Talk:Negro/Archive 1

This page 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.

While generally speaking is correct than in Chile the word "Negro" is used, while in a colloquial context, as a friendly treatment, in Argentina is a very offensive word, usually meaning "low social class individual". --Leprosy 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"a trivial and racist insult, suggestive of holding fascist opinions" I would guess this needs rewording since I'd imagine hold fascists opinions isn't "trivial" in Italy. But I don't really know anything of the subject. --Eean 04:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recently and anonymously added: "According to an often cited poll, more than 3% of American blacks choose "Negro" as their first choice in describing themselves." What the heck kind of citation is "an often cited poll"? Looks like a factoid to me. No date, either. Unless someone can come up with a better citation for this, and attach a date to it, I think it should be deleted. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is still no citation on this. If none is added within 48 hours, I am deleting. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Still no citation. I have cut, " According to an often cited poll, only a little more than 3% of American blacks choose "Negro" as their first choice as a term of self-designation. The term is in more common use among those born before the

post World War II baby boom and in the Deep South." I would welcome the return of this to the article with citation. -- Jmabel | Talk

00:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Negress

Word appears in the title of a Miro painting, for whatever that's worth. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, but only as a translation from a language where all such words are inherently gendered. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:27, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and now that I think about it this aspect of French might well be mentioned in the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At different points in his life, he would have used French, Spanish, or Catalan, but the issue is the same in all three. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know this. You know the original title was in French, right? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Had no idea, don't know the piece, just that all three languages he ever had as effectively primary had the same issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/022-29358/ . The "Negress" section might acknowledge that there are a wide variety of artworks having this word in the title by a number of famous (and little-known) artists. Some on- and offline research might lead to a more extensive discussion of the term in this light. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have cut some recently added material that I believe is inappropriate to the article.

First, with a new heading "Census Bureau tally of Negroes in the United States" were (accurate) census figures, reproduced here:

• 1790 757,208 (19.3% of the total population of the United States).
• 1800 1,002,037 18.9%
• 1810 1,377,808 19.0%
• 1820 1,771,656 18.4%
• 1830 2,328,642 18.1%
• 1840 2,873,648 16.8%
• 1850 3,638,808 15.7%
• 1860 4,441,830 14.1%
• 1870 4,880,009 12.7%
• 1880 6,580,793 13.1%
• 1890 7,488,788 11.9%
• 1900 8,833,994 11.6%
• 1910 9,827,763 10.7%

This seems inappropriate because this is an article about a word that is now considered, well, politically incorrect. This would belong in the article

— in fact, I see that it is not there and I will put it there — which is about the people. This article is about a word.

Second, with respect to Lyndon Johnson:

He knew that the pseudo-aristocratic President

John Kennedy had introduced the word blacks in 1961 at his press conferences before the National Press Corps. Also, of course, he knew that there were no blacks in the United States

prior to 1960.

Very POV. "He knew", "pseudo-aristocratic", "there were no blacks". There may be something worth saying here, which may belong in the article, but, if so, this is not the way to say it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

GOOD GRIEF! The item

.

Like Rudyard Kipling said: colored people are "White Man's Burden."

Until recently, Chinese and Jews were laughing stock, too, until they developed nuclear weapons. People from India were forced to develop nuclear weapons, too. (Rudyard Kipling was born in India, so his ideas were born there, too).

When Iran and North Korea continue to develop nuclear weapons, it is due to the fact that nuclear weapons provide them with the machinery that brings freedom. It is not because they are "AN AXIS OF EVIL."

Liars plague the Internet, today. Every U.S.A. city that I have seen being described on the Internet includes a statistic called "% of African-Americans." Until recently, there were no "blacks" or "African-Americans" in the U.S.A. Where the hell did they come from all of a sudden?

People who want to write their own history must do what Russia did: develop nuclear weapons so that other human beings won't treat them like buffoons.

I don't know if Wikipedia has a Rosa Parks wiki. If it does, people will write that she took a seat on the bus in the white folks section. Nothing could be further from the truth, because she was not suicidal. She has tried to explain that she took a seat in the colored (rear) PART OF THE BUS. People dislike her true rendition of the event, so they change it to where it suits them for propaganda purposes. Actually (of course), a white man walked to the rear of the bus and told her to surrender her seat to him. The National Television networks of all types insist that Rosa Parks sat in the white folks section.

I believe that they are LIARS.

I am old enough to remember when Negroes stood in the aisle of a bus beside empty seats because they were afraid to sit down on a seat that was reserved for white people.

Rosa Parks would never have taken a seat in the white folks section of a bus because she would have been dragged off of the bus, beaten, jailed, fined, and run out of town. She knew that she could not offend the white folks by breaking their rule.

The Wikipedia article called American Colonization Society is also beseiged by LIARS who are constructing a facetious version of history. GOOD GRIEF.

February 4th, 2005 11:55 A.M. GMT.

A word can be a perfectly appropriate topic for an article, and that is what this article is about. You are basically correct on Rosa Parks. And other than that, you make some remarks that I won't dignify by responding to them. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:18, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

The recent claim that Johnson used the word "blacks" only "jocularly": is there a citation for that? Even a specific instance of him using it that is at all clearly jocular? Otherwise, I'm inclined to revert it. I was about 14 when he left office, and this doesn't jobe with my memory. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:21, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it, because I remember LBJ. It simply isn't true. deeceevoice 03:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the restoration of that sentence re Walker. I misread it. :-) deeceevoice 03:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should be edited slightly as it leaves one confused as to whether she is "reclaiming" Negro or Negress. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like someone edited this around to the point where it became unclear. I'll fix that. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The recent anon edit that the word is now disparaged "especially among leftist thinkers" seems very wrong to me. I haven't exactly heard, say, Karl Rove or Margaret Thatcher say "negro", either. If someone does not have a solid citation for this within 24 hours, I will feel free to revert, and would welcome earlier reversions by someone else. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of Wolfsburg's recent edits. I don't know Portuguese well enough to be comfortable on connotations. I'm always a little worried when a new contributor's first edits are on a controversial matter, which is what we've got here. I'd very much appreciate hearing from an experienced contributor with fluent Portuguese. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know little Portuguese myself. I made the corrections to the relevant passage, which Wolfsburg subsequently reverted. Certainly in Spanish, "negro" is literally black, and "prieto" is a term referring to darkness of skin tone. (My bad. I didn't see the "Portuguese" qualification when I edited it. Portuguese does, indeed, differ, of course, from Spanish in some respects; and "preto" is the Portuguese variant of "prieto.") In Spanish and Portuguese, the word "negro" literally is "black" and is used generically in just about every possible context one would use "black" in any other language. "Prieto," however, refers to darkness of skin tone in both Spanish and Portuguese and absolutely would not be used to refer to someone who was a cafe-au-lait black person. And, yes, because Brazileños and other Latinos are generally notoriously "color struck," being considered "preto"/"prieto" is undesirable, and the word often is used as a put-down.

