idea is just plain insulting.Trishm 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton is from Britain and lives in Canada. So the view is obviously mainstream in far more than just America. And I don't think we can argue that just because a certain view-point may be offensive to a certain segment of Australia's population, that therefore the idea should not be permitted to be expressed. I want this article to show the full range of views. Kobrakid

agreed it isnt mainstream at all, just another US POV which the entire world must swallow as reality. another pan-American export. if there is no agreement then we must treat all who are called "black" as equal not give bias to people of African biology.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition was not even created by American, but a British-born South African Canadian. And we're not giving bias to people of African biology, we are simply documenting the existence of this perspective along with extensive criticism. What's the problem? You want a one sided article? If black people come to this article trying to get a broad perspective on how black people are viewed and defined, we are doing them a disservice by excluding a whole branch of opinion in this area Kobrakid

Did I say the view should not be presented? What the article does need to say, is that mainstream or not, this view is limited in scope, and that other black people exist. This is an encyclopedia, not a mouthpiece, and the article should take a broader position than that of the people whose views are presented.Trishm 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Viva la difference

To me what makes the article fascinating is the diversity in view points. I think it's interesting that some people define black people as anyone descended from an equatorial region of the world, others are a little more narrow and limit black people to those from Africa, and some are more narrow still and limit black people to only those from sub-Saharan Africa. But then regardless of which of these 3 camps you fall into, another debate runs parallel. How much black ancestry does one need to be black? Is any known black ancestry enough as the one drop rule suggests? Do MOST of your ancestors have to be black as Rushton suggests? Or is do almost ALL of your ancestors have to be black as Michael levin and Brazilian culture suggests. These types of disagreements are what makes the article fascinating so I don't understant the resistance to including this diverse range of opinion. Gottoupload

Is that title Franish? Spench? Its vive la diference in French or viva la diferencia in Spanish, SqueakBox 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

When I edit capitalization I get gallery etc, something is wrong with the formatting and needs to be fixed. ic ant figure out how to myself, SqueakBox 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed. Thanx, SqueakBox 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources in biological section

After some digging, I found that all three supposed experts in the Biological section - Michael Levin, J. Phillipe Rushton, and Sally Satel - are not biologists (Levin's a philosopher, Rushton is a psychologist and Satel is a psychiatrist), and all three have blatant right wing political agendas. Levin is anti-gay, has written for right wing libertarian publications, and has spoken at events for the white separatist American Renaissance (magazine). Rushton is the head of the anti-immigrant and racist Pioneer Fund. Satel wrote a book against political correctness and doesn't think social justice should be a part of the medical field. Considering all three support only one side of the issue, and none of them have the academic credentials to speak on biological topics, I suggest deleting all three - at least until credible sources (i.e. actual biologists) are introduced into the section. Spylab 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Typical! Great digging! futurebird 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And don't get me started on the likes of Dinesh D'Souza -- a self-loathing, true-believing, far-right right-wing brown-skinned East Indian. deeceevoice 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What does being anti-gay have to do with anything? So only people who are socially progressive are allowed to have an opion. I thought liberals were supposed to be against fascism yet here you are promoting it. Who says the Pioneer-Fund is antigay and anti-immigrant? Rushton was asked to be in charge of it only because he's the most credible scholar on the race realist perspective. Rushton himself has repeatedly denied that he or his ideas are in any way racist and his been backed by eminent biologists such as E.O. Wilson. As for Satel, once agin who cares if Satel is against political correctness. The very fact that Satel takes the concept of race seriously proves Satel is against political correctness. I find it very disturbing and very fascist that you are trying to exclude reliable cited scholarly sources from the article on ideological grounds. And your argument that thye must all be biologists to be cited is equally desperate. First of all, Rushton is a sociobiologist which is the most well suited field for this discussion. Second, insisting that they all be biologists to be cited for biological definitions would be like insisting that everyone cited in the sociopolitical section be a professional sociologist. Absurd. Without the biological definitions the article is extremely unbalanced. We have an entire section following it blasting these definitions as racist and too narrow by scholars (or pseudoscholars) of much lesser reputation, yet we're not allowed to include the definitions themselves. The fact of the matter is these definitions exist, they're actually very mainstream, and trying to exclude them from the article as if they don't exist is a disservice to the reader. Kobrakid

This is an example of why this article is a sad parody of itself. And why so many other editors have given up on it. Aggressive attacks between the 5 or 6 major viewpoints has just discouraged anyone with anything constructive to add. And in fact there is aggressive disinterest in having a suite of articles to explore this area fully. It just makes me amazed.--Filll 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed amazing. I'm with you, Fill. All major viewpoints MUST be represented including the view point that Blacks are a biologically meaningful race defined exclusively by being mostly of sub-Saharan African descent. Wobble wants this view censored because he's pushing the POV that race is a meaningless concept and he pushes this POV in several articles. Deeceevoice is trying to censor this view because it conflicts with her agenda that ancient Egyptians were black or that the great civilizations of South Asia were black. Again we have a bunch of editors who are more concerned with protecting their respective agendas than writing a thorough balanced article. It's a horrible abuse of wikipedia. Kobrakid

I'm not sure who you're calling aggressive, or which side of the argument you are taking, but having the entire biological section made up of views by white right-wing racist (or borderline racist) political activists, who aren't even biologists or geneticists, doesn't seem to be fulfilling the goal of having diversity of views. As for Kobrakid's rant, obviously he has an specific political agenda that he wants to promote in the article and on the talk page, and he doesn't seem interested in providing neutral facts backed up by reliable sources (nor in discussing these matters in a civil or intelligent manner). Spylab 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Spylab. But I would go a step further. I would maintain that it is impossible to have a "biological" section and would remove it all together. This article is not about a "race", it is not about any single biological population, it is not about any population from a single part of the world. This article is about "Black people", people in North America may have a parochial view of what it means to be Black, that is that one needs to have a recent African ancestry, but this does not apply universally to all Black people. Just because a definition is true for North America does not make it true for any other part of the world. It is therefore impossible to biologically define Black people. Black people are Black because of the colour of their skin, some people who are Black come from Africa, some come from Australia or other parts of the world, these groups of people do not represent closely related populations. What they do have in common is social, in that they are discriminated against because of their skin colour. I would support the inclusion of a section that discusses the historical exploitation of various groups of Black people by White people all over the world, I think this would make for a much better section than a pseudo-scientific section about "biology". This has got bugger all to do with biology. The only important thing we can say about biology is that all humans are biologically very similar and are all part of the same subspecies. Anything else is parochial, and this is not US or North American Wikipedia. I would also point out that the sock/meat puppets User:Timelist, User:Editingoprah, User:Gottoupload and User:Kobrakid seem to want to push a far right racist point of view against the consensus on this page. At the least they are editing against consensus, at the most they are a group of meatpuppets (or a sockpuppet) who are trying to make an artificial consensus for a racist point of view to be included on this page. Either of these is a clear breach of wikipedia policy. This sock/meat puppet group disappeared from wikipedia mysteriously a little while ago when I told them that I planned to report them for this exact same behaviour. Well I'm going to check their user histories and file a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I'm sad because I've never done anything like this before in nearly two years, and I've met some pretty obnoxious people in that time, and I had hopped never to have to get any other editor blocked, but it is impossible with people who seem to be just so intransigent. Alun 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The stuff from Rushton needs to be cropped to one sentence at best, he is not a main stream or accepted source. Giving him undue prominence is unbalenced.

