Talk:African diaspora

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the African diaspora article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

African diaspora Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Alex Peters0707, Kenzieballantyne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccans/Maghrebians

Some of the European entries are apparently counting people from the Maghreb. Those are North Africans, not sub-Saharan Africans - i.e., they aren't "black". 69.129.36.50 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the title; African diaspora not Black. The same as Haitians are black but not African. But yes I think they meant to say Black not African coz most Blacks in US or Brazil haven't been to Africa 197.186.1.245 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Largest 16 African diaspora populations

Where is the citation for this? Where are these numbers coming from?? --128.122.209.207 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Diaspora Populations

In Italy there are 2,670,514 black people!! not 800,000! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.255.69 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely must source this, or regular editors will continue to revert you, as we have been doing for days.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i' am sorry!! but now i am ready, the number is 2,670,514! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.228.49 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your published source? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don' t andesteand, i' am from Italy, soy i speak Italian!! please help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.245.25 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell us where is your number published? Dov'è 2.670.514 pubblicato? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok right, is African immigrants to Italy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.245.25 (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please is true, in Italy there are 2,670,514!! Demo ISAT Statistiche!! don't stop me now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.245.25 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that article cites http://demo.istat.it/str2006/ as the source for the number, which reports 2,670,514 non-citizen foreign residents from African countries in 2006. The original cited source http://noi-italia.istat.it does not quote numbers, only percentages and numbers per 1000 population. I can only conclude that the number from that source was derived.

I am disturbed by the subdomain 'demo' in the source that provides a number. I'd like to see some other editor's opinions. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you vary much=)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.245.25 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC) NO is immposible!! is http://demo.istat.it/str2006/ please now, the black paople are 2,670,514 i don' t think soy 800,000 is vary long for now!! in Italy today there are more black people. plesa!! in france there are 3,000,0000 not 4,200,000!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.10.128 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. That 2 million+ figure at http://demo.istat.it/str2006/ is a reference to all immigrants to Italy from Africa, not blacks exclusively. And most immigrants to Italy from Africa are from North Africa, not Black Africa, as that same website makes clear. 74.12.222.239 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that the article refers to "Africans" inclusively, yet the table of figures has a column for "Black Africans". I wonder why. I suspect many of the other numbers in that table represent all Africans rather than just Black Africans. The entire table may be flawed in its implementation.

So the original 800,000 figure is questionable (derived via original research), and the 2.67 million figure is also questionable because it includes non-black Africans.

In any case, the source breaks it down by country, so it's easy to eliminate all the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, etc.). Pretty much everyone south of those countries would be considered black, I think. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lighten the text a little bit by removing the constant use of the "Black" before the word "African". I think the fact that those Africans were black is abundantly clear by the context of this article and is considered the common use of the word. See the AU definition in the current article for example. Analyzer99 (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Africa diaspora

In italy there are 2,670,514 africans!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.230.81 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa diaspora popolations

And in France are 3,000,000 mllion, is not true 4,200,000!! tha africans include,

in Italy are 2,670,514 million.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.233.71 (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted terminology in reference to African diaspora groups

I'm not sure if this point applies to diaspora groups in other countries but in the U.K. it is now generally preferred if we refer to African-Caribbeans as opposed to Afro-Caribbean, as used in the article. This is similar to African-American, whereas one would not hear the term Afro-American and the use of the prefix Afro may be seen to have offensive connotations.

Atteridgeville (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa diaspora popolations

The Africans immigrants in Italy 2010, are 1 milion!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.240.138 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa diaspora popolations

Please!! control in Demo ISTAT 2009 stranieri residenti in Italia!!the africans are 931,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.248.141 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please!! Some LOGIC. 931,000 is number with Moroccans, Tunisians, Egyptians, Algerians and Lybians. YOU MUST READ THE ARTICLE!!! In table we have title: "BLACK AND BLACK MIXED POPULTION"!!! The Term "African Diaspora" is applied to sub-saharan Africans. 931,000 - North africa + Caribbean = about 300,000. Use your brain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.100.34 (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa diaspora popolations

control!!! http://demo,istat.it/str2009/index.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.253.238 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa diaspora popolations

The total are 931,000 Africans in Italy in 2009!! please control in demo ISTAT 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.229.91 (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