From an online Portuguese-English dictionary:

1. preto [a] (black, achromatic) being of the achromatic color of maximum darkness; having little or no hue owing to absorption of almost all incident light. More...

2. preto [a] (black, pitch-black, pitch-dark) extremely dark. More...

3. preto [a] (black, blackened) (of the face) made black especially as with suffused blood. More...

4. preto [a] (black) dressed in black. More...

5. preto [a] (black) (of coffee) without cream or sugar. More...

As you can see, "preto" is used in the context of the intensity of blackness, or blackness as extremely dark in a relative context ("pitch-black, "extremely dark") -- and in this particular application (the article), it "preto" refers to the darkness of one's skin; a "preto" is someone who is dark-skinned. Wolfsburg's edits are simply incorrect. Reverted. Again. deeceevoice 11:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 deeceevoice 11:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I can help. I speak Portuguese fluently (I am Portuguese) and perhaps the best translation of "negro" is 'dark'. It could mean black, but most of the times it means dark and especially in this case. As for the word preto: preto means black. It is basically the word for black (the colour). I'll change the article myself, if you don't mind. Glad I could help! ;)--Ciga 22:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. You say that the night is negra, but it is unusual to say it is preta. Though the dictionaries may not be all aware of it, the word negro conveys the idea of great darkness, but not entire blackness. Preto on the other hand, means just that. All these subtleties are, of course, found in contemporary Portuguese. In the past both words meant the same, though negro was more classy.

Another aspect, of Brazilian Portuguese, is that you use preto for things: tinta preta (black ink), roupa preta (black clothes), carro preto (black car) so you should not use it to refer to people (the same rule is not followed for the white race, however !). Negro is a bit abstract and poetical.

I think most people have chosen negro instead of black from the influence of the French language, especially after Leopold Sendar Senghor's concept of Négritude (this very word is commonplace in Brazil). Therefore, the word was legitimized by its use by a prominent "black, African, respected leader".

Until the mid-20th century black people were called pretos in Brazil. There are many churches in Brazil which use this word in their names, like Igreja de Santa Efigênia dos Pretos in Ouro Preto (Blackmen's Saint Ifigenia's Church). Google for "Nossa Senhora dos Pretos" and you'll find dozens of churches named alike. jggouvea 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the following paragraph:

"A specifically female form of the word—negress—was sometimes used; but, like another gender-specific word "Jewess", it has all but completely fallen from use. Both are considered racist and sexist."

Suggest revision to "Both are widely considered racist and sexist."

Personally I can see no more inherent sexism in these terms than I do in the word 'Actress' or any other gender-specific word, and I cannot be alone on this.

Maybe, but it can be colourably argued that "actor" is more often used to refer to only a male practitioner of the profession (though there has been something of a shift to females calling themselves "actors" as well), while "Negro" and "Jew" are generally thought of as referring to both genders. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, perhaps the word Negress or Jewess is considered extremely racially offensive in the States, but elsewhere? To suggest that these opinions are universal (or even held by the majority of 'right-thinking people') seems a little OTT. Xyster 14:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Where in the English-speaking world are they not generally considered offensive today? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • Allwords.com says "Often offensive."[1]

• I agree, it could be said that these words are GENERALLY considered offensive - hence I requested the use of 'widely'(which incidentally is used earlier in the article). However the current wording suggests universal agreement on this.

I would disagree that in Britain the word 'Jewess' is generally considered taboo either in terms of race or sex, or that 'Negress' is considered as anything more than an obscure, antiquated anthropological term. I can understand that from a US viewpoint this is sensitive, and they are both special terms for minority women - but just because a word refers to someone's race or sex doesn't make that word inherently racist or sexist. Or am I just unusually thick-skinned?

Regarding this difference in perception, I note the American Heritage Dictionary says: "Like many other English nouns in which the suffix -ess is added to a gender-neutral word to indicate femaleness, the terms Jewess and Negress are now widely regarded as offensive.". I doubt many people in the English-speaking world outside the US would concur that -ess is a sexist suffix; it just happens to be part of our language. Note, though, the use of 'widely'. Xyster 14:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

See in article about use in titles of artwork. But that should be more extensively developed. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (maker of crayon drawing The Negress Surveys the Priceless Atomic Diameter Environed by a Three-Quarter Arc of Golden Pearls in Summer)

I largely copy-edited the recent addition on Post-Soviet states, but I don't know what "is not applicable in the most layers of society" is even supposed to mean. If someone can reword, it would be appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the editorial work! The society in post soviets states is separated like in West Europe 50 years ago (workers, blue, white chips etc.). I.e. it is not possible that somebody applies the word cvetnoj to the people from the southern regions in TV. It will be sensed as racism. On the other hand it is also bad taste to use such expression even in the private talk with the good friends. MH. (10 Aug 2005)

I take it from this that "not applicable" meant to say "socially unacceptable" -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I believe on the subject of wether or not its politically incorrect to call someone a "negro" although i would personally feel uncomfortable calling a white person a "caucasoid".I do know languages develop and change over time, adapting to cultural changes,so since the culture has changed since the days of slavery and noone can leagally own anyone anymore it isnt really ur desicion what u want to call someone.It makes me think that some would prefer the good old days when one could call a black person another N word. —The preceding

) 31 Aug 2005.