futurebird 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun You make some great points I support removing the biological definitions section from this article. That solves the problem of Rushton too. futurebird 02:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun can rationize all he wants and he can make all the personal attacks that he wants. The fact of the matter is that we three reliable sources (one of them a sociobiologist at a top university and a member of American Association of Advancement of Sciences) all claiming that the blacks are biologically meaningful category defined by having most of your ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa, and all Wobble can do is come up with one lame excuse after another to censor this information because it doesn't conform to the political agenda he's pushing in a multitude of articles. The biolical view is real, it's extensively documented, and no one who is interested in providing a complete view on this subject to the reader would try to remove it. It's clear that Alun and others have strong ideological views on this subject and they are allowing it to cloud their respect for wikipidea NPOV policy. I've seen editors write articles in a biased way but the total removal of an entire school of thought backed and documented by several scholars is the most disgusting display of fascist censorship I have ever seen. Kobrakid

The fact of the matter is that we three reliable sources

No there aren't. These sources are certainly not reliable, they are neo-nazi racist scum. No respectable encyclopaedia would include their spurious nazi claims in an article about Black people. Youl be damanding that we cite Mein Kampf next or March of the Titans as Dark Tea has on White people. Alun 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote: to be fair, I wouldn't describe them as neo-Nazis without evidence from a reliable source. In fact, Leven is a Jew, and his Wikipedia article says he stopped his relationship with American Renaissance after he got fed up with the anti-Semitism of many of those involved with that magazine. However, his Jewishness does not preclude him from being racist against non-whites and bigoted against other groups such as gays and feminists (as his article points out) Spylab 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been clearly explained why those three non-biologists/non-geneticists cannot be considered reliable sources on the topic of the biological/genetic definition of black people. Their credentials do not qualify them as experts on that topic. Their work on that subject come under the description of academic racism and scientific racism. Those three non-experts do not qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. Spylab 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton is considered a reliable source on race by the University of Western Ontario and is a member of the American Association of Advancement of Sciences. Anyone who takes race seriously is immediately stigmatized as a scientific racist so your claim means nothing, but if the article is to be NPOV we must show this perspective as long as we do so in a balanced way. Kobrakid

None of what you just wrote is true. Spylab 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who takes race seriously is immediately stigmatized as a scientific racist

This is nonsense, I have read a number of serious scientific papers about race recently.[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The thing is that Rushton is not interested in "race", his fantasies revolve arround trying to show that there are real and measurable differences in the intellects of different human groups. He is actually interested in Eugenics and not "race", in this he is frighteningly similar to the nazis. Indeed much as Rushton thinks that some races are superior to others, the nazis believed that Germans were superior to Russians, and actually believed that science proved it. Well we all know what the "inferior" Russians did to Paulus's Sixth Army at thr Battle of Stalingrad and later did to Berlin. Indeed Rushton's his "definition" of Black is extremelly odd. For example In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, well it may be news to Rushton, but all of us have ancestors exclusively born in sub-Saharan Africa. Or this a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa, well I am British, the southern part of Great Britain was part of the Roman Empire for over 300 years, the first African people to come to Britain came at this time, no one in Britain can claim absolutelly that they do not have an African ancestor from between 4,000 and 20 generations ago because if they did they would be lying, the truth is we no one really knows. On a related note, in his book "Blood of the Isles" the geneticist Bryan Sykes claims to have encountered a Scottish woman who had mitochondrial DNA of recent sub-Saharan African origin. This woman was not aware of any African ancestry in her family. Sykes postulates that she may be the descendant of an African woman who came to Britain at the time of the Romans. According to Rushton, this woman is "a Negroid". And anyway this article is not about what Rushton calls "Negroid" people, it is about Black people. Rushton's definitions are not only not biological, they make no sense. Alun 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wobble I find it very disappointing that you would compare Rushton to a nazi. Not only are you incapable of refraining from incredibly libelous personal attacks against other people, but you are minimizing the seriousness of the Holocaust when you toss such loaded rhetoric around so casually. Rushton has no interest in eugenics. Rushton is an eminent sociobiologist studying the world around him. Simply because you are offended by his conclusion that peoples of predominantly sub-Sahran descent are sexually more endowed on average to Whites and North East Asians gives you no right to libel him as a nazi. Such behavior is way beneath the standards of wikipedia’s discourse. Rushton does not make the simplistic argument that some races are superior to others. Indeed he claims that each of these broad groupings is perfectly, beautifully adapted to its own ancestral environment.

None of your arguments hold upon scruitiny. Of course ALL of us have ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa. All of us have ancestors that were born in the ocean if you go back far enough. You’re just trying to confuse the issue. It’s obvious that Rushton is talking about recent ancestry. And of course virtually all of us have some recent African ancestry if we analyzed our family trees closely enough. That’s the whole reason definitions like Rushton and Levin fill a void in the article. Rushton emphasizes that most of ones ancestors must be of sub-Saharan extraction while Levin goes further requiring 75%+ ancestry.

Rushton uses terms like Black and Negroid interchangeably. Negroid is a modified version of “Negro” which means black in Spanish and Negro is synonymous with black person according to many dictionaries.

Rushton’s definition is simple, clearly worded and to the point, and speaks to how millions of people conceptualize black people. Anyway you look at it, a professor from a respected university who is a member of the American Association of Advancement of Sciences, and has published in many peer reviewed highly respected academic journals is a reliable enough source to be briefly cited for a basic definition. We have an entire section devoted to criticizing Rushton’s perspective on what it means to be black, so we need to document the perspective itself. Kobrakid

Quit throwing around loaded words like "eminent" and creditials that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You're not fooling anyone. Rushton, Leven and Satel aren't biologists or geneticists, and are not credible experts on the supposed biological/genetic definition of blackness. Rushton is a psychology professor, Levin is a philosphy professor and Satel is a psychiatrist. And you are wrong that he has no interest in eugenics. Look at his article and follow the link to the group he is the head of. Finally, millions of people do not use Rushton's definition of blackness. Most people define a person's status as black or white by sight (and maybe accent) alone.Spylab 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only are you incapable of refraining from incredibly libelous personal attacks against other people,

Firstly it's an opinion. I'm entitled to an opinion, ppinions are not libelous. You are a hypocrite, you claim that you support "freedom of speech", but apparently this only applies to your opinions, and not to the oppinions of those who disagree with you. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

you are minimizing the seriousness of the Holocaust when you toss such loaded rhetoric around so casually

I never even mentioned the Holocaust. You are putting words into my mouth now. The fact is that Rushton seems to hold the same opinions as the nazis, that certain people are "inferior" to other people. it's not rocket science, work it out for yourself. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, chances are it's a dog. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply because you are offended by his conclusion that peoples of predominantly sub-Sahran descent are sexually more endowed on average to Whites

Eh? Where do I say this? This is your fantasy not mine. Again you are claiming I have said something I have not. What is your problem, you caim tha I am "libeling" someone, then you state that I have made statements that I clearly have not. If you want to criticise what I say, that is fair enough, but you are not, you are attacking me for things I certainly haven't said. This is just daft. I'm not offended by what Rushton says, I just think it's crap. It's not scientific and it has no basis in reality, just like the "science" of the nazis had no basis in reality. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Such behavior is way beneath the standards of wikipedia’s discourse.

