Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Black people
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Ezeu
Mediator(s)	Jon Cates (talk · contribs)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Black people]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Black people]]

Request made by: Ezeu 06:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

At Talk:Black people and Black people

Who's involved?

Myself, User:Editingoprah,User:Zaphnathpaaneah, User:Paul Barlow, User:Shiftaling, User:Jcvamp, User:Jmabel User:George m User:YomUser:YukiratUser:Kobrakid and User:Dark Tichondrias.

What's going on?

This is a dispute about whether only people of African origin can be called black, or if other "black" people, eg.

Australoids

and other non-African black people can be included. The conflict can be summarized with these two points:

1. User:Editingoprah User:Yukirat and User: Kobrakid say that there are precise census/scientific/dictionary definitions of Black. Only people of Sub-saharan origin are black.
2. The majority says that there is no precise definition of "black". "Black" can either be an ascription based on subjective criteria, or it can be adopted as an identity by certain groups. Not only African people are black, as other peoples are referred to, and self-identify as black. —The preceding comment was added on 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC). by Ezeu.

User: george m and user: paki.tv feel a disambiguation page should separate the different deinitions of black people. Editingoprah —The preceding comment was added on 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC). by Editingoprah.

User:Editingoprah says that the cenus of contries (i.e. the U.S. and U.K.) limit the definition of black person to those of African ancestry. Further dictionary.com defines a "black person" as someone with African ancestry[[1]] and so does the field of biomedicineand and so does the Free Dictionary Online[[2]]. . EditingOprah feels that those who wish to define Black in ways that ignore African ancestry represent a less established view that should not be allowed to dominate the article because this violates wikipedia's undue weight rules. Editingoprah feels that an encyclopedia should focus on more official definitions of Black (i.e. census, dictionary, biomedical) and undue weight should not be given to definitions of Black that are less formal or precise or mainstream. Further, Editingoprah argues that since the article is about Black as a racial or ethnioc category, it's important to try to limit its use to those with African ancestry, since DNA studies show that Australian aboriginals and South Asians are wildly unrelated to Africans (noting that while sub-Saharans fall all fall in the bottom right half quadrent on this genetic chart[[3]] other dark skinned groups fall in other quadrents, and thus all should not be lumped into one race since race is defined by common ancestry. Editingoprah also feels that just because some people may lump all darkish people together, does not mean all darkish people belong in article about Blacks arguing that some people call dinosaurs and crocodiles lizards, but this doesn't justify putting dinosaurs and crocodiles in a lizard article. Asking User:Editingoprah ro respect consensus has been to no avail because Editingoprah feels that wikipedia no undue weight rule is not negotiable since wikipedia is not a democracy. Futher Editingoprah feels the article mainly attracts people of a certain view and many are recruited. —The preceding comment was added on 14:30, 8 August 2006. by Editingoprah.

What would you like to change about that?

User:Editingoprah should understand that the majority are against him. He holds a strong opinion on the matter, and seems unwilling to accept apparent majority.—The preceding comment was added on 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC). by Ezeu.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

n/a

Mediator response

• I will try to help out --Jon Cates 02:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pending evidence, the page appears to discuss color as a source of ethnic-classification. If this is the case, the view that non-Africans are called black is in order. As it has been pointed out in the Talk:Black_people page, people of the time referred to many non-Africans as black. Since the article constitently refers to perceptions of the time, I recommend that the article include statements that non-Africans were deemed Black.

I recommend also, that the article be sufficiently rewritten as to make sections easy to understand, and the inclusion of a Modern interpretation of the term Black referring to Sub-Saharan Africans following genetic understanding of common groups.