I suggest changing the words "CIS states" to "Russian language", since Russian has official status in just three CIS states, and besides, Russian is spoken well beyond the CIS boundaries. CIS is a loose political formatiom and does not to be deserve to be mentioned in a sense of cultural and historical unit. 87.99.79.1

I wonder if theres any history of calling white women caucasettes? —The preceding

) 31 Aug 2005.

Probably not, since White people were the norm... I like the sound of it, though... =P

fowl mouthed nixon

ALL THE PHILOSOPHER KING'S MEN.(President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman)(Brief Article) Harper's Magazine, Feb, 2000, by James Warren

From a May 13, 1971, conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman. On October 5, 1999, the National Archives made available to the public 445 hours of previously unreleased Oval Office tapes. The following dialogue was transcribed by Chicago Tribune reporter James Warren.

RICHARD NIXON: We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family--let people like Pat Moynihan and [special consultant] Leonard Garment and others believe in all that crap. But I don't believe in it. Work, work--throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key.

JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN: The key is Reagan's neutrality. If Reagan blasts this thing and says it's not strong enough on the work-requirement end, that will be very bad.

NIXON: I have the greatest affection for them [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.

EHRLICHMAN: The Mexican American is not as good as the Mexican. You go down to Mexico--they're clean, they're honest, they're moral.

NIXON: Mexico is a much more moral country.

EHRLICHMAN: Monterrey, Cuernavaca. Go into slum areas, and by God they come out with clean shirts on a Sunday morning.

NIXON: The church. You find a helluva lot less marijuana use in Mexico than the United States.

EHRLICHMAN: The unions are actually a stronger force down there than the church.

NIXON: For what?

EHRLICHMAN: For conduct and social policy.

NIXON: ... CBS ... glorifying homosexuality.

EHRLICHMAN: A panel show?

H. R. HALDEMAN: No, it's a regular show. It's on every week. It's usually just done in the guy's home. It's usually just that guy, who's a hard hat.

NIXON: That's right; he's a hard hat.

EHRLICHMAN: He always looks like a slob.

NIXON: Looks like Jackie Gleason.

HALDEMAN: He has this hippie son-in-law, and usually the general trend is to downgrade him and upgrade the son-in-law--make the square hard hat out to be bad. But a few weeks ago, they had one in which the guy, the son-in-law, wrote a letter to you, President Nixon, to raise hell about something. And the guy said, "You will not write that letter from my home!" Then said, "I'm going to write President Nixon," took off all those sloppy clothes, shaved, and went to his desk and got ready to write his letter to President Nixon. And apparently it was a good episode.

EHRLICHMAN: What's it called?

NIXON: "Archie's Guys." Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. The son-in-law apparently goes both ways. This guy. He's obviously queer--wears an ascot--but not offensively so. Very clever. Uses nice language. Shows pictures of his parents. And so Arch goes down to the bar. Sees his best friend, who used to play professional football. Virile, strong, this and that. Then the fairy comes into the bar.

I don't mind the homosexuality. I understand it. Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddammit, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.

EHRLICHMAN: But he never had the influence television had.

NIXON: You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France.

Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.

EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality.

NIXON: Huh?

EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage.

NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]?

EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over.

NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.

Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.

EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.

NIXON: Jesus Christ.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Harper's Magazine Foundation

--220.238.44.174 09:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Have you read it? It is about the word "Negro". -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevent. We are not talking "Nigger" here.--58.104.11.118 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we have a seperate page for term "

Afro-American" then?--220.238.164.56

05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We discuss that term in the article

African American. I don't really see that it needs a separate article: the two terms are nearly interchangeble (much as are Euro-American and European American), although African American has become the more common form. - Jmabel | Talk

06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Italian

I have added also the italian as a origin meaning for black: in fact the word, even if considered archaic in odern italian, is still in the vocabulary meaning for black, e.g. "vedova, sconsolata, in veste negra" (Petrarca), "triste, cupo: sogni e penser’ negri.. " (Petrarca) --Biopresto 09:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• So what is the
  politically correct word in today's Italy
  for black Africans? --Roland 01:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Correctness

To suggest that the word Negro had negative connitations in say the 50s possibly inaccurate. The word Negro carried with it respect when used. It is a pity that the word which carried such respect has largely gone. These days people are called "black people" or "African-Americans" or "Afro-Carribeans" or some other mouthful. These terms do not have the same respect as the term Negro had. Martin Luther King refered to himself as a Negro, and with justified pride. Wallie 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any such implication in the article. But perhaps I am missing something. Can you point to the passage you think implies that? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read this piece in a very long time, but I have just one question. Why isn't this article titled "Negro (word)"? It is, after all, about the term and not the peoples. If the name of the article is not to be changed, then how 'bout an italicized note at the beginning of the article explaining that it is about the term? deeceevoice 02:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think the article needs a "hat text", go for it. I don't think we usually make a parenthetical addition unless there is an issue of ambiguity. We could move this article to

Afro-Cuban, etc. But I don't think that is necessary: I doubt anyone today would look up "Negro" as a way of finding these topics. Still, if there was some sort of consensus around it I wouldn't object. -- Jmabel | Talk

20:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the "Further reading" section relevant?

The "Further reading" section of this article is basically a bunch of books with "negro" in their titles, from the era when this word had approximately the same meaning that "African American" does now. They are not about the word "negro", which is the actual topic of the article. Do they really belong here? (Some of them may belong at

07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry the Navigator

I don't understand:

Negro was the descriptive assigned by Prince Henry the Navigator, the fifth son of King John I of Portugal.

Do you <strikw>mind mean that Henry was called negro in Portuguese? That Henry named negro the African slaves? Why is any of those important?