Eh? Piffle, I am entitled to thnk this is not a reliable source. I am entitled dispute this gibberish masquerading as research. What is below the standards of any reliable dictionary is the inclusion of pseudo-scientific racist claptrap. Go and use it fr a cite on the racism article where it belongs. But it doesn't belong here. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course ALL of us have ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa. All of us have ancestors that were born in the ocean if you go back far enough. You’re just trying to confuse the issue.

No I'm not, I'm showing categorically that Rushton's definitions don't make any sense. He defines "Negroid" in one way and he defines a Black person in another. Neither of these definitions is actually very good, a Black person, he claims only needs a majority African ancestry, so that would be every human then. A "Negroid" he claims needs to have ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa from 4,000 to 20 generations ago, actually this means from 100,000-500 years ago given a 25 year generation span, well there must be millions of indigenous Europeans who have an African ancestry from this time (it's a massive time scale), but who just are not aware of it, gene flow between populations has been extensive, like it or not. Many of the proper scientific papers that I show above indicate the massive amount of gene flow between so called "races", we are not, and have never been, discrete non-interbreeding populations. Humanity, by it's nature, is promiscuous. These definitions seem to be the ones he uses in his book, all well and good, his book may display internal consistency in that he always uses Black person to mean someone with majority recent African ancestry, this does not necessarily make it a suitable definition for this article because whereas he seems to be only interested in Black people from North America, and so takes a parochial point of view, this article is not about Black people in North America, that article would be African American. I suggest you go there to spout your racism. His definition of "Negroid" is irrelevant as this article is not about "Negroid" Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton emphasizes that most of ones ancestors must be of sub-Saharan extraction

No he doesn't, at least not for the definition of Black person given in the article. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton uses terms like Black and Negroid interchangeably.

Then why do we have 'very different definitions for them. This is just plain wrong, academics do not give different definitions for concepts if they intend to use them interchangeably. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

is a reliable enough source to be briefly cited for a basic definition

Actually he is not. If you actually knew anything about this subject at all, you would know three important and fundamental facts, all of which are covered extensively in the papers I link to above. Firstly there is no generally accepted definition of race (or subspecies), or of what constitutes a race (or subspecies) in the field of biology, let alone any defined races. Secondly most definitions of race are ultimately social and not biological. Thirdly there are many biological definitions of subspecies (that is race), the human species does not display any of the necessary biological diversity to be taxonomically categorised on the subspecific level. Hence we are all Homo sapiens sapiens, the third designation would be different if we were biologically recognised as "races" or subspecies. Given that we are not, there is in actual fact no general recognition in the science of biology of any human racial groups. There are however social races. Rushton's definitions do not even constitute biological definitions. His definitions are based on ancestry and not biology (and none of us knows our ancestry, even if some people think that they do). A biological definition would be based either on physical appearance (Phenotype, the traditional method for taxonomy) or on genetic differences (Genotype a more modern method for taxonomy). Neither of Rushton's definitions fit these criteria. And to repeat because you seem to be unable to understand this very simple point this article is about the term Black people, it is not only about people of African descent. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton’s definition is simple, clearly worded and to the point,

You forgot irrelevant, vague, not biological and wrong. Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

section devoted to criticizing Rushton’s perspective on what it means to be black,

I am not against a section about how Black peoples from all over the world have been discriminated against by White people, or have suffered racism from apparently biased and very stupid "academics" (sic). Alun 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet these sources are considered mainstream?

I find it truly amazing that people have problems with allowing Rushton (a sociolobiologist, top university professor, and member of the American Association for Advancement of Sciences)provide a brief definition in the article, yet look at all the undue weight given to the following pseudo scolars:

There are objections to the standard definitions of black people, as well as criticism of the term itself.

Cultural writer and filmmaker Owen 'Alik Shahadah says "as a political term it was fiery and trendy but never was it an official racial classification of peoples who have a 120,000 year old history. Indians are from India, Chinese from China. There is no country called Blackia or Blackistan. Hence, the ancestry-nationality model is more respectful and accurate: African-American, African-British, African-Brazilian, and African-Caribbean." 'Alik Shahadah also objects that "in addition, because it is a term placed on us, we have no bases for its control, and hence they are able to say; 'Ancient Egyptians weren't black.' Black has no meaning; except the meaning they place on it, if and when they chose."^[5]

Owen 'Alik Shahadah states "the notion of some invisible border, which divides the North of African from the South, is rooted in racism, which in part assumes that a little sand is an obstacle for African people. This barrier of sand hence confines/confined Africans to the bottom of this make-believe location, which exist neither politically or physically". Shahadah argues that the term sub-Saharan Africa is a product of European imperialism, "Sub-Saharan Africa is a byword for primitive African: a place, which has escaped advancement. Hence, we see statements like 'no written languages exist in Sub-Saharan Africa.' 'Egypt is not a Sub-Saharan African civilization.'^[5]

Activist Nirmala Rajasingam considers most standard definitions of black too narrow: "It was a failure because it divided the Black community into its constituent parts.. into Jamaican or Punjabi or Sri Lankan Tamil and so on, rather than build up Black unity.. But you know, there are young Asians who would like to call themselves Black, but the African youth will say 'You are not Black, you are Asian. We are Black'. Similarly, there are young Asians who will say 'We are not Black, we are Asian.'. So it has all become diluted and depoliticized."^[6]

Lewis R. Gordon (Director of the Institute for the Study of Race and Social Thought at Temple University) says "Not all people who are designated African in the contemporary world are also considered black anywhere. And similarly, not all people who are considered in most places to be black are considered African anywhere. There are non-black Africans who are descended from more than a millennia of people living on the African continent, and there are indigenous Pacific peoples and peoples of India whose consciousness and life are marked by a black identity".^[7]

Psychiatrist Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye says "being dark skinned is a widespread phenomenon which does not define any specific group of human beings. The tendency to reserve the designation black to sub-Saharan Africans and people of their extraction is manifestly misinformed".^[8]

Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop also feels that the standard conceptions of black people fall short, stating: "There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent."^[9]

Kobrakid

I'm not sure if all of those people are reliable sources, but note that those people are talking about cultural and historical definitions of blackness, not biological or genetic definitions. Culture is not a science, and there are many different opinions about the sociopolitical definition of specific racial/ethnic groups. When it comes to controversial scientific topics, only people qualified to talk about science should be used as sources. Spylab 16:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton is a member of the American Association of Advancement of Science so I think he's qualified to talk about science. Kobrakid

According to the American Association of Advancement of Science website, anyone can join that group if they pay the membership fees, to that does not count as a qualification. Sorry, try again.[9] Spylab 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

biology means biology, if it is a biological definition then the people talking about it must be experts in biology. imagine if Noam chomsky as expert as he is started giving biological def for black people? a critic of the general term is one thing but to offer biological definitions is a specific thing. U need a genetic person to talk about genetics, someone who understand genetics.skylab is correct on th epoint cultural opinions or politics isnt an imperical science. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to reach compromise I moved the definitions to a new section called race realism definitions so they wouldn't be confused with genetic authorities. My goal is simply to show the full range of definitions of what it means to be black. Not everyone usese arbitrary social criteria or self-identification. Some people believe being black is based on genes, not social constructions, and this view should be documented in the interest of creating a fuller article. Kobrakid