931,000 is number with Moroccans, Tunisians, Egyptians, Algerians and Lybians. YOU MUST READ THE ARTICLE!!! In table we have title: "BLACK AND BLACK MIXED POPULTION"!!! The Term "African Diaspora" is applied to sub-saharan Africans. 931,000 - North africa + Caribbean = about 300,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecsperto (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of the rarely used black african expression

I think within the context of this article it's pretty clear we are referring to people of Africans origin which are black, especially since the article make a point about it. Even census canada is using the common use of the term during the recensement. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/tbt/Rp-eng.cfm?A=R&APATH=3&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=01&GID=837928&GK=1&GRP=1&LANG=E&O=D&PID=92333&PRID=0&PTYPE=88971%2C97154&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&TABID=1&THEME=80&Temporal=2006&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF= Analyzer99 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give other few examples: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37442&Cr=slave&Cr1= http://www.canadaviews.ca/2011/01/24/february-proclaimed-african-heritage-month-in-nova-scotia/

What is important for Wikipedia is the common use of the word and when people refer to Africans and African descent they use black before it because it is understood withing the context. A simple Google search of "African descent" can convince anybody that people rarely used added the word black (much less Black) before it. What is important here is the common use of the words and frankly it's very cumbersome to read that way especially when it's repeated over and over again. Analyzer99 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some reading on the topic will change your mind.Moxy (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okpewho, Isidore; Nzegwu, Nkiru (2009). The new African diaspora. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253353375.
Olaniyan, Tejumola; Sweet, James H (2010). The African Diaspora and the Disciplines. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253354648.
Hine, Darlene Clark; Danielle Keaton, Trica; Small, Stephen (2009). Black Europe and the African diaspora. University of Illinois Press.
Davies, Carole Boyce (2008). Encyclopedia of the African diaspora: origins, experiences and culture, Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851097005.
Wisdom, Tettey; Puplampu, Korbla P (2005). The African diaspora in Canada: negotiating identity & belonging. University of Calgary Press. ISBN 1552381757.
Olliz-Boyd, Antonio (2010). The Latin American Identity and the African Diaspora: Ethnogenesis in Context. Cambria Press. ISBN 9781604977042.
Carter, Donald Martin (2010). Navigating the African Diaspora: The Anthropology of Invisibility. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816647774.
Conyers, Jr, James L (2009). Racial structure and radical politics in the African diaspora. London : Transaction. ISBN 1412810450.
Curry, Dawne Y; Duke;, Eric D; Smith, Marshanda A (2009). Extending the diaspora : new histories of Black peopl. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252034596.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Arthur, John A (2008). The African diaspora in the United States and Europe: the Ghanaian experience. Ashgate.