Anyway, there were black slaves in Rome and Al-Andalus and in Christian medieval Spain. The Portuguese just by-passed the middle-Moor. --Error 23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Assigned by" means he used it. This would be absolutely clear to any native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what would make it clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should we learn that he used the word? He wasn't the first, was he? --Error 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the nickname was because he had either pitch-black hair or a swarthy skin (this second seems likelier). Elsewhere in Europe the equivalent term "to black" was often used likewise. jggouvea 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know the source of these two comedy bits about LBJ from the mid-1960s.

1. A voice coach working with LBJ as he endlessly tries to repeat "Nee-grow" rather than "Nig-ruh"?
2. A comedian as LBJ saying "It took me five years to learn to say 'Negro' and then they changed it to 'Black'"?

-- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(as in, "Negro, please!")

Would this be when someone is asking for black coffee without milk? Andjam 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if its someone speaking Spanglish in a New York deli.

I would say that anyone African American or who has any significant number of African American friends will mentally hear the intonation the moment they read that (two subtly different intonations, actually, depending whether it is entirely joking or slightly indignant), and completely understand the connotations, but I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to anyone else. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If it can't be explained, does it belong in an encyclopedia? Andjam 06:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Tough question. It's more or less a catchphrase. As usual, those aren't easily explained. Can you explain "23 Skidoo" or "Far out"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There have been several rounds of deletion of interwiki links to this article and related articles, and reversions of the deletions, on several wikis. The problem seems to be that most wikis deal with the biological/evolutionary as well as sociological/linguistic aspects of the word in one article, whereas in English and a few others the subject is split into Negroid and Negro. Interwiki linking shouldn't be a problem between wikis that have only one article, but there may be a problem with linking to English and other wikis that have two articles – unless "double interwiki" is possible, i.e. two links to the same wiki from one article. Is it possible?
Unfortunately the deletion that has been going on is plain deletion and not replacement, and it even deletes interwikis between wikis where there is only one article. I think this is wrong, and I have reverted the deletions once in some of the wikis. However, I would like to see the opinion of other wikipedians before I go on reverting across the wiki world. --Eddi (Talk) 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this for several articles too. Unfortunately, the way interwikis are designed is to be one-to-one. If an article is talking about the biological and the linguistics/sociological aspect of an ambiguous concept maybe it should probably be split. If an aspect is missing from a language, it probably doesn't deserve it's own article, but might be mentioned. I don't think a simple mention suffices to have an interwiki link. ---moyogo 21:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

An interwiki should link to the single most appropriate article in another language. It should be possible, from there, to navigate to other relevant material. So it's OK if two different English-language articles interwiki link to the same article in another language; that article should interwiki link to whichever English-language article is most appropriate, and the English-language articles should almost certainly link to one another. - Jmabel | Talk 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Today I reverted a change made by someone who was on a mission to impose UK English on articles in US English. That is, most changes were to another article, but from their history I reverted this one too. However, my changes were later reverted to the UK spelling (that is, the one added earlier today) with no comment except 'rv'. This isn't an article I monitor, and I am leaving it as is, but inviting those interested to decide what to do. There are Wikipedia guidelines that apply. Reference: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Notinasnaid 19:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. There are guidelines to follow, and since the first major contribution [[2]] (more than just a sentence or two) was written in American English, this article should conform to that standard. Confiteordeo 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

isn't negro a slur term?--142.177.124.67 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In English today, especially written with a lowercase n like you wrote it, it can be. Historically it was not. Have you read the article? This is basically what it is about. - Jmabel | Talk 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Negro is not a slur term. Millions of Negroes were placed on the auction blocks and sold. Negroes used to be valuable commodities. Their owners protected from abuse until the Civil war of 1861-65 "freed" Negroes. Many negroes have been shot from ambush and killed since 1860. In my opinion, "

African American" is a slur. RxBrainwashers

19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Negro is considered a slur term since it was manufactured during the slave trade. There have been more acceptable terms that have emerged but it really addresses a bigger issue here. As a whole one group does not have the right to place a label or identity on another group. Man names himself so that others may address him. African-American, Negro, Black etc... can all be considered offensive based on if the individual doesn't choose to identify with it. If a person says I am black, or African American, or White etc.. this is practicing racism. However if an individual chooses to identify with these terms, then it isn't offensive, but only to that individual. Applying these terms to a whole group based soley on color of skin or other factors places this label on individuals who may not identify with this term . This type of nomenclature can be considered a slur. For example, I am a Moor or Moorish-American, others may not choose to identify with that and may say using this term with them is not be acceptable. On another note, humans should have never been considered a commoditiy. Doing so dehumanizes that particular individual and doesn't respect that individual or group of individuals human rights, which are above all other rights on this planets. The comment above referring to Negros being placed on auction blocks is irrelevant. The term Negro refers to anyone who has African ancestry no matter how remote. In this same logic everyone in the world is a Negro. The term Negro was used for various Africans captured and placed in chains. A correlation to the many species of smaller fish in the sea captured and placed in cans are considered sardines. There is no free fish in the ocean classified as a sardine. They only get that name once placed in cans similar to Africans only received the label Negro once placed in chains. This term then became widespread through European Americans, Europe and racist historians decided to use this label to demote the Africans to a sub human race. In addition it is not accepted by todays anthropologists and historians, however it still remains in older books of reference.--Gnosis 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there is another usage, mainly within the African American community, still current (though maybe not among younger people), and also generally using the exaggerated knee-grow pronunciation: using the term to suggest that someone is an "oreo", and a bit pretentious. As in "that uptown knee-grow can't even remember what the ghetto looks like." I lack citation for this. Does someone have something? Or does someone think I am wrong? - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the following:

However, today some Portuguese people and Portuguese-speaking Africans prefer the term preto, as opposed to branco (white), rather than negro (which also can mean "dirty").

"Negro" does not mean "dirty" in Portuguese. Check here.

