Talk:Black people

"Blacks"

Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The US National Archives defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." TheMiddleWest (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? This older Australian (who doesn't want to offend anyone) truly finds it hard to keep up what's OK and what's not in America. When did "blacks" become offensive? HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess that calling black people "blacks" has the same kind of vibe as calling the Aboriginal people in Australia "Aborigines". While we might not see any real issue with it, the people it's used to refer to might have their own reservations about being called such. I will admit that America's increasingly common and almost impulsive "knight in shining armour" response to anything considered offensive nowadays is more than a bit excessive, but here, I see no real problem here with @TheMiddleWest's request from the perspective I just presented. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand and accpt hat language changes. MY real question was, when did this particular change in acceptability happen? HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I dunno, when was the last time you heard "blacks" used commonly in everyday life? To be honest, I can understand why a black person might not want to be just called a "black". I'd be more than a bit annoyed if someone called me a "white" instead of making even a half-hearted attempt to refer to me by any other defining characteristic. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I've no real personal insight here, but these things aren't binary switches. What is observed as a sea-change is instead like reaching critical mass, maybe as the direct result of many people becoming aware or changing their mind in a short amount of time, but likely just as much if not more some mere signal of preexisting perspectives catching on in the media. A thinkpiece, a sitcom quip, whatever—unfortunately those are the events people notice as regards these things. What I'm saying is there's potentially no answer for you—different folks have different feelings and different explanations. From what I intuit from reading memoirs, it was always possible for this choice of language to confer this particular meaning. Remsense ‥ 论 07:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response! Very helpful and well stated!

I found it offensive to be referred to as “black” in the medical record for the birth of my first child!

Before the staff ever saw me they wrote in my baby’s chart that her “mother black and father white.” I have brown skin, and immigrated to the US from India as an infant. My child is as much American as anyone!

I have put in a critique of the article on “miscegenation” because it is derogatory and doesn’t start with the statement that the article on race does(basically stating that race is a social construct and not a scientific term). That critique has not been accepted in over 6 months! And my comment in Talk is completely stalled and ignored by all but one person. “Miscegenation” is a bonkers unscientific term! We should not have a page in an encyclopedia about it without saying directly that Race is a social construct and not scientific.

When I was 6, and first traveled to India I noticed that 1) I didn’t stand out and was extremely relieved about that. 2) But more importantly I saw that at Heathrow, the people cleaning the bathrooms and serving the food were all of Indian descent. I recall thinking “If we lived here in the UK, they would treat us like second class citizens, as they treat “black people” in the US.

[My doctor even gave the wrong diagnosis as the cause of my C-section stating the wrong info and referring to me as an Indian woman of short stature and saying that the father, my husband was American and tall. This has nothing to do with why I had a C section and as a doctor myself, I was understandably disappointed back in 1994]

sorry for rambling a bit, but I think it is helpful to know why people are offended by certain words! Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly contingent or peculiar to me that a mass noun-as-demonym can become offensive. I really wouldn't read much more than that into it, it's not particularly complicated or particularly American. I'll steal these citations from wikt:black#Noun:

• Merriam-Webster Online: Use of the noun Black in the singular to refer to a person is considered offensive. The plural form Blacks is still commonly used by Black people and others to refer to Black people as a group or community, but the plural form too is increasingly considered offensive, and most style guides advise writers to use Black people rather than Blacks when practical.
• Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: Using the noun black to refer to people with dark skin can be offensive, so it is better to use the adjective: black people • a black man/woman. It is especially offensive to use the noun with the definite article ('the blacks')
• Dictionary.com: As a noun, however, it does often offend. The use of the plural noun without an article is somewhat more accepted (home ownership among Blacks); however, the plural noun with an article is more likely to offend (political issues affecting the Blacks), and the singular noun is especially likely to offend (The small business proprietor is a Black). Use the adjective instead: Black homeowners, Black voters, a Black business proprietor.
• AP Stylebook: Do not use [black] as a singular noun.

Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Capitalization Moxy🍁 15:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the excellent clarification!

I won’t ramble here further, but please help me get through to the people who are discussing the article on “miscegenation.” It’s completely stalled and you are concise as well as well informed! Thank you again! Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we have a picture of some black people in the info box?

for example how the page for "'''human'''", or "'''woman'''" or "'''child'''" has a picture of what they look like Finnigami (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Which ones? HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Pls review MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY.

Moxy🍁 04:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Because a picture would be misleading! If race is a social construct and not a scientific fact then how do you define “a black person?”

Are my adult children considered “black?” Not by anyone who looks at them, but I know that I am an Indian born person and my spouse is a mostly Irish and also of mixed German/Polish/Norwegian (European) descent. We both identify as American. Many people say we’re a “mixed race marriage.” That is offensive to us. More importantly, it is incorrect.

Neither is it correct to refer to our grown children as “mixed race” people. We are all just people!

This is not simply about what is offensive, it is also about the fact that there is no scientific evidence or validity to the concept of “race.”

See the article on Race:

”Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning. The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.”

Unfortunately, the citations do not copy and paste, but someone else stated that they would not change it because it has no citations. I am unfortunately unable to copy the citations to paste them here. But under “Race” it has citations for the above statement: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.attached to the article entitled “Race”

My position is that we must reiterate the facts at the beginning of every article that mentions race, especially one as offensive as “miscegenation.”

If you want a picture of something that has no scientific validity, how do you choose whose photos to include? Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"Sudanese Arabs are also black people"

"Sudanese Arabs are also black people in that they are culturally and linguistically Arabized indigenous peoples of Sudan of mostly Nilo-Saharan, Nubian, and Cushitic ancestry; their skin tone and appearance resembles that of other black people."

Isn't this quite subjective? 2A04:4A43:873F:F1B6:C000:3936:FAD9:CE60 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If skin tone and apperance is what dictates "blackness" wouldn't Papuans and Aboriginal Australians also be black? They arguably resemble Sub-Saharan africans more than Sudanese Arabs do.

I think this line should either be deleted or rephrased to write "Sudanese Arabs are also considered black people by Westerners, mostly due to their skintone" 2A04:4A43:873F:F1B6:C000:3936:FAD9:CE60 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this line should either be deleted or rephrased to write "Sudanese Arabs are also considered black people by those who think skin colour is significant, which isn't all westerners". HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Again: “Race” page on Wikipedia states:

” Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning. The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.” Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)