Your comments are appreciated. --Jon Cates 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already is an article called

color metaphors for race. In my opinion it would be more appropriate for people to discuss all the non-African groups described as Black on that page. I don't think discussing Black identity as understood by most of the world as equating with African ancestry should be mixed with Black as descriptive term used to describe anyone kind of dark (even the Irish were described as the Black Irish. To me this would be like trying to write an article about Indian identity and history where people insisted on talking about both Indians from India and Native American Indians. It would lead to a terribly unorganized article. I mean there are so many deep and complex issues about the global Blackness identity defined by African ancestry (i.e. how much African ancestry is required to be considered Black in different countries, descendants of slaves vs descendants of free Africans, how people of African ancestry are treated in different countries, historical perceptions) that this mainstream definition should be the only focus of the article. But unfortunately there are so many people who want to confuse an already complex issue by talking about totally unrelated groups who coincedentally have dark skin too.--Kobrakid 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If this is a prevailing train of thought, then the Black people article should be edited to view black in the auspices of People of African-decent, while removing the tone that color as a source of ethnic-classification which seems prevelant in the article. --Jon Cates 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond more properly to the mediator when I have time to do so. It may take at least the weekend before I can rebut to Kobrakid. In the mean time I hope Jon will refrain from proclaiments such as "prevailing train of thought", as that is the very essene of this conflict. I also beg that the American point of view not permiate this issue. --Ezeu 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezeu, American point of view has nothing to do with it. I've never lived in America and every country I've ever been to equates Black with African ancestry. It's not just America and the American census. It's the British census, it's latin America, it's Canada, it's all of Africa.--Editingoprah 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every educated person in Africa where I was born, and in every country I've ever lived recognizes that not all black people are African. --Ezeu 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow doubt you polled the educated segements of the contries you lived in, so you really have no idea how they define Black.--Editingoprah 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely replying to you claim that every country you've ever been to equates Black with African ancestry. Did you run a poll there? --Ezeu 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I would point that my statement was if this is a pervailing train of thought. I do not feel I am here to declare what is or is not pervailing, but to show potential middle ground. Whilst I am American, I do not have a stance one way or the other on this matter, in as much I have presented options on both sides that bring the discourse to the center. --Jon Cates 17:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sory for my hurried response. --Ezeu 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cates asked me to provide my arguments and documentation so I'm putting my summary here so no one will miss it. Feel free to move it to a better place (evidence section?).--Editingoprah 19:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Offer by 62.25.106.209

Create a disambiguation page to split up different definitions 62.25.106.209 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer by Zaphnathpaaneah

In the Black People article there are two sections I had already set up for EditingOprah's viewpoint, which I find inclusively valid. But I cannot exclusively support his view in the article as the pre-eminent viewpoint. The compromise is already available in that he can enhance the two sections to his satisfaction without interrupting the efforts by other to contribute constructively in other areas of the article. [4] [5] — Preceding

I recognise, and beleive it or not, I respect the point of view represented by Editingoprah et. al. There are at least three positions in this issue. One view that claims that all black people are Africans (Editingoprah claims this is my belief), and another whose aim is to associate all "black" people, African or not (not my objective either). The third position (Editingoprah's) wants to reserve the designation "black" to sub-Saharan Africans, and disregard from peoples who are, identify as and/or are regarded as black. My position is that "black people" does not only refer to people of African decent. My compromise is that the article not explicitly (as there are differing opinions) state that "black" equals African, nor that it implicitly does so by ommititing the fact that some non-African people are also black.--Ezeu 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposed by mediator

The compromise I would propose is: The article should speak to the association of black to skin color with a section devoted to the consideration of 'black' due to lineage. While the U.S. Census does specifically mention Africa, it does not state Sub-Saharan Africa; further, it incorporates non-African examples. As for the British Census, it does not have this same delineation. In particular the British census points only to African-Blacks in one of the 4 subgroups of Black or Black British. It is in my view that this point is paramount, as both Census bodies (which I feel are reliable) include non-Africans in their definitions of Black. --Jon Cates 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But someone just pointed out (it seemed to have disappeared) that the U.S. census implies Sub-Saharan by mentioning only the black ethnic groups of Africa, as opposed to the much lighter North Africans. And the other non-African examples are still African diasporas populations from the slave trade. --Wikiwalkman 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Recruiting sock and/or meatpuppets to abuse other editors[6], and/or pretend to have consensus will merely lead you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Checkuser shows y'all (Editingoprah etc.) are editing from the same geographical area, so sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry is certainly going on. --Ezeu 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any agreement on any of the compromises provided above? I believe that there is ample discussion and the proposals in whole or in part are a good step towards mediation. If anyone has feedback I am anxious to hear it. --Jon Cates 02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the mediator's recommendation. --Ezeu 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless requested otherwise, I am closing this case. --Jon Cates 06:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do so. I do not see that there is much more to add. Thank you for taking your time to mediate. --Ezeu 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Editingoprah's point of view