• ---In Spain, for example the word "Gitano" is "gipsie" or "Roma" in english, but in the phrase "pareces un gitano" or sometimes ¡Gitano! is used for dirty or slovenlined. Many Romas were (are) scrap dealer. 212.97.181.220 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In Portuguese "negro" can be used poetically to refer to things that are not black, but only dark. The chief difference between preto and negro in Portuguese is that things you call pretas must be actually black, but things that are negras may be dark (in poetical sense, I insist). So, you can say nuvens negras for rain clouds, but not nuvens pretas (these ought to be actually black). But negro 'does not mean "dirty". If it really meant so there would be no need for racists to say negro sujo ("dirty black") to offend a black person.

And I insist there is not the slightest notion of offensiveness in the word. Black people in Portuguese-speaking countries do not mind to be considered black just as white people don't mind being considered white. Offence comes from the way the word is used. For instance it becomes an insult if you address someone with it: Oi, negro! (Hi, black man), for instance, would surely be VERY offensive. On the other hand, Brazilians sometimes call each other affectionaly nêgo (a dialectal variation) without any undertone.

Xica da Silva called her a negra (the negress) without problem. jggouvea

01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Black or dark?

The article first says that negro is in some languages 'black' and then it says 'dark. Which is it, or is it both? I want it to be clear what it means. —The preceding

) 14 June 2006.

In Spanish, it properly means "black". Like "black" in English, though, it can merely mean "dark". A "Black person" is not normally literally "black". A "black night" is not necessarily truly lightless. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

N-G-R, NETYR, NIGER, NEGRO, "NIGGER," NIGGA, THE ORIGIN OF A SACRED WORD the racist term "Nigger" a derivative of the original name for God, "N-G-R"(pronounced "Net-ger") is continually used and taken to insult. The term "Nigger" has its origins in the sacred and divine title for "God," and came from the Egyptian WORD FOR GOD. That word is "Net-yer" or "Net-ger" from which the English terms "nature" and "nurture" came from. The idea of God being nature and nature being God, comes from the African and Egyptian idea of what God is which shows down to the similarities in the terms used to describe aspects of the Godhead.

HOW THE WORD FOR GOD, "N-G-R" (Net-ger) became Niger, Negro and "Nigger"

The ancient Egyptians called their Pharaohs "N-G-R" (Net-ger) because the Egyptian Pharaoh was seen as a representation of the sun and the Sun God. The original Pharaohs who were pure Black Africans SAW BLACK SKIN AS SACRED AND A DIRECT BLESSING FROM THE SUN GOD, ATEN. In fact Blackness and black skin became associated with God and the sun.

BLACK PEOPLE WERE POWERFUL, CULTURALLY ADVANCED, MILITARILY SUPERIOR, BLACK/DARKBROWN IN COMPLEXION, STRONG STATURE, TALL AND DESCRIBED AS A "HANDSOME" RACE , (SEE HERODOTUS, "THE HISTORIES, DESCRIPTIONS OF "ETHIOPIANS" OF AFRICA AND SOUTH INDIA).

The recognition of the Pharaoh as a living God and the black skin as a blessing spread worldwide to other cultures. In fact the term "Net-ger" became the Ethiopian "Negus" or "Negashi."

The first people to corrupt the term "N-G-R" were the Roman invaders of Egypt who may have heard the term used to describe the leader of Egypt or Nubia. The term "Niger" was later used to mean any Black/Negroid person that the Romans saw in Africa or anywhere else.

The Romans tried to invade Nubia during the early years of the Christian Era. Then, Nubia-Kush was ruled by a line of Queens called "Ka'andak'es (Candace). One such queen and her son defeated the Roman army at Aswan, (see http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire ) Egypt and burned the Roman Fort. AND CARRIED THE BRONZE HEAD OF ROMAN EMPEROR AGUSTUS TO THE CUSHITE (NUBIAN) CITY OF NAPATA. The Romans colonized and spread the Latin language to Europe. Due to this linguistic influence, the Latin term "Niger" became "Negre" in French and "Negro" in Spanish.

The English colonialists and slave entity borrowed the term "Negro" from the Spanish. The term for Black people in England before Shakespeare was "Moor" or "Black-a-Moor." The English slave owners degraded and defiled the entire name by turning the Negro into a slave and turning the original term "Ned-ger" or "God" into the racist term "Nigger." One can say that they have insulted the sacred name for "God" and have oppressed the original people created by God. This phenomena is due to their own sense of inferiority.

LIST OF NAMES FROM THE ORIGINAL TERM FOR "GOD" AND "NEGRO/BLACK"

N-G-R (net-ger) Ancient Egyptian for God

Net-tyr (Net-ger) Khemitic/ancient Egyptian = God, Sacred, Nature

Net-tyr (Net-ger)

Negus (Nee-goos) Ethiopian term for "Emperor."

Negashi (Nee-gah-shee) Ethiopian term for "Emperor or King."

Niger: Roman/Latin term for Black or Negro

Negre: French for Negro or Black

Negro: Spanish for Black

"Nigger" racist, corrupted term used to insult, degrade, enfuriate.

Nigga: (pronounced "nig-gah), used as a term of endearment by some youth; rejected by others as sounding too close to the racist term "Nigger."

Netzer (as in Nazerine) Hebrew for "root, original)

Naga (South Indian and African term) (Black Negro tribes of India and Africa - Sudan to Nigeria) = original

Nagaloka - The Black Negro, Negro-Australoid, Indo-Negroid/Sudroid lands and people in Asia (India to Indonesia) (see more from the book, "Nagaloka,' by M. Gopinath (Dalit Sahitya Akademy, Bangalore, India) also see "A History of Racism and Terrorism, and Overcoming," at www.xlibris.com

Ndaba (Manding-Congo/South Africa) = A counsil of wise people, kings, chiefs, ect.