Then that would be better but to use the word biology makes it seem like an serious study and we all know there is no biological Black race. and it shouldnt be a collection of racist opinions "black people are close to the apes" like what Darwin and friends would say.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it may be your POV that there's no biological race but a lot of scholars would disagree with you. I'm not interested in opening that can of worms, so let's stick to what's best for the article and keep our personal POVs out of it. If you read the section I did my best to make it clear that race realists are outside the mainstream and are not endorsed by biologists. In any event we have a whole section criticising the hell out of race realists so we need to document the perspective, otherwiese when you read the criticism, it's hrad to know what view point they're criticising. Kobrakid

Excuse me for coming on hard, but the thought of going through this crap again displeases me. Quoting Rushton is equivalent to using Ann Coulter as a prominent reference in the Kwanzaa article, or (if you still do not get the point), allowing a well educated klan member (on the basis that the concerned klan member is well-known) to claim that "niggers are monkeys". What is the difference? Should every stupid opinion be included merely for the sake of balance? Perhaps yes, but there are (or should be) limits. What annoys me most is that Kobrakid (and company) probably do not intend it, but succeed so well in disrupting this article.--Ezeu 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a big difference between Rushton and Anne Coulter. Rushton is a serious scholar who publishes in peer reviewed academic journals. Rushton is a professor at one of Canada's top universities. Rushton is a member of the American Association of Advancement of Sciences. Rushton is treated as an expert on CNN and Rushton's book was well reviewed by the New York Times. Further, Rushton only became controversial when he released a study claiming black men had larger penises than White men, and much larger penises than East Asian men. But he's not being quoted based on such controversial views. We are only quoting him to represent the view that you need to have most of your ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa to be black. This is an enormously common view about what it means to be black, so I don't see the problem with having a tiny section devoted to it, especially since we have an ENORMOUS section disputing it. Simply put, Rushton is the best source I know of that represents this major view point, and the article would be incomplete without that view point being represented. As for the claim that black people are monkeys. That's an extremely fringe view. Less than 1 in a 1000 people would seriously entertain that view and you would not find a scholary source in any area supporting it. But the view that most of your ancestors must be from sub-Saharan Africa to be black? That's actually a very middle of the road view. In fact in Latin of America they would go further and say ALL of your ancestors must be from sub-Saharan Africa to be black and call many of America's blacks mulattoes. Kobrakid

You were making a good case, and I was rather agreeing with you until you started going on about monkeys. Isn't it rather obvious that my reference to monkeys was meant as a rhetorical device? If Rushton's conclusions are so obviously astute, shouldnt his conclusions also have been made by at least other scholar? In which case shouldnt there be someone else less contentious to quote? --Ezeu 21:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to quote someone less controversial than Rushton, but it's very difficult to find cited definitions of what a black person is (aside from basic dictionary definitions) so I'm reluctant to delete Rushton until we can find a replacement making the same point. I guess your probably thinking if Rushton's definition is so mainstream it should be easy to find another but the reality is people seldom explain in words what they mean by a black person. It's one of those terms that's implicitly understood but seldom discussed in a formal way. In fact the reason there has been so much debate in this article is because we have so few reliable sources to cite. But the reason I know Rushton's definition is mainstream is because it's so middle of the road. On the one hand you have many Americans saying if ANY of your ancestors are black you are black, but then you have Latin America going to the opposite extreme and saying if ANY of your ancestors are not black, you are NOT black. Rushton's right in the middle of the road by saying most of your ancestors must be from sub-Saharan Africa. He's essentially saying the same thing as the U.S. census map says however he's being clear about how much African ancestry you need so it's very easy for mixed race people to decide if they're black or not and giving us an alternative to the extremes of the one drop rule and Latin America's reverse one drop rule. He's a moderate common sense voice on the question of where to draw the racial line. Kobrakid

content first, he pales in comparison to Hume and Kant and look at the madness they wrote on Africans. The content must drive the debate not who?, who must be 2nd.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well put, Ezeu. futurebird 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know this Rushton charecter, but you are dead on point because i edit on Kwanzaa and i know the point you just said about Ann Coulter and we deleted her silly opinions in 2sec flat. see wiki policy on extream sources, hence famous, well know means nothing if you are a know racist. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But when you start deleting people because someone claims they are racist you're on a very slippery slope. For example we cite a lot of Afrocentric people in this article. Not only are they not in most cases considered serious scholars by any university, but you could probably make the case that most of these people are racist against Whites. Do I advocate they be deleted? Hell no. They represent a movement, a school of thought, and the reader will get an incomplete understanding of the topic without reading the perspective they bring to the debate. Kobrakid

MY GOD, i just looked at J. Philippe Rushton what difference does it make how popular he is, just add David Duke behind him and you are all set, no he is an extream source and shouldnt be used, his politics are clear-whew!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Huge difference between Rushton and David Duke. First of all Rushton is a SCHOLARLY source and wikipedia considers scholarly sources to be the best sources of all to use. Second Rushton is not a racist. Sure people who disagree with his views have accused him of being racist, but Rushton himself denies that he or his ideas are in any way racist and there's no documentation of him ever saying anything racist. By contrast Duke was a member of the Ku Klux Klan Kobrakid

Doesn't Duke, like Rushton, deny being a racist? --Ezeu 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Duke was a member of the Ku Klux Klan which is a racist organization. Rushton is a professor at a prestigous university in a country with strict laws against racism. In the U.S. people are free to have racist opinions but in Canada there are strict laws against hate literature and Rushton had to be cleared by the Royal Canadian Mounty Police to prove that none of his thoughts or ideas are in any way racist. Rushton's whole career depends on him not being racist because he studies the races as an objective scientist. In order to do that you have to be neutral and can't bring any preconcived bias to your studies. Rushton is far too intelligent to be a racist. Although Rushton believes the races do differ genetically in many important ways, he insists that these are only average differences and much smaller than the racists actually believe. Rushton is intelligent enough to know that nearly the full range of human traits and abilities is present in all races and that there's ENORMOUS variation within the races. Rushton also believes that white people are less intelligent on average than Orientals which is the opposite of a white supremacist. Kobrakid

your argument has nothing to do with him being a racist, he goes to nice UNI dinner parties, you have however proven, he gets paid, he is popular, he like all racist denies being racist, he is intellegent, kant and david hume were intellegent as well, mayb he isnt duke, but that makes him worst because people then take him seriously, while he makes even more dangerous and harder to spot racist statements. i really dont care where he puts "orientals" in his little world, the irony is the African is at the bottom. we all know US academia has a legacy of racist academia, naturally most Europeans disagree with this view, an association of pretigious racist is still racist--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about black people. In order to discuss black people intelligently we have to cite scholarly sources explaining who black people are. So far all the sources are from the social constructionist camp. They believe that being black is simply a matter of self-identification and such standards vary from culture to culture so in one cultuire Halle Berry is black, in another culture she is white, in another culture she is mulattoe. That's a valid view but it's a little too wishy washy for me and showing that view and that view alone makes the article incomplete because millions of people believe that race is a valid biological concept and that depending on where most of your ancestors are from you are either white, black, Oriental etc and that it doesn't matter how you self-identify or what culture you live in. All that matters is your DNA. Rushton is the most scholarly proponent of this view point I know of. Most proponents of this view are going to be labelled as racist because they believe race exists and are probably studying races in their profession and that makes them by definition extremely politically incorrect. Perhaps there's a less controversial source out there somewhere but for now let's stick with Rushton because we're not quoting him saying anything controversial (just a simple definition) and straightforward definitions of black people are so difficult to find that I'd like to document all of them (unless it's something really offensive). Kobrakid