My argument is that this is an English speaking version of wikipedia and should adhere to the English norm of equating Black people with people of African ancestry. While I understand that black is also a generic term that describes any dark skinned person, it has a precise meaning which refers exclusively to those with some African ancestry and this is what the majority of the world means when they say someone is Black and those that keep pushing other dark-skinned ethnic groups who coincidentally share dark skin are not only violating wikipedia’s no undue weight rules

Dictionary.com[[7]], the free dictionary online[[8]]., the U.S. census[[9]], and the British census[[10]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[11]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “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)."[[12]]

Even the University of Buenos Aires and Oxford university uses African DNA to determine how many people in Argentina should be classified as Black [[13]] This anthropology article makes a clear distinction between Negroid (which means Black in Spanish) and the dark skinned Australoids[[14]]. Further, the following chart by leading population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza[[15]] clearly shows that the ethnic groups of Sub-Saharan Africa all cluster genetically in the bottom half of the bottom right quadrant, which validates the idea of viewing African-origin people as a coherent race and not confusing them with Australian aboriginals, who are in the top left quadrant or the dark skinned South Dravidians of India who are in the top right quadrant. This article from the highly respected magazine the Economist linked Black self-identity to genetics underscoring the importance of not watering the term down by mixing unrelated dark-skinned groups.[[16]] Further a 2002 Yale university DNA study claimed that Africans are one of the world’s 5 principal genetic groups[[17]] so again the idea of grouping dark-skinned Africans with dark-skinned non-Africans is promoted by people who don’t understand science or who don’t understand that black’s just a metaphor for African ancestry and not a literal description of skin color.

Other editors ignore this mainstream definition of Black which is backed not only by the census but also by science, and give undue weight to the fringe view that dark skinned South Asians and others have equal right to consider themselves Black simply because extremist political movements have occasionally identified the untouchables of India as Black or that white Australians occasionally refer to the aboriginals as Black in a very rough and ready descriptive sense. But by their logic, black people should be extensively discussed in wikipedia’s monkey article since Neo-Nazi skin-head movement commonly describes black people as Monkeys. My point is fringe views and fringe word usage should not be given undue weight in wikipedia.

Further, just as it wouldn’t make sense to lump Native American Indians and Indians from India in one article, it doesn’t make sense to lump the informal descriptive use of Black to describe any darkish group ranging from the Australian aboriginals to the Black Irish with Black defined as an ethnic-racial and social construct involving African ancestry. Blackness as defined by African ancestry has a unique history, unique cross-cultural variations, and will make for long and complicated enough article without us having to accommodate the totally different and unrelated ways the word has been used. --Editingoprah 19:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Zaphnathpaaneah's Point of view

As presented clearly in the article multiple times

• Black as a color term literally refers to dark skin
• Black as a historical descriptor of people literally was used to describe people inside and outside of Africa (ex. Kush, Cochin, Aeta, Negrito, Moor, Aethiop, Ayn, Siddi...)
• Wikipedia's english language area does not mean we diminish the presence of non-english speaking people in an article. We merely describe them using the English language.
• Genetic variation is insufficient to classify race. Firstly because the variations are smooth and not sharp (as in different breeds of dogs), and thusly, the transitions, or the mixed populations vary also. The cutoff points are arbitrary. Second, more importantly, since Ancient Africans are widely accepted to be the original humans the variations between human groups over time, no matter how wide, do not and should not base themselves on the regional origin (i.e. the continent of Africa) to determine the racial-as-color classification. One cannot become less black merely by leaving the continent of Africa, that would thus imply a physical aspect of the continent that affects humans in a scientific way racially. (in otherwords this is a circular argument to say that blacks come from africa because africa is a black continent).

Reason number three. If we strictly rely on genetic interpretation, then many black people who are highly mixed with European and Native American ancestry would be technically less black then as well, and overall would be classified as non-blacks with black admixture. Considering the real absurdity of that, it's obvious that blackness is not based on purely genetic origins.

• The experiences of people throughout the world due to colonialism was felt equitably by many people throughout the world. People considered to be black in Asia experienced the same kind of prejudice as in Africa.
• People in Asia and Australia who consider themselves black, relate unconsciously as black. Their cultural history (esp in INdia) written and oral extend millenia describing black people. There is no reason to diminish that fact.