Ngola (Manding-Congo) = "King/Lord"

Nkosi = God (Zulu, South Africa)

Ngosi = blessing (Ibo, Nigeria)

Nyamekye = God's Gift (Akan, Ghana)

Nile (Egypt, Sacred River)

Niger (West Africa; Sacred River)

Niger (country in West Africa)

Nigeria (country in West Africa)

Nugarmatta: Term used by Africans of Ghana Empire to call themselves (see writings of Ibn Buttata -- National Geographic Magazine

http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!1E!ED!919A26D33BAB/PAULNUBIAEMPIRE/TRACKINGAND/index.html

The article begins "Negro means "black" in the Spanish, Portuguese, Filipino, and ancient Italian languages…" Doubtless true, but what is the relevance of Filipino and ancient Italian to the article, which is about the use as a term for dark-skinnned people of African origin or ancestry? Surely that comes from Spanish or Portuguese, not from Italian, let alon Filipino, a language that postdates the period in which this word came into use. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Italian and spanish come from latin. Some philippino words from spanish. Maybe only show the meaning's mind society.

I believe that the quotation from Stanley Lane-Poole in the article is at least a slight misquote or paraphrase, but it is in quotation marks. There is a vague remark citing it to his 1886 book The Story of the Moors in Spain. I don't believe that the theory of African origin of the human species had any traction at that date. I suspect that nothing beyond the first sentence—"According to American law, anybody with African ancestry, however remote, is a Negro"—is Lane-Poole. And maybe not even that, because the next portion, like the thirteenth ring of the clock, casts doubt on what went before. If someone can cite this solidly, great. Otherwise, I think we should remove it from the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given this a few days. No one has responded. I am removing it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the passage I removed is "Stanley Lane-Poole, author of The Story of the Moors in Spain remarks in his book: 'According to American law, anybody with African ancestry, however remote, is a Negro. To follow this logic, since evolutionists believe the human race originated in Africa, according to evolutionists, everyone in the world is a Negro. A word so vague it has no meaning.'" - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph. Quote: "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white." I did not delete this sentence out BUT who in their right mind wrote this, and I mean, "wow Nelly". —The preceding

) 29 July 2006.

RACIST STATEMENTS AT THEIR BEST

Last paragraph. Quote: "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white."

WOW NELLY, what the hell is this? —The preceding

) 29 July 2006.

Negros enslaved by Africans

I find it hard to swallow the continued spread of mis-information that Europeans enslaved Africans. I've found no proof of such claims and believe it is generally accepted and acknowledged by experts that slaves were sold by their own people to slave traders on the African costs; especially those on the Atlantic.

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html :

• "This human cargo was transported across the Atlantic Ocean and sold to New World slave owners, who bought slaves to work their crops. "
• "European sailors seeking riches brought rum, cloth, guns, and other goods to these posts and traded them for human beings."

For lack of cited sources, I have removed the claim that Europeans enslaved Africans and added a citation req. for the claim that Africans were enslaved IN Portugal. (Has anybody heard of that claim before?) Andem 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• In West Africa 1700-1870 there was mongos (slave traders) of every race and mixed, but mostly white captain's ship. looking for Mongo John or Mongo de Gallinas or Mongo Canot in internet.

User:212.97.181.220|212.97.181.220]] 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is with the recently added phrase "dark hued people", now repeated twice in the second paragraph, which already contained the perfectly clear phrase "dark skinned people"? - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am italian and in Italy negro isn't considered an insult or a dispregiative word. Negro is a scientific word, it comes from "razza negroide", the scientific name of africa's human race. Some people in Italy thinks that negro is an insult because, according to an old way of thinking, using words which remember race differences is unprofitable. Nowadays, italians have no problem in talking about genetical difference and races so negro is often used in books, television shows etc. Every italian vocaboulary considers negro a not-racist word.

Bobbore

When it says qoute "Around 1442, Europeans began to enslave Africans in Portugal" is that true do to the fact rome enslaved africans to and they were treated in a manner as slaves."The Romans were what could be considered a colonial power--actually a conquering power is better--and they brought captives from different parts of the world--especially Africa."<----- referring to captives as slaves(from http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm) I may have read article wrong so please do not quote me on the state ment. -- daven200520 (jayson mcknight)

1. Roman slavery was a very different institution than "modern" slavery.
2. Romans enslaved defeated peoples in general. Specifically racially based slavery in European societies was a different matter.

In other words, this is not the first time Europeans had held slaves, nor the first time Africans had been enslaved, but q. - Jmabel | Talk 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence sounds rather clunky, if not misleading. The enslavement of Africans by Europeans began in Africa itself. They were brought to Europe already as prisoners, after all. FilipeS 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people say every day - " that blond...", "that man with black hair..." without any insultive meaning. Why we cannot say " that negro..." ( "that black...", "that dark-skinned man..." )" or " that white..." ( "that white-skinned man..." ) when with this words we can better describe the man? The words "niger","negro" are not bad, bad are such people that give them insultive meaning. —The preceding

) 23 November 2006.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about the article (in which case I don't see what your question really is? Are you merely asking, as your subject header says, why "blond" isn't an insult? (Why should it be?) Or are you asking why some words for ethnicity or appearance are insults and others aren't? (Which is not easily answered, but it's just like any other insults: most insults are words where there is also a non-insulting word for the same thing.) Or why particular words have become insults and others haven't? (Not easily answered, but the most interesting question of the lot, so it's the one I'll try to answer.)

"Black" and "White" in contemporary English are not insults. They are simply the most common terms for people of certain racial backgrounds. "Negro" often is seen as either archaic or vaguely condescending, because is was the most common, polite term for black people during a period when, in most Western countries, they were decidedly second-class citizens. The adoption of "black" (or more specific terms such as "African American", "Afro-Cuban", "Afro-Peruvian") as terms of self-reference represented a conscious statement of wishing to move beyond that history and form a more self-defined identity. Similarly, "nigger" (I assume that is what you meant when you wrote "niger") is even more insulting, and has moved beyond the point where it can be seen in contemporary use as even merely archaic, because it relates to slavery times, and because it was a word favored well into the 20th century by the most virulent and violent of white supremecists; even among blacks at that time, the word was almost uniformly an insult, much as when a white person might call another white person "white trash". There have, of course, been efforts to reclaim the word in recent years, especially in the hip-hop culture.