Thank you for those links. It clearly demonstrate my point. They use the term "African" without any constant references to the color of the skin of the people preceding the word. It's the common use of the word "African". For example articles about the slave trade would use the word Africans to describe the people who were enslaved. Analyzer99 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???Pls read the books...let me give you some links to pages and terms usedMoxy (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the text you provide they generally use the expression Africans without any qualitative regarding the color of the skins. Making a search (or browsing the book) with the word African or Africans can clearly show that. Same result would be provided by doing a search in google or current news sites. I gave an example by using the United Nation link above. It's the common use of the word. In fact this very article was written using the word African at beginning. Analyzer99 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can also state the African Union definition of "African diaspora" quoted in this article to consolidate my point: The African Union defined the African diaspora as "[consisting] of people of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union." Analyzer99 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be careful to specify "Black African descent" because by your definition, every human being is part of the African diaspora. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what your beef is. African or Black African, they can be used interchangeably, but there is nothing wrong with using "Black African". The vast majority of people in North Africa are not Black and shouldn't be lumped together with people of a different race. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzer99, the subject is intended to be people of Black African ancestry, aka Subsaharan African ancestry, throughout the world. It is to them that the literature on "African diaspora" is devoted. The subject shouldn't be misrepresented, either by commission or omission. SamEV (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use a definition and choice of words as the sourced definition by the African Union and African Diaspora association of Canada (http://www.africancanadiandiaspora.org/eng/), among others. Which are line with the earlier version of this very article and in agreement with common use.Analyzer99 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view but Wikipedia is not the place to express personal quibbles about semantics but strive to use reliable sources for its encyclopedic articles (Verifiability). Here I provided sourced definition of African diaspora which are in line with common use and earlier version of this article.Analyzer99 (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to recall again the core principle of WP:V in the editing of Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyzer99 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont not change this again..as you see noone thinks your right. You do not have consensus to change the wording. If this continues i will report this behaviour. Pls read Wikipedia:Consensus Moxy (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low viewed page so consensus is easy to come by with multiple or a few accounts. I will seek external dispute resolution if the non-sourced wording of the African Diaspora definition is constantly changed for an unsourced one. Wikipedia talk pages is non-proper source. Still I encourage editors to consider the core WP:V principle above personal quibbles about semantic and discuss it on this talk page. Because WP:V is a core principle of wikipedia to prevent that type of arbitrary edition (even by so-called consensus which is not a core principle as the concept of Verifiability). As I said above, the wording of the definition of African Diaspora is the one used by the majority of the African Diaspora sources and association and it's not the place of Wikipedia to redefine expression. Analyzer99 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to seek outside opinions at any time for anything - Perhaps outside help will solve this edits. We have explained Y the word is relevant and have provided references to this fact. If you believe outside intervention is needed please see Dispute resolution requests which details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions.Moxy (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any sourced definition of African Diaspora using the 'approximate' skin color of African people as a qualifier. The African Union definition African Diaspora didn't use it. Nor is the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas or the Unesco encyclopedia. In fact all the contrary. Of all African Diaspora association http://www.africancanadiandiaspora.org/eng/aboutus.aspx all use the term African without any qualificative on the color of African people. Here the African Diaspora association of Europe: http://www.auads.info/ And: http://www.aswadiaspora.org/ African diaspora museum: http://www.moadsf.org/about/index.html. All those completely contradict personal opinion about it not backed by any sources. In fact, in contradiction with all the main sources, common use and earlier version of this very article before it was modified without any source to back the change. Analyzer99 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzer99, you're being a major pain in the ass, and I think you know it. You really want sources that say the African diaspora consists of Black Africans and their descendents? Take a look at these:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1152&bih=724&tbs=bks%3A1&q="african+diaspora"
"African origin of blacks"
"dynamic interactions among black communities and cultures"
"Black political movements since the 1960s"
"Africans who lived south of the Sahara and were dispersed by free will or forcefully to the non-African lands"
Becoming Black: creating identity in the African diaspora
Black theatre: ritual performance in the African diaspora

There's more, but you can see it for yourself. Enough already, or I'll see to it that you're blocked again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious is about the terminology used. This article is about "African Diaspora", your sources aren't, and all sources cited about "African Diaspora" which defined the concept used the term "African" without any qualifier about the color of the skin (which is not needed). Why should Wikipedia be any different? Why you're taking up upon yourself to change the term used by all African Diaspora associations, common use (like most news articles), African Union definition of African Diaspora. Personal quibbles about semantic, or fringe original theory, not backed by any sources is hardly any reason to do so. In fact, earlier version of this very article used "African" as the cited in the sources for many years before it was modified without any sources to back up the changes. People on a Wikipedia talk page hardly constitute reliable sources about personal quibbles and fringe theory and offer no proper sources to back up their claims. In fact, the 3 sources in the article intro simply mention Africans. Isn't that true? So why do you refuse to accept the terminology for the African Diaspora used by the African Union, African Diaspora/Museum association in Europe, Canada and the US and Unesco encyclopedia and the dictionary of new ideas? Wikipedia is not the proper venue to change common terminology. I think the terminology used should be the one used by all major African Diaspora associations and the African Union. Analyzer99 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the same thing over and over. This articles is about the "Black" African Diasporas - just like this paper is about the "Black African Diaspora" as represented in its title (note y there is a distinction). If you were to look at The World African Diaspora Union's manifesto you would see it also makes the distinction The World African Diaspora Union (WADU) having been created for the unification and solidifying the various associations, groups and individuals of the Black Diaspora and having accepted the Pan African Africancentric philosophy as the means of establishing a new global order of justice and equality for all by African empowerment for the accomplishment of the African Renaissance. I can only guess you think the word "Black" is bad derogatory term and is y you want it gone. Pls be aware that many nations like Canada for instanced use the term black proudly and is in fact a legal term used for statistics Please Note: that 'African origins' should not be considered equivalent to the 'Black' population group or visible minority status, as there are persons reporting African origins who report a population group or visible minority status other than Black. Conversely, many people report a population group or visible minority status of Black and do not report having African origins. For information on population group and visible minority population in the 2006 Census, refer to the appropriate definitions in this publication.) In the 2006 Census, the 2001 ethnic origins 'African (Black), n.i.e.' and 'African, n.i.e.' were combined into one aggregate group: 'African, n.i.e.' Prior to the 2006 Census, the ethnic group 'African (Black), n.i.e.' included general 'African' responses as well as responses of 'African Black' (as provided on one line of the census questionnaire) and African origins not included elsewhere. In 2006, the group 'African, n.i.e.' includes general 'African' responses as well as responses indicating African origins not included elsewhere. A response of 'African Black' provided on one line of the 2006 questionnaire was considered to be a multiple response and was counted in both 'Black' and in 'African, n.i.e.', an approach consistent with the treatment of multiple responses of 'African' and 'Black' written over more than one line of the census questionnaire in 2001 and in previous censuses. Moxy (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the time to read the definition of African Diaspora in the link you provided: http://www.wadupam.org/about It reads:

Q What is the African Diaspora? A The African Diaspora is mainly those persons of African descent dispersed from Africa into Europe, Asia and the Americas during Arab and European commercial slave raids.. Again showing my point strongly, and disproving yours about the absolute need to put "black" in front of "African", which is not surprising since it's the common definition (and common use of the word "African" which refer especially to black) and terminology used for it by almost all sourced definition of African Diaspora.Analyzer99 (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So again we are showing the term is used but you are simply dismiss it. You did noticed the word is on the page right? I think i see the problem now - Do you believe all Africans are black? .Moxy (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the portion of your source which define African Diaspora which is the subject of this article and the current point of contentious. Don't put that on me. As if it was my personal opinion. All reliable sources about the African Diaspora agrees with the terminology. Which is the essence of WP:Verifiability. Analyzer99 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O well i am done here. Will let other respond from now on ..Quote ="All reliable sources about the African Diaspora agrees with the terminology" Like the 14 refs on this page are not not there? Good luck in the future on your endeavour to rid the world of the word black -->Encyclopedia of the African diaspora. Moxy (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I used are about the definition of "African diaspora" and the terminology used which is the contentious here. Even your own sources agrees with it and only use "African" in the African Diaspora definition. Hard to believe all African Diaspora associations, the African Union, the Unesco encyclopedia, news articles (including the United Nation), earlier version of this article and dictionaries are on a personal mission against your quibbles about semantics and personal theory. Analyzer99 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France

there are only about 350,000-400,000 blacks in the european part of France but if you include the black populations of the overseas departments then the black population for France as a whole is over 1 million for example there are 200,000 blacks in the paris region of ile de france(population 12,000,000) but in comparison the city of london england(population of 8,000,000) has 1,100,000 blacks,that means london has way more black people than all of the european part of france. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.236.192 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal slur

Isn't the use of this term just a cover for the Neanderthal slur, painting other people as being not pure Homo sapiens sapiens, even though no firm evidence of crossbreeding has been offered? Hcobb (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a tiny note in the lead to handle this. Hcobb (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthals aren't mentioned. The page is on historic migration from Africa (mainly to the New World), not the hypothetical and debated Out-of-Africa exodus of around 70,000 years ago/prehistory. Middayexpress (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of biological factors

Take a map of the Americas and draw lines at the north and south ranges for Malaria. The Mason–Dixon Line is a good estimate on the north side.

Now factor in Yellow fever, and Vitamin D and Folic acid issues from sunshine.

Given all of this, where would you expect the Africans to move to in the Americas? Why isn't any of this even mentioned in this article? Hcobb (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

First off there is no category in the Brazilian census labeled "multiracial" and even if there was that doesnt necessarily mean African + other race, it would also include Amerindian + European. The category is called "Pardos", which mean brown, a phenotypic description. Many people who identify as Pardos are mixed Amerindian + European, and a good percentage of them are unknowingly almost full blooded Amerindian. You cant claim that every single person who identifies as Pardos has African blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.3.79 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 4 months later still no explanation and still not fixed...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.3.79 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emigration from Africa

The lede states the following: "In modern times, [African diaspora] is also applied to Africans who have emigrated from the continent in order to seek education, employment and better living for themselves and their children." According to this I propose merging the contents of the Emigration from Africa article (which is hardly more than a stub) into this article. FonsScientiae (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is misplaced and should be removed; changing the scope of the entire article based on it is unwarranted. The Emigration from Africa page is reserved for discussion of recent immigration from Africa and can be expanded. The contextually very different historic migrations that formed the New World communities (who, in any case, no longer have just African ancestries) and the prehistoric, hypothetical Out-of-Africa exodus are separate topics for their own respective articles. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the lede states that the article is particularly about "the descendants of the Africans who were enslaved and shipped to the Americas by way of the Atlantic slave trade, with the largest population in Brazil". In that case the title is misleading.
My other source of confusion is that the article often talks particularly about black people, but the definition includes anyone of African descent (regardless of skin color). So is the article only about dark skinned people or everyone of African descent? FonsScientiae (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though perhaps a little ambiguous, African diaspora is a common term for the historic migrations that formed the New World communities [1]; c.f. Music of the African diaspora. Middayexpress (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why are there 'dispersal through migration' and 'emigration from Africa' subsections? And my previous question again: is the article only about black Africans in the New World, or emigrated Africans in the world generally? FonsScientiae (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the various New World communities that were formed by the historic migrations of peoples from (mainly West and Central) Africa. While these population movements originated in certain parts of Africa hundreds of years ago, the communities that today descend from them have through time developed their own unique cultures, languages, personal names, and multiple ancestries due to intermarriage, miscegenation and other factors. Most of those population movements were also involuntary. However, the dispersal through migration sub-section is there to discuss the additional instances of voluntary historic migration (viz. "From the very onset of Spanish activity in the Americas, black Africans were present both as voluntary expeditionaries and as involuntary laborers.[4][5] Juan Garrido was one such black conquistador. He crossed the Atlantic as a freedman in the 1510s and participated in the siege of Tenochtitlan.[6]"). Discussion of recent emigration from Africa as a whole, while briefly touched on in that particular sub-section since it too is voluntary, is generally out-of-place and belongs on the Emigration from Africa page devoted to it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lede contradicts that: "African diaspora ... historic movement of peoples from Africa — predominantly to the Americas, Europe and the Middle East, among other areas around the globe." It doesn't talk about involuntary migrations or migrations to the New World. This article should be either about New World migrations or general emigration from Africa which are two very different topics. At present state, it is confusing what the topic of the article actually is. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is quite clear: "communities throughout the world that are descended from the historic movement of peoples from Africa — predominantly to the Americas, Europe and the Middle East, among other areas around the globe." The second sentence mentions historic involuntary migrations to the New World. I just added another on historic voluntary migrations. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case it should include emigration from Africa; as emigration is voluntary migration from a place (here: Africa). FonsScientiae (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on the global communities that were initially formed by historic migrations from particular parts of Africa, not recent movements from the continent as a whole. Though not exclusively the case, most of that dispersal was involuntary as well. Middayexpress (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This source defines African diaspora as solely migration through slavery to the New World. (1) But I believe that it the term can be mean any historical migrations from Africa. The definitions I found of the term are quite vague: some implies only New World migrations, some historical but involuntary movements. Because of this vagueness I propose changing the title to 'Historical migrations from Africa' and redirecting 'African diaspora' to this article. FonsScientiae (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with 'Historical migrations from Africa' is that it could be mistaken as encompassing, say, the Moorish expeditions in Al Andalus since they too were also historic migrations from Africa. But that's ultimately not what is being discussed here. The article is about the actual global communities that were formed by the largely involuntary historic migrations from specific parts of the continent; mainly West/Central Africa [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to broad definition Moors living outside Africa are part of the African diaspora. According to the other definition, African diaspora is involuntary historic migrations, and doesn't include Moors. The problem here is that the term 'African diaspora' can mean many things. The problem is the inconsistency: the article includes communities which were formed mostly by voluntary movements of African people (Europe, Asia, Oceania), and not only New World communities. The article should only discuss historical, involuntary movements of Africans, or should talk about general African communities around the world. How do you feel about it? FonsScientiae (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should discuss what it's about. Namely, the global populations descended from the historic and largely involuntary movement of related peoples from mainly West/Central Africa, not from the continent as a whole. The involuntary historic migrations themselves are discussed in the various slave trade articles. This community is commonly referred to as the "African diaspora", however imperfect the term (esp. given the peoples' multiple ancestries at this point). Middayexpress (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the lede, the general description should include this, that it is mainly about the movements of West and Central African people. FonsScientiae (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not mainly about the movements of West and Central African people, but about the global populations descended from the historic and largely involuntary movement of related peoples from Africa; primarily the Western and Central parts. At any rate, I've added a note to that effect. Middayexpress (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora and Modernity

Patrick Manning recently wrote about how the African diaspora has helped shape modernity. This article could benefit from a small paragraph explaining this idea. I would appreciate any feedback or input people may have.Rmb86 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too joined because of my interest and studies about the African Diaspora. You may see by the way I edit (constantly rewriting), that my contributions derive from careful reading and reflection. Ivettedez (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Afro-Spanish

I do not know if this relevant enough to be included in the article, but I find it interesting. Although most of the african slaves captured by Spain in the middle ages were sent to the Americas, a sizeable number of them ended up in mainland Spain, specially in Andalusia to the South, and they were relevant enough to have their own guild in the sevillian fair (see http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermandad_de_Los_Negritos_%28Sevilla%29).

In the the XVth century we have the example of the Duke of Medina Sidonia (based on Niebla, a town in Huelva, Andalusia), who freed the slaves that he had "employed" to build his castle, and settled them in Niebla, with the right to choose their own major. We have records of the complaints of the white inhabitants of Niebla to the son of the Duke, a generation later, claiming that the former slaves had been given "Too many freedoms and gifts". The noble rebuked them, saying that given that their inhabited his village, they were also his vassals. At any rate, it seems that they started to mix with the local population early on. Their descendants were called "morenos" (literally "swarthy") but continuous intermarriage meant they were mostly assimilated. By the last century just a few families with noticeable black features remained, mostly in the town of Gibraleon.

This is a pretty obscure topic (pun not intended) and I have found only one book dealing with it: "Arcadio Larrea (1952) Los negros de la provincia de Huelva". There are, however, several articles on the net about it like this one http://www.elmundo.es/magazine/num124/textos/esclavo1.html . It is an article from El Mundo, one of the major spanish newspapers.

The problem being, this topic does not seem to have attracted much attention outside of Spain, and I have found nothing in english about it... May I include this information with the citations I have provided?

I also doubt that Spain is the only country in Europe that has some kind of half forgotten minority remaining from the slavery years. I think that maybe information about that would belong in this article more than the data about the black population currently living in Europe, because the vast mayority of them arrived during the last century, and their presence has nothing to do with the African Diaspora of the Middle and Modern ages I think this article originaly intended to cover. Maybe talking about that original diaspora and the current african emigration in the same article is a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.50.94 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on African diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon: updates

My interest in the plight of African Americans in the US has inspired me to contribute to this page. My work for this page will be driven toward insuring that the page is non-bias and inclusive. The page is currently filled with driving forces for diaspora and numerations of how certain countries have been affected. I aim to make sure that the article also includes the social, psychological, and economic effects on diasporic people. I hope to update the article to include this information with supporting references from peer-review sources. The Wikiproject: African Diaspora lists this article as top-importance but it only has a B-class rank. I hope my improvements give the article more depth in order to increase it's rating.

These updates will take place over the next few months. I welcome edits and advice. This will be the second Wiki article I have edited; I could use all the help you guys are able to give. Looking forward to working with the Wiki-community. Ratilley (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratilley: I am glad you are interested. Me too. What are your reading? Ivettedez (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on African diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929064450/http://paceebene.org/pace/nvns/nonviolence-news-service-archive/in-officially-colorblind-f to http://paceebene.org/pace/nvns/nonviolence-news-service-archive/in-officially-colorblind-f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning in the 8th century, Arabs took African slaves from the central and eastern portions of the continent (where they were known as the Zanj) and sold them into markets in the Middle East and eastern Asia.

It would be nice if "took" was changed to an entire sentence of it's own describing how this was accomplished. Took is unnecessarily vague, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.147.94 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417213901/http://www.mediarights.org:80/film/black_russians to http://www.mediarights.org/film/black_russians

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African Diaspora

There are over 100 million Black people in Brazil https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html and a little over 4 million Afro descended people in Cuba https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html. Where did you get 55 million from? Stop omitting information.--GodSentMe22 (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to take the World Factbook figures at face values, how did you manage to arrive at "black 9.3%" of the 11,179,995 total population of Cuba as being over 4 million. As regards the Brazilian population, you are (as with Cuba) conflation the concept of a 'diaspora' with those who do not identify as being African/Afro-'something'. The majority of nation-states in South America use different terminology for mixed race, and these terms are often considered mutually offensive. Throwing the World Factbook (which does not provide their sources for the 2010 estimates) and replacing the reliably sourced figures with your own preference is misinformation and intentionally misleading as you've introduced your WP:OR a few times now despite what reliable sources used say. If you dispute the numbers presented, the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that you have better/more recent/more reliable sources for any content changes you make. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I removed GodSentMe22's previous commentary on the subject on this talk page as WP:SOAP. For the edification of other editors, however, please note that the editor made his/her intentions of continuing a POV-push clear here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on African diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on African diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on African diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is whack

I came her to figure out what that d-word meant. Instead it's used again without definition then poorly written self-definition. The very first sentence should clearly and unambiguously define the word diasporsa (found as a misspellt word in chrome dictionary, something I've written up in Chromium bug reports in the past about so don't bother). I got confused quickly then came here. Technophant (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fuller explanation of the word itself (basically, it just means "scattering") at the article on Diaspora. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to say exactly? I’m confused. Is that a misspelling? I am also interested in revising this article.Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should North Africans be included in this article?

The term African diaspora is usually used to refer to people of sub-Saharan African descent outside of their native lands. However, in this article North Africans are included in the numbers for African diaspora in France, Italy and probably some of the other European countries as well. Thus, my question is if we should include North Africans in this article or not. Pastore Barracuda (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not. There was already a discussion here on what the African diaspora encompasses. In my opinion, these numbers should only include Black people of sub-Saharan African descent anywhere, including North Africa. Therefore, these numbers should be revised for France, Italy and Spain. Maxxies (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you guys are idiots and racist. North Africans are still Africans and this term should absolutely not be defined by skin color 2601:8C:981:A3C0:6883:6362:600:D7C5 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not idiocy not racism. In Brazil for example, people of North African descent, mostly Moroccan Jewish, self identify and are identified as white. Therefore they are not considered Afro-Brazilians.

To give some examples:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eduardo_Pazuello

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Isaac_Benayon_Sabba

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Samuel_Benchimol Knoterification (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Data for Brazil

@Leo020304 and Slainek: You changed the data for Brazil, but the sources you gave don't contain information about the number of members of the African diaspora in Brazil. That's why I had to revert you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic history

@Daniel Power of God: I deleted your recent addition of genetic history. It is based completely on primary sources (see WP:PSTS). An article should be based on secondary sources, because WP is not a repository of all kinds of lists, but should present information in a way that allows our readers to understand information in its context. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

User @Belevalo: are persistently trying to change the information presented for Brazil in the infobox simply because they doesn't like how it appears, despite with verified sources - and the information being consistent with the map and the order of data by country. I have warned them several times, but they still keep on doing it. I asked him to seek a consensus, apparently they refused. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

infobox isn't for duplicating everything in the dedicated stats section. also, wiki image is a bad source also the notion that all pardos are of african descent is blatantly incorrect. Belevalo (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You see everything according to your own point of view. You don't care about what reliable sources are saying. I don't think that would work well with YOU as an editor in WP. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"we citizenship"

The article mentions "we citizenship". Is this a term that needs to be explained, or is it a typo? Pete unseth (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding New African Diaspora in Indonesian

Please, add new African diaspora in Indonesian (population total)! If all of you can do it. Hariman Muhammad (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Dispora and their presence in the new world

Their Presence in the