Evidence

Mostafa Hefny, a Black man from Egypt was, ironically legally barred from identifying himself as Black because the US Census laws forbid it. As EditingOprah indicated as a reason, the legality of being black compromises the reality of being black. [18]

Merriam-Webster (a reputable offline dictionary with a far more credible history) offers this clear distinction of black [19] 4 a : a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin b : AFRICAN-AMERICAN. As you see, it shows "various population groups" not just "African American", even though in the b. description it offers African-American as the primary group it uses as a synonym or example. again from Merriam-Webster 2 a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : SWARTHY <the black Irish> b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin <black Americans> (2) : of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz> Again, fundamentally lacking from these descriptions is the implication that ONLY Africans and their direct descendants are black. The free dictionary dot com is managed by a company called Farlex, Inc, which does not have a history of reputable credibility in which EditingOprah uses as justificaiton for his position. Although I would consider them adequate for general use, in situations where we are discussing matters of this nature, to choose between a dictionary with over 50 years of experience and one that is only available offline, I find the more credible history worthy of more consideration.

In the Policy Review if you pay close attention you will see the article mentioned above by EditingOprah and it's apparent lack of ability to distinguish between the belief in a biological racial concept and a socially described concept, often people say they use the one meaning when in fact they are using the other. http://www.policyreview.org/DEC01/satel.html

IN the very same article, Sally Satel, describes clearly her position by attacking another's position:

• "Robert S. Schwartz, a member of NEJM’s own editorial staff, attacked the straw man in an editorial response entitled “Racial Profiling in Medical Research.” He insisted that, genetically speaking, “humans — all humans — are so similar that to try to divide them up into neat little categories and label them yellow race, white race, black race, and so on, is insupportable.” Instead of investigating biological variables associated with race, Schwartz wrote, “physicians everywhere must teach the immorality of racial discrimination in clinical practice.” "

Continuing Ms. Satel says,

• "Schwartz wants it both ways. On one hand he warns against the “dangers inherent in practicing race-based medicine,” yet on the other he eagerly encourages the analysis of race as a variable in “research to root out social injustice in medical practice.” "

What I hope you can see is in this last paragraph Ms. Satel's definition of race changes, yet she does not realize it. The first one is a biological matter, the second, the "race as a variable in research to root out social injustice in medical practice" deals with the socializations of race in the minds of doctors and politicians and how that social attitude influences their medical decisions and policies. This does not prove or disprove a biological element, it merely shows that Ms. Patel is attacking herself a straw man. What Schwartz is referring to is our perceptions of people, not a biological element that contributes to racial discrimination. There is no evidence of a biological element that contributes to racial discrimination that I know of, other than across the board human capacity to fight and be territorial like animals. Yet, this is the common bait-and-switch method that EditingOprah has continued. He discusses a genetic predominance, yet when he is shown the DNA does not match the colloquial or even the modern understanding, he then abandons it and argues for a western English only social definition.

It is not science that is being debated. As I indicated to EditingOprah, the DNA itself cannot be seen to have the words 'black' written on it. Only those DNA genes and segments that deal with phenotype and melanin content for skin color are worthy of consideration for use in determining if one is black or not (that is, if we rely on a DNA code). On the other hand, the article "African Diaspora" is a far more appropriate forum for EditingOprah's position on this matter and worth more effort on his part to bring home this notion.

In regards to INdians and India. That is a totally different view, based on a misunderstanding of a word, a religious word, not a physical descriptor. The English word "Indian" comes from the word "Hindu" and was applied to the Native Americans because Colombus thought he was in INdia, because to him the Indians in the Caribbean resembled those in India. (This only lends more credence to the notion that black people vary and are diverse by the way). The social identity of being "indian" comes from the ethnic identity and religious origin misapplied to another people. The fact that these people adopted the name (and not the religion, nor the ethnic identity that came with the name) makes the parallels to black end. Black asians were not mistaken for being black africans. No one thought they were in Africa when they saw the NEgritos in the Philippines. There was a postulation that these Filipinos came from Africa perhaps much sooner than they did, but I have found no evidence for that notion anyway. No European explorer described the Negritos as recent immigrants from some Chinese or Indonesian trading colony with Africa for example. They merely speculated and left it at that. The name of the Negritos and others and the name of the Africans (Negros) come from the same element. It is not due to Europeans first establishing that Africans are the original black people (which I certainly acknowledge they are) and then labeling other black people as "African in origin". Even if they were, that would not refute anything.