Again, these things can change over time. When Conrad wrote The Nigger of the Narcissus the term did not yet have its specifically racist, insulting connotation: much as when Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet "He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice", "Polack", now an insult, was, at the time, a perfectly acceptable word for Poles. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider the inclusion of a link to...

• "The N-Word" by Paul Niquette

...as an outsider's perspective of a linguistic event. Paul Niquette 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me (a new wikipedian) for putting this in the wrong place. I shall appreciate guidance for putting it in the right place. Paul Niquette 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That page isn't loading for me. Are you sure you have the URL right? - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just checked it again myself and it worked. Paul Niquette 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Works now for me. There's nothing actively wrong with it, but I think the content is a little lightweight to be linked from an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with your opinion about its weight, I am wondering about the implied criteria for external links. One of the most distinguishing features of wikipedia is its power and convenience as a selective portal to a range of sources for thoughtful insights and commentaries that augment bibliographic references for the formal content in the articles proper. Please vector me to the relevant policy.Paul Niquette 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policies are Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In Mexican Spanish, negro is still the most widely used word for people of dark skin colour (not only of African origins); and it has no negative or racist connotation; unless when preceded by some word which is offensive by itself (in these cases, an agressive or derogatory

) 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

WHEN DID NEGRO BECOME OFFENSIVE? WHO MAKES THESE DECISIONS?

What are they teaching you in school these days? I for one do not find the word offensive. It's spanish for black. This is ridiculous. I rarely call myself African (hypen) American. I actually rarely call myself Negro, unless in writings, I usually us the term Black but the word is not offensive. I don't like colored/coloured. I don't like being a hyphen. Who makes these decisions? Name sources please. When you say it is considered offensive please site sources. Hey, just call me Human sense the term means man of color. (NitaReads 03:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

A typical Negro? Has no one else seen this? I'm disgusted. —The preceding

) 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Let me guess that this (and the following) saw vandalized states of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture of a "typical negro" is offensive. I believe that it was not chosen at random but rather to portray a negative view of black people.

I attempted to change or remove the picture but was unable to. It did not appear in the "edit this page" box.

Could someone more knowledgeable than myself please fix it. Thanks. —The preceding

) 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Reverted due to vandalism

I didn't check the version to which i reverted to in detail, it was the first which seemed okay at a first glance (just skimming through the text). Maybe someone can check in detail to make sure there are no traces of subtler vandalism left --82.141.54.211 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the term 'Negro' is offensive. It may be becoming archaic, but it is not obsolete.

http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/Negro

IT IS IN ALL OF THE HISTORY BOOKS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE AN "ETHNIC SLUR." I HAVE REMOVED THE WORD FROM THE CATEGORY "ETHNIC SLURS."HYPERDUNCE 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The term Negro is now largely seen as archaic and sometimes almost as offensive as the slur nigger.
This is a matter of opinion and should be removed from the article.
70.69.50.77 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? I know of no tribe in Africa caled negro. In the US, which is what I assume you and most people get their ideas of a black person, they may have been called that and used it in the past, but that does not mean that it was accepted. When you were kidnapped and shut out of society, it is hard to figure out what you should be called, since half whites cannot be called white - yet. This article is clearly biased and I would not doubt if it is just anohter one created by white supremacist groups who roam the internet trying to make it appear as if they are larger than what they are.--71.235.94.254 19:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is little or any evidence that the word Negro ever encountered any objection from black people until the late 1960's, when the word rather abruptly went out of favor. During most of U.S. history it was by far the most respectful term for black people, was the term most commonly used by (among others) Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshal, Charles H. Houston, Martin Luther King, and in fact just about everybody. I've never been able to figure out how and why this word suddenly became regarded as offensive. I do know that it was Malcolm X who first popularized the idea that there was something wrong with it. I also know that prior to Malcolm's popularity, not only "Negro" but "Colored" were quite acceptable to black people. I guess this was just one of those linguistic coups that comes along every once in a while. Of course, if people now regard the word as offensive, we shouldn't use it, no matter how it may have originally come to be regarded as such. But for sure there was hardly anyone who thought of the word Negro as offensive or inappropriate, or indeed as anything but a quite respectful term, until the late 60's. Tom129.93.17.229 00:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How come the article states that Portugal first came into contact with Africa while trying to find trade routes? Portugal was an extension of Africa and came into contact (literally) with Africa at least 700 years prior! Black(I know there were 'other' types too) Moors as clearly dipicted by Europeans were in Portugal as rulers. I always find it funny when whites try to run away from this fact and try to make it appear as if there are two different types of black (complexion) Africans. The Moors were black, which is why they were NOT called Arabs. They were from Africa, not Asia. They may have been called Moors beofre Africans were called negros, but they were black as well. You also have to keep in mind that Europeans only knew the parts of Africa that was Muslim dominated, this is why they went around the west coast of Africa - to avoid the Muslims who controlled the Medditeranean.

Stop the lies and get the facts straight. There are too many Euopean deipctions of clearl black Moors in RULING positions ans well as blacks in slave positions, which you will find in Africa even today. I guess since North Africa controlled whites and imported them as slaves as well as mixing with Europeans, white pride feels the need to lie about this aspect of Euopean reality. Not everyone stays on top forever.--71.235.94.254 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)\

The phrase "Negro is a racial term...." could be written without "racial". Strictly speaking, the context is correct but the meaning in common language may be understood as a negative. "Negro is a term...."Goodpaster 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this short form. What do you mean by poor e? (With regard to removing a portion of text).--Gregalton 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I clicked the enter button, instead of shift. I meant to type "poor English grammar". As it's difficult to understand. Cheers. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, language-corrected and more complete, with citation flag, re-inserted.--Gregalton 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about this category. In what way is "Negro" an ethnic slur? In some places and contexts it may be viewed as outdated, or even somewhat negative, but to call it a slur is pretty questionable. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the term "Negro" is outdated in some contexts, perhaps. But I think it falls short of slur. Any contrary opinions? Otherwise we should remove it from that category. WDavis1911 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see negro as being outdated but it's not a slur.--BeardedWoof 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a slur but if you need some reference: Modern Language Association (MLA):

"negro." Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 18 Dec. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negro>. Alatari (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course a dictionary would say it's a slur, they're very cautious about such things, but is there any good argument somewhere why it is? Preferably from a respected African American academic.