Good. I congratulate him. Point remains that Wikipedia is not a forum to promote Rushton's racialist views. The place to mention his fringe views is (if at all) in an article titled Rushton's opinions or equivalent. --Ezeu 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat a few points and expand on them because they may have been missed among the many comments on this page, and Kobrakid keeps repeating certain talking points that need to be shot out of the water: quit throwing around loaded words like "eminent" and creditials that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You're not fooling anyone. Rushton is a psychology professor, so that's what the university pays him to do, and that's what he may be considered an expert in (although he may have strange ideas in that field too; I haven't looked into it). Also, according to the American Association of Advancement of Science website, anyone can join that group if they pay the membership fees, so membership does not give anyone special credentials.[10] Sorry, try again. Also the term "race realism" or "race realist" are weasel words that imply that certain views are realistic and correct, when the evidence may show otherwise. Finally, does anyone know how to take this to arbitration? An administrator should make a final ruling verifying that Rushton et al aren't reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. Spylab 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things we can do I think. We can open an RfC here on the talk page regarding the inclusion of facist sources. Or we can open an RfC on Kobrakid and POV pushing. POV pushing and editing against consensus are serious breaches of wikipedia policy. If we opened an RfC about his/her behaviour we can get the wider Wikipedia community involved to scrutinise his/her behviour and the community would decide if there is a case to answer. I've seem RfC's opened about editors for far less than this blatant POV pushing. This user is clearly has a right wing racist agenda to push and is not interested in creating a balanced encyclopaedia, but wants to create some sort of platform for the white supremacist movement. I would say this is a clear attempt to damage the credibility of Wikipedia, and therefore it constitutes complex vandalism. Maybe we should start with an RfC on the talk page. Alun 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a point there. But there is plenty of scholarship that challenges the Rushton point of view in relation to black people. I propose putting in these other scholarly references to balance any POV.Adrunkman 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Do we need a section regarding "Biological definitions" for Black people? Certain editors feel that only people of a recent African origin are Black, and would therefore like to include a "biological definition"/"racial definition" section that states that Black people are always of recent African ancestry (this is in fact an ancestral definition). Other editors feel that this is a North American point of view, and that the term Black people includes many different groups of dark skinned people that are not all of recent African origin, and do not represent closely related descendants from a recent discrete single population. This group would like the "Biological definitions" section removed altogether, and the article to include a broader perspective. Alun 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in concert with the latter group. My opinions and contributions in this regard are on record in earlier versions of the article and on the article talk page. As an international enterprise, Wikipedia should reflect a broader notion of "black people" than is represented here. I left this article in disgust after several of my adequately sourced, documented edits repeatedly were block-reverted without any attempt at justification by those refusing to accept anything but an extremely narrow definition of the term. deeceevoice 08:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hi. By "biological definitions", are you referring to the subsection under section 2? That subsection seems well-balanced and fair-handed; it seems both sides are given their due (albeit in a rather cursory manner.) What precisely is wrong with it? .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 08:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Several problems.

See here. Alun 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Black people are not a "race", it is a generic term for people with dark skin, Black people is not a synonym for either African American or Negroid, whatever Rushton and User:Kobrakid may think. Alun 11:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
While the section about biology (excluding the definitions for descent by the three non-biologists) is OK (and I wrote most of it) I doubt it's relevance, it is a general observation about "race", it is not really about Black people.Alun 11:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The alternative versions (part 1) are not biological definitions, and refer to a colloquial usage of the term Black people, rather than the broader scope of this article. Alun 11:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not needed or Should stress problems - I do not feel such a section is needed. If present it should begin with historical attempts to define race biologically and then compare and contrast them to present efforts by small, widely criticized groups in the scientific community.futurebird 13:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Both schools of thought can be reconciled There is plenty of scholarship that challenges how black people are defined biologically. Why for example are Ethiopians or Nubians classified as "white" in some reference books? A lot of current scholarship challenges this thinking as outmoded racial categorizing. I am not talking here about social historians, protest or activist writers, but hard-core DNA scientists. I have seen this info myself with all the footnotes right here on Wikipedia in medical and other places. I propose we put in this info to build up the article. Adrunkman 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should

why should brown people (Punjabi, Tamils,.. Indians in generell) be mentioned in the black people article when Nirmala Rajasingham thinks she's (we are) black? her voice is not more important than that of any other SouthAsian. Just because she's in some way "famous"?? If I say; I think we Indians are all from Antarctica and write a book about it, does is make it true?....No. Thats her POV, and shouldn't matter about the definition of black people.****Asian2duracell 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)****

U could use that argument for every single citation in wiki, then what would be the point, if she said that then it is valid as a critic. most statements including yours are a POV, it is your take on you being brown, some say there is no brown race, some say there is no black race--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Black is a social contruction, you dont need to study race to make the statement she made. Diop, Shahadah, and the other guys definately dont represent all Black people, actually ones says he dont support the term. so your argument for exclusion isnt valid. Her statement is valid on content as well. Black identity was born out of the civil rights, and in the UK Indians are called BLACK. in South Africa they were called Black.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indians are called "brown" or "Asian" in UK and in most African countries. Where u get that Idea from we get called black? Black is a social contruction... yes absolutely, like "white" is or like "brown" is. you dont need to study race to make the statement she made.. yess I dont need to study to make MY statement either. doesnt mean I'm right. Black identity was born out of the civil rights.. once more ur right. But It was In the USA. What has India to do with Us-domestic policy?

Btw I led the comment of Miss Rajasingam in the "Criticism of definitions" part. ****Asian2duracell 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)****

This is a perfect example of what an awful mess this article is, of conflicting angry agendas of authors who are not able to take a global encyclopedic view. Which is why I do not help any longer. You are free to tear each other to shreds angry and bitter. Good luck.--Filll 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are extremist non-scholary sources like Miss Rajasingam allowed in the article while scholary academic sources like these were forced out of the article:

According to Michael Levin "Ordinary speakers acquainted with the out-of-Africa scenario are most charitably construed as intending 'Negroid' to denote individuals whose ancestors 15 to 5000 generations ago (with Harris & Hey, 1999, counting a generation as 20 years) were sub-Saharan African...Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub- Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%.^[10] University of Western Ontario professor J. Phillipe Rushton states "a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa.^[11]

Sally Satel of the Policy Review stated “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens).^[11]

Page 42 of the abridged version of "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" states: "In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa^[12]

And just so you know, Indians in South Africa were called colored not black Iseebias

See Brown people, SqueakBox 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make this article more inclusive of a wider range of viewpoints from around the world and to have a family of articles that explored this. I tried to make room for scientific material as well as cultural and social material. However, the agenda of a certain class of Black Americans did not match with this, and the angry edit warring and visciousness among the black americans of disagreeing views, and between black americans and all others just became unbearable. And many good people have been chased away over the months and years. And if you look in the histories, you will see huge volumes of material has been flushed down the toilet as well. All so a tiny group can act like jerks and bullies. --Filll 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article is total garbage. It gives huge weight to unscholarly extremist opinions that make it sound like Gandhi was a black man, but wont allow mainstream scholarly opinions like Sally Satel to have any voice at all. The article's a total joke. Iseebias

In most of Colonial Britian many people who were not African were called black. Black is a word used for non-White people, in the Black History month in the UK it is used to included Indians, and even Jewish issues. this article reflects all def of black some you may agree with and some you may disagree with. Ghandi was called Black by White South Africans (Black Bast you know the rest, thats what he was called), the Austrailian poeple were called Black by white settlers. Arabs are called Sand N&&g by American whites. Clearly Blackness is not limited to Africa, actually Hausa, Fulani, Amhara etc etc do not call themselves black, Somali people in the UK have a special box called Somali they do not tick the Black box, while Ethiopians do. so respect it isnt a "black and white" issue.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But the article does not include all definitions. the definitions by Sally Satel and others were removed because they didn't fit the POV of the bullies who dominate this board. Put those definitions back if you truly believe in a plural article. But if you guys continue to remove definitions that don't fit your POV, expect others to do the same to your definitions. Iseebias

Well i dont know about that but they should be included, I know the biological stuff got chopped because Biology is a science and if these people are ranting about Sub-Saharan genetics that is false science especially if they arent into genetics. Politics and social defs should be included. everyone is a scholar and they might be a scholar in genes but not understand race, many of these white academics are know racist. But i will look at the comments and see why they were deleted because plurality is better.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This person is giving a scientific definition:

Why is he allowed to talk science when far superior scholars are taken out? It's because he supports the POV of the bullies who dominate the article. Iseebias

If you have a legitimate reason for removing a source (based on Wikipedia guidelines), please do so, and clearly explain why. As for your so-called "far superior scholars", being removed, the reasons have been clearly explained several times on this discussion page. The three non-biologists were removed as sources in the Biology section because they aren't reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. They are not experts on biology or genetics, and all three are white conservatives with blatant right wing and/or racist political agendas. Wikipedia is not obligated to publish marginal propagandistic opinions that pose as scientific fact. Spylab 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All 3 are experts on race and deserve a place in this article. The others being quoted are not academic experts in anything and you only keep them in because they support your POV. And not all support right wing or racist opinions and even if they did, you don't take scholarly opinion out of an article just because the scholar doesn't share your politics. Most of the people quoted in the article have a left wing black power political agenda but you don't remove that as marginal propoganda.Iseebias

They are not experts on biology, and if you read their individual articles, you will see that all three support blatant political agendas and are not reliable sources for Biology of this article. Like I wrote, if you have a legitimate reason for deleting other biased sources, go ahead and do so, as long as you provide a clear explanation that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Spylab 13:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushton doesn't support any political agenda. True a lot of racists exploit Rushton's work to justify their disgusting political agendas, but Rushton himself does not publicly support any political agenda. There's not even any evidence of Rushton being right-wing in his politics. In fact he's stated that he finds it very difficult to relate to political debates because he only looks at things from a scientific perspective. Have you ever seen Rushton on TV? He's not at all the raving right-wing racist you make him to be, but instead he's very calm civil open minded academic. And even if he did have a political agenda, 90% of people quoted in wikipedia probably have political opinions. So once someone makes a political statement they can never be quoted in wikipedia. In that case we should edit out everyone from this article. So Rushton's good enough to be published in peer reviewed academic journals but he's not good enough to be briefly quoted in wikipedia? Yet people who couldn't get published in a peer reviewed academic journal if their life depended on it dominate this article. The bottom line is this article is one sided because it claims black people are nothing more than a social construction and acts as though no other views exist. That's extremely dishonest and extremely misleading. There should be a brief sub-section at the end of the socio-political definitions section that's called alternatives to social constructionism that simply makes clear that some people define blacks as a racial category where Rushton, Levin and Sally are quoted. Otherwise the article is just promoting one sided anti-racialist propoganda and that's very POV. Iseebias

The J. Philippe Rushton article clearly demonstrates that he has a political agenda, and that he is a head of the Pioneer Fund. Just because he doesn't rant and rave on TV doesn't mean he lacks a blatant political agenda. One can be calm and still promote a fringe or extreme view. And again, he is a psychology professor, not a biologist or geneticist, so he should not be cited as an expert on biology or genetics. Maybe he can be considered a reliable source on other topics, but not science. Please explain your comment about the article being "anti-racialist propaganda." Spylab 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So what if Rushton is president of the pioneer fund. The pioneer fund is a perfectly legitimate organization, and its tax exempt, a status it would be denied if it promoted political propaganda. True some of its founders in the 1930s were racists, but was there anyone who wasn’t a racist in the 1930s? In the past several decades the pioneer fund has been leading the way in advancing the study of human genetic diversity, brain size and intelligence, twin studies. Two of its grantees are among the most cited psychologists of all time (Hans J. Eysenck, Arthur R. Jensen). One won a Nobel Prize (William B. Shockley). Three are Guggenheim Fellows (Arthur R. Jensen, Ernest van den Haag, and J. Philippe Rushton). Pioneer grantees have been elected as the presidents of the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, the British Psychological Society, the Behavior Genetics Association, the Psychometric Society, the Society for Psychophysiological Research, the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, and the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences. Grantees currently serve on the editorial boards of major academic journals, including three on the board of Personality and Individual Differences, and three on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence.

Again, you can’t just go around censoring well-cited scholarly material from wikipedia because you feel it could in some way be used to support a political opinion you don’t agree with. As editors we must be non-partisan and allow in all notable opinions, and Rushton is certainly notable. Even if you think someone’s racist, that’s not a good reason to censor them from this article because racism has played a huge role historically in defining contemporary black identity, and you can’t have a complete understanding of black identity unless you understand how racists identify someone as black, and so precise definitions should never be removed.

Rushton has published a blizzard of scholarly articles about black people in peer reviewed academic journals so his definition of black people is obviously accepted by much of the academic community. It’s fine to have a section explaining how black-power activists define a black person, but people should know that that’s not how the term is defined when used in academic research. Iseebias

Y was Sally Satel taken out

Sorry for asking but what was the issue?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, they took out Satel, Rushton, and Levin because they are not geneticists, even though Rushton teaches a university course on race. In other words they expect people giving opinions they don't agree with to be experts in genetics but they let any extremist political activist act like a sociology expert or anthropologist. Please support a plural article. Iseebias

I think the consensus was that their ideas were a bit too marginal and off topic for inclusion. futurebird 05:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd. How are definitions of black people off topic in a black people article? What was marginal about them? Some of the people being quoted may be controversial but the definitions being quoted are consistent with how the term is used in the real world. If you want to see marginal look at the quotes claiming that Dravidians are black. That's marginal in the extreme. But that's allowed in the article because it supports the POV being pushed Iseebias

I recommend that you, and others asking questions about why the three non-biologists were removed as sources in the Biology section, scroll up this page to see the explanations. It has been clearly explained several times why they aren't reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. Spylab 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They were moved out of the Biology section and into a race realism section but you still found and an excuse to remove them. And what about all the non-sociologists giving opinions in the sociology section? Apply wiki standards consistently or don't apply them at all.Iseebias

Race realism is a weasel term, and even the race realism article shows that there are two definitions; one being a racist ideology. Sociology is not a science, and one doesn't have to be a sociology expert to have an opinion on sociological topics. However, when it comes to scientific topics such as biology or genetics, it is imperative that the people commenting on it be experts in those fields. Also, the three non-biologists in the Biology section were not placed there for balance. They dominated the section because they were the only so-called experts cited in the entire section. That is not logical or academically sound. Spylab 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because Rushton is a psychologist does not mean he can’t give an opinion that relates to evolutionary biology, because evolutionary biology is a multidisciplinary field which includes evolutionary psychology. If peer reviewed academic journals allow him to express his opinions on evolutionary biology, then who are we to censor Rushton? It’s absurd to imply that all opinions given in wikipedia must be confined to the precise field where someone got their degree. No field is precise, and all academic disciplines overlap and blend into one another. And what’s with your double standard of claiming any wacko can be an expert on sociology but only a biologist can talk biology. Such a condescending attitude is a major insult to all the bright hardworking sociologists who invested a life time acquiring expertise in their domain and wouldn’’t appreciate you implying that expertise in their field does not exist. And Rushton is a sociobiologist because sociobiology is a multidisciplinary field that includes evolutionary psychology. And if you felt the biology section was dominated by one POV you should have balanced it by adding alternative definitions of a black person from a biology perspective. I doubt you would find any though, because “black” has a very precise meaning when applied in science. But I’m not even arguing there should be a biology section, only that the definitions be included somewhere in the article. If you don’t like the title race realism definitions, then perhaps racialist definitions would be more appropriate? I just want the definitions included because as it stands now, the article is only promoting the view that blacks are an arbitrarily defined socio-political group, and this ignores the fact that most people believe that blacks are an objective category of nature with an exact definition Iseebias

Most people, do not in fact, think blacks (or whites) are an "objective category of nature with an exact definition." Most people judge one's blackness or whiteness by how they look, not by genetic tests. Spylab 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well neither of us has done a scientific poll of what most people in the real world think, but I've very frequently heard comments that imply many people believe that it's possible to look black without actually being black. People say things like "Oh I thought all these years she was black but it turns out she's biracial" or terms like quadroon and web sites like halfblack.com or people who say Tiger Woods is a quarter black. All of this implies that millions of people believe that being black has an exact definition determined by blood quantum. That’s why I think it’s important and interesting to have a racialist section where people can spell out exactly the precise type and amount of ancestry racialists believe makes you black. It’s boring for the entire article to just be social constructionists who argue blacks are whoever looks black or whoever identifies as black. People expect more exact information from an encyclopedia and people coming here will want more specific answered. Iseebias

If you feel there should be more scientific information, feel free to post legitimate information from reliable sources who are experts in the field of science. Rushton and the two other politically-motivated non-scientists do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources on the scientific definition of race. Also, after looking at Wikipedia's article on racialism, I'm not sure why you think that racialist opinions would be a positive addition to this article. Spylab 15:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I’ve already explained to you that Rushton is indeed a scientist who teaches a course on race at a prestigious university, publishes scientific articles on race in peer reviewed academic journals, and although the pioneer fund has been maligned for funding politically incorrect research, it is tax exempt and thus does not meet the legal definition of a political organization. My goal is not to add more science to this article but rather to make sure all notable perspectives on who is black get documented. I came to this article to find out exactly who people are talking about when they use the word black and so it’s imperative that we include as many different kinds of perspectives as possible. Rushton, Levin, and Satel were not quoted saying anything derogatory about black people, they were simply quoted saying which people they considered to be members of the black category, sometimes with a degree of precision not seen in any of the other definitions in the article. As a user of an encyclopedia I want to see a complete discussion on who is black and I want specifics. If some notable figure thinks Dravidians are black I want to know about it. If someone thinks all non-whites are black I want to know about it. If someone thinks only people of recent African descent are black, I want to know about it. If someone thinks you need to have most of your ancestors born in sub-Saharan Africa to be black I want to know that too. And if someone like Michael Levin thinks anyone with less than 75% sub-Saharan ancestry is not black, then I want to know that. If the South African government under apartheid thought that only people with hair curly enough to get a pencil stuck in were black I want to know that. If the state of Mississipi thought that anyone with more than 1/128th sub-Saharan ancestry was black I want to know that too. But people keep removing fascinating information because it doesn’t conform to whatever agenda they’re supporting and robbing the article of diversity causing editors like Fill to leave in disgust. As Paul B stated, all notable opinions are welcome in this article and this knee-jerk tendency to impulsively remove anything that is even remotely politically incorrect is ruining this article. Iseebias

Rushton is a psychology professor; he does not have biology or gentics credentials. Regardless of the Pioneer Fund's tax-exempt status, it has a blatant socio-political agenda, i.e. scientific racism and the promotion of eugenics. They aren't a neutral scientific body that researches for the sake of inquiry, to advance technology or to cure diseases. Perhaps the opinions of the three non-scientists could fit into this article somewhere, with the disclaimer that they are not scientists, and that they are associated with specific political agendas. However, they should absolutely not be included as reliable and neutral experts on biology or genetics, becuase they do not meet Wikipedia standards for that. As I mentioned earlier, it would be nice if a Wikipedia administer could settle this once and for all, so I don'y have to keep explaining why non-bioligists and non-geneticists cannot be presented as reliable sources on those scientific fields. Spylab 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychology is a valid science and psychologists who study evolutionary psychology qualify as evolutionary biologists (and sociobiologists) because evolutionary biology is a multi-disciplinary field not confined to genetics only. The pioneer fund was founded in part by eugenicists but that was back in the 1930s when virtually all academics were racists. It's been accused of scientific racism but that's an unfair label that gets slapped on any researcher who dares to suggest that races may differ in intelligence just as afrocentric is an unfair label that gets slapped on any researcher who dares to suggest that black people had an early civilization. But unlike the so-called Afrocentric scholars, Rushton is published in peer reviewed academic journals which means he meets the highest standards of objective scholarship. Now I agree that none of these people are geneticists and so putting them in a biology section just because one of them is an evolutionary biologist gives the a little too much credibility which is why I'm insisting we just put them in a section called racialist definitions or alternatives to social constructionism. Now in that section we can put a disclaimer that they have been accused of scientific racism or whatever other accusation you can find a source for(in fact I'll even find the sources for you). I don't care. Again it's not my goal to give these people credibility, but it is my goal to make sure all notable opinions about who is black get documented in this article because I come here to find out exactly who is considered black and how the standard varies accross cultures, time periods, ideologies, political perspectives, etc. So it sounds like we agree that these definitions can be included in the article, just not in a biology section, and with strong disclaimers accompanying them. Because let's get real. People come to this article not just to see who black people consider black. Black readers already know that. They want to know who white people consider black, and even if you think some of these whites are racist, people especially want to know who white racists consider black because white racism has informed so much of the identity of black people around the world. Now I'not suggesting we open this article up to racist or racialist opinions of black people (that would indeed be off topic), but I do think it's imperative that we document who racialists consider to be black because that's really the question we come to this article to get answered: Who is considered black? Iseebias

what does..

What does what white peoples called others to do with black people article? White's called allmost everyone black or dark even their own (SouthernEuropeans).****Asian2duracell 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)****

Err, which white are those? North Europeans? I dont think Southern Europeans call southern europeans black, nor do their ancestors get called black in the US, SqueakBox 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Northern or Western Europeans called SouthernEuropeans dark, sometimes black. Some still do. But my point is this article isnt about who did the whites called black. And what the f*** has US to do with it? Asian2duracell 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean North Western as probably half of Western europe is also Southern Europe. There is some truth in what you say. I agree with you that we arent interested in what white people call bl;ack people, though, SqueakBox 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re the US just that Americans dont call Southern Europeans or their descendants black, SqueakBox 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah North-Western Europeans. But it seems like some editors define it that way. Especially that HalaTruth guy. What Americans call the offspring of any race has nothing to do with it. Asian2duracell 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

scientific definition

This person is giving a scientific definition: also feels that the standard conceptions of black people fall short, stating: "There are two well-defined Black races: one has a black skin and woolly hair; the other also has black skin, often exceptionally black, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidian. It is also known that certain Nubians likewise belong to the same Negro type...Thus, it is inexact, anti-scientific, to do anthropological research, encounter a Dravidian type, and then conclude that the Negro type is absent."

Well my version; "There are two well-defined European races: one has a white skin and straight hair; the other has brown skin, often exceptionally brown, with straight hair, aquiline nose, thin lips, an acute cheekbone angle. We find a prototype of this race in India: the Dravidians.

You wanna say that this Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop's deifinition is scientific? Seriously, he is very Afrocentric probably even a Black supremacist. An his definition is outdated. Asian2duracell 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why hasnt the above user been blocked for his 3rr? It is beyond me why a passionate Brown person is on Black people acting as a scholar and going against agreement?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, why is a Black person intersted in adding Brown people into the Black people article? I'm not a scholar. But noone of the editors is either. As I am Brown and not Black I dont want to mentioned in that article, thats why I'm here Asian2duracell 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any mention of Asian2duracell in here, you should probably just stick to what you know and make sure no Black people get mentioned in your brown section. P.s can someone report this user for 3RR as it is counter productive, and we have enough issues.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Diop is hardly an authority on scientific definitions. Indeed, the quoted words above seems to have little relation to science at all. But it doesn't matter in the slightest how you, mr Duracell, want to be described. You know very well that other Indians think differently (especially as you're currently arguing with one over on the Talk:Australoid page)). The article should incude and discusses all notable points of view. Paul B 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. All notable points of view should be expressed, and that's why I'm disgusted by the bullies who censored the definitions by Rushton, Levin, and Satel from the article. Perhaps putting them in the biological definitions category gave them a bit too much credibility, but they should return to the article, perhaps under racialist definitions. Diop should stay in the article too but he and others should be moved to a section called Afrocentric definitions or perhaps he should be in the racialist definition section since he seems to be advocating that races are real. Iseebias

First of all. Oh my f****ng god. I cant bellieve that some people think that my first comment on scientific definition was seriously. It just should show that hes comparison of Blacks and Dravdians is absolutly loosly. Like one has bright nose the other hasnt. One has curly hairs the other has straight hairs. And one has fat ass the other hasnt any at all... and so on. And saying that both have dark skin, thats why they have to be from the same "race". My statement is more BS than his was. Hell no I'm not European, and I dont want to be. I could have used EastAsians as an example that those Afrocentrists dont go fury. I googled that Mr. Diop and what do we see.... Dalit: The Black untouchables of India,The African origin of Civilization , and so on. Im not sure if everything what they show was written by him. But thats a sign of Afrocentrism for me. Why dont we go back in history and mention those racist white "scientists" who thought Blacks are in between Monkeys and Whites. Or those who thaught everyone with darker skinclouor is inferior. That Mr. Diops "scientifical" cognitions are outdated some generations ago. They aint as much absurd and inacceptable as that of those white racists but still not authentic.

Come back to u Mr Paul B, u seem to be interested in any article about race. Ur everywhere, Australoid, Dravidians, Black people, and so on. As an expert u are. Why dont u make a contrubution to the Black people article. Btw I'm not arguing with an Indian on the Ausrtaloid page, hell he asked me how many Hindu-speaking Indians there are in Bollwood. Then he said that why are there no real Indians in Bollywood. I replied that they are real just fairer than average. And that guy still dont understand. Do u think that he is Indian?.....The article should incude and discusses all notable points of view. Well who is going to decide what is notable and what is just someones fu**in POV. In this sense ****Asian2duracell 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)****

If the person has a wikipedia article, he or she qualifies as notable. Iseebias

Everyone can make articles about anything and anyone. U can make one about urself. But I dont think ur that stupid to tell the world who the f*** u are. Asian2duracell 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

S/he's lots of people. I'm who I say I am. Mr anonymous on the Australoid page claims to be a Dravidian who was present at the time of the Killevanamani massacre (which was in Tamil Nadu, 1969). I don't thnk he currently lives in India. Writing 'Hindu' instead of 'Hindi' is not so surprisng if he is not a native I-A speaker (after all, Hindi is aso called Hindustani). I agree however, that you are rational in comparison to him, which is not saying much. Paul B 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well everyone in India, maybe in SouthAsia as a whole, knows the diffrence between "Hindu" and "Hindi". Even if u arent a native IndoAryan speaker. And every Indian knows that there are dark and light skinned Indians. Hindustani is a group of languages who are allmost the same. Like Urdu, Hindi and others. About "Killevanamani massacre", I havent heard about it before. But I'm not saying it doesnt happened. He or maybe She says that "Aryans" slaughtered "Dravidians". But on a wikipedia article, we see that some landlords murdered some labourers. Well that means "Dravidians" on "Dravidians". Well I'm not sure if he was there or just read something about it and try to act like he was there. Asian2duracell 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can write "hole" for "whole", perhaps Mr Anonymous can be forgiven for mistyping Hindi as Hindu. At least the U is next to the I on a keyboard. Paul B 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well smartass, if u think so... asswhole lol. (was a joke, Mr. Serious). The Hindu-Hindi matter is not the only thing. There are more things which shows that he cant be Indian. Read the "discussion" urself.Asian2duracell 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentric or just valid

I dont like how this word Afrocentric is used, let me exaplain "Egypt is African"--Afrocentric, "Africans are noble civilized people" Afrocentric. U c the pattern, when non-Africans see any empowering statemnts bout Africans it becomes Afrocentric. So why in the def we dont have Eurocentric, or in the slavery we dont have Eurocentric opinions of slavery? or In WHITE PEOPLE have an Afrocentric section there? I call this thinking a product of being in a racist controlled society, we actually dont even realize what we are saying is so corrupted. So i am just laying out. Just because someone says something good about Africa doesnt mean they need a special label like "Psudo-historian". --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Virtually anyone who believes that any early civilation in the world was black gets labled as Afrocentric. It's used as a way of marginalizing them. But it might not be that these people are Afrocentric, it could be that mainstream history is Eurocentric, so relative to the majority of scholars, these people are Afrocentric. We probably should make clear that these opinions are not considered mainstream, but calling them Afrocentric implies that black scholars who believe blacks played a role in world history are somehow biased because of their race. Seldom is the term Eurocentric so used to marginalize white scholars documenting the contributions of whites. Iseebias

Its Afrocentric when Africans claim others history. But it isnt if they praise their own. Every civilisation had his contribution to the human evolution. Some Afrocentricts dont realise that some cultures increased independent. Asian2duracell 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

lets avoid the term unless it applies. many say good things about Africa and should be weighted on content not origin or implication. To thus speak of glorious Africa is just factual history, to speak negative of Africa as pre-civilized is Eurocentric, let the content determine the label. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Hidden category: Articles with unsourced statements