Each racial group has it's own unique aspect, which may or may not be related to the same or similar elements of other groups. You cannot find a logical parallel in one group to use to apply to another. You must treat each group based on it's unique experiences. The black group is unique in that it does not require continual historical relationship between it's constituients. This is parly due to the fact that the original humans originated in Africa and had most likely dark skin. This was the 'default' human type from which all others eventually derived from. IF Africans retained their dark skin over these millenia, and are thus known as black, how then can the Asians who also retained their dark skin be not called the same?

Finally, I do not seek to encompass any national identity or cultural identity as "black". I merely seek to elaborate on the article that there are black individuals and groups within those nations and cultures whom have their own distinct social experiences and share a historical parallel with Africans through the colonial period. I don't seek for example to find a genetic link where there is none, nor do I seek to take a diffusionist approach by describing black people in such a distorted way. —The preceding comment was added on 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC). by Zaphnathpaaneah.

Ezeu's Point of view

I endorse Zaphnathpaaneah's statements. I have not much more to add but these remarks from prominent black scholars, statements that well summarise what I have to say. In the British Medical Journal 1996;313:760, the psychiatrist Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye said:

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.[20]

Likewise, Lewis R. Gordon, the Director of the Institute for the Study of Race and Social Thought at Temple University wrote:

..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.[21]

These articles, [22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38], and this google search [39], all refer to non-African people as black. Some are prominent news sources, and others are written by people who identify as black, affirming the statements by the above mentioned scholars. --Ezeu 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been demostrated above, the usage of "Black" to include non-Africans is massively documented. I don't think any editor would deny that in modern English usage it most commonly refers to people of sub-Saharan African descent. We should certainly assert that in the article. The problem is Editingoprah's insistence that this is the "true" meaning of the word and that other usages should be asserted to be wrong. He claims that "science" supports this argument but has so far provided no scientific articles that assert this. Instead he references examples of journalism that report on scientific studies and which sometimes loosly use the word black in this way. It is legitimate to include the claim that "sub-Saharan Africans" constitute a distinct "race" if Editingoprah can provide good citations by recent researchers to assert that. But we should also include the claims of many scientists that there is no good reason to speak of sub-Saharans as a single "race". The term Negroid race has traditionally been used for this racial category. Its scientific validity is currently disputed. The word "black" has however been used of many peoples around the world and the article should reflect that variety. It should not be difficult to include the variety of usages, and of disputes about it, without insisting that Wikipedia endorses one usage as right and insists that others are wrong. Editingoprah has repeatedly asserted that people of African descent have some sort of ownership of the word black. ("Create another article about people of color. But the term black is taken"; "the word Black is taken")

Editongoprah is also suspected of having used sockpuppets (

I think the source of the confusion is that people are talking about two different things. On the one hand Paul B and Ezeu are talking Black as a skin color, meanwhile, Editingoprah is talking about Black as a racial or ethnic identity. These are two totally different things and the editors who wish to discuss them in one article are confusing the two constructs. You can identify with others who have Black skin without self-identifying with as Black as a racial or ethnic group (i.e. African ancestry). Someone posted a photo of a North East Asian who was whiter than any white person, and so by some dictionary definitions, he is white[[40]] because he's literally a member of a light skinned race. But that doesn't mean he should be in the article which defines white as an ethnic identity related to Caucasian or European ancestry. So please, let's not confuse issues and create misunderstanding by merging two completely different definitions of the same word in one article. Outsideopinion 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet[reply]

Note that "user Outsideopinion", seem to have materialised into existence solely for the purpose of writing this "outside opinion". His/her idiosyncratic method of footnoting an outside link is also identical to that used by Edingoprah and Kobrakid. Strange but triue. Paul B 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if that doesn't give you moderators any indication of how unfair EditingOprah has been in this process nothing has. These violations have been blatent and ignored. The article still is locked. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]