Negro is the least ambiguous and arguably least derogatory of the three common terms used to denote the original Niger-Congo speaking peoples and their descendents. Of the other two:

• Black is used throughout the world to describe any relatively dark-skinned ethnic group, often insultingly. If anything, I would claim that it helps perpetuate the idea that 'black' is a 'race', whereas in reality the only thing these diverse groups have in common is their skin colour (and even that varies wildly).
• African is at least as vague. Even if you ignore the fact that everybody on the planet is originally African, you're still left with a term that lumps African-American Africans, Pygmies, Bushmen, Nilo-Saharans, Malagasy, North Africans and the descendents of European colonials together. Rwestera (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited out the part about 'negro' being derogative in Spanish because it simply means 'black'. The pejorative term in Spanish is 'negrata'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.156.221 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that it is necessary; if others feel that a picture is needed, I'd say one without nudity would be better. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that the anon IP who keeps reinserting this material is a suspected sock of an indef-banned user, and is currently disrupting this article,

WP:ANI, User talk:Muntuwandi and others...--Ramdrake (talk

) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Dispute resolved, I guess, if the user only seeks to be disruptive. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

She is hardly nude, only exposing a breast. It's not porn it's very elegant art. I personally find her to be rather beautiful. And when did we start censoring on Wikipedia? --222.155.47.162 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that she was very beautiful but the nudity offends many people. Alatari (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "negress" is present in art and sculpture because the names of such artifacts are not changed to suit the current terminology in any culture about any matter, so far as I know. The word was the then-current descriptor at the time the art was created. To make a point of saying the word endures is to suggest that it is somehow noteworthy in this use rather than merely a fact of no particular importance. If there is a need to illustrate this historical use (and I do not agree that it is required) then the illustration should also clearly show that context. Bielle (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of the portrait, "Rittrato di una negra", has been translated into English. There is no reason it could not have been entitled "Portrait of a Black Woman", which would render the use in this article incorrect. Bielle (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are many English examples of this. And Karen Walker and others have made recent artwork in which this use appears in the titles. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been called "Portrait of a Negress" since it was painted. That is what it is universally known as in the English speaking world, meaning it is relevant, and shows the preference of the art world to call/translate it as 'Negress' rather than 'Black Woman'. --222.155.47.162 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it can't be included, especially because

Negress redirects here. Here's some information on the painting Alatari (talk

) 06:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2 versions

"people of high melanin content" is wrong. People with very dark skin would be clear, and "people with skin with high melanin" would be valid (scientifically) but obscure. Who came up with "people of high melanin content". The people are not, percentage, by mass or volume, full of melanin. Their skin is. Big difference. user:Wpostma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.198.185 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Can we have a consensus vote on which version to settle on for this article? I apologise if there's already been one reached but I can't find it. One version (the current one) starts with the paragraph "Negro is an archaic racial term referring to people of high melanin content.." while the other begins with "Negro is a

term referring to dark-skinned people, usually of African origin." Both versions seemed to keep getting reverted by several editors, 2 of whom are banned dynamicn IP socks Jeeny and Hayden5650. I personally have no real preference for one over the other but it would be nice to have a consensus reached. --Nuttycoconut (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer this version because it appears more neutral and there are more references, although the article still needs improvement. The first sentence, as far as I'm concerned, can be either the one you quoted or the one there now. Whatever everyone else agrees with is fine by me, of course. :-) BBhounder (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• I wrote the current sentence to be as neutral as possible while making sure it's obviously become a disused English word and that many hate the word. The melanin content goes to science which I hope would carry fewer connotations. The references should be kept. Thanks for protecting the page. Alatari (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The "high melanin content" version is ridiculous. People don't use racial slurs based on expert scientific analysis of a person, they do it based on a visual judgement, such as "looks black, I'll call him a (insert whatever slur here)". To use that version is to introduce a gross factual inaccuracy, because it implies that this term is used as a slur after a determination has been made that a person has high melanin content, which everybody knows is false. It's like saying "Bitch is a term used for people with two X chromosomes" (pardon my language but this is a rare case where there's no apt analogy that can be made in a polite manner (also, wikipedia is not censored)). A better wording would be "dark skinned", or something very similar - TheBilly^Talk 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

High melanin content is what causes dark skin and can be determined after visual inspection. However, light skinned people with suntans aren't called Negro though so some other ethnic facial and body features are at work. This is an encyclopedia and I don't see a problem with using neutral scientific terms. Alatari (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I go back to my chromosome comment - TheBilly^Talk 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bitch-chromosome content was a poor analogy for

ethnogenetic definition not a colour one; something along the lines of the Race and genetics article. Alatari (talk

) 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Dictionary.com list of definitions. I wouldn't be opposed from selecting from one or combination of those defs. Alatari (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepting that the article is describing an archaic term, most of the "Further reading" section comprises rather inaccessible works from a century ago. Is there anything more modern to put in the list? --

) 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think most of those books should be removed. This is an article about a term, not about actual people. Any books listed as further reading should be about the word "negro," not black people themselves. --Allen (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I just saw that my edit here was marked as a minor edit. I was using Twinkle and used the "restore this version" option.. I guess my default sets this up as minor. I will figure out how to change this. Nevertheless, the version I reverted was obviously POV. I reverted it to the version before hand, but to be honest, I'm not totally comfortable with that version either. I am fairly certain that the reason implied for the UNCF's usage of negro is correct from what I have read (quotes from Michael Lomax, president and CEO, specifically), but what I have read isn't clear enough to be obviously outside the realm of

) 06:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

anonymous, please explain your edits

Anonymous, you are insisting in your unsourced additions that "Negro" is in some sense the correct term for black people. Please read

) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Negro/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)	Press [show] to view →
A pretty decent article, but needs better sourcing. - Jmabel

Last edited at 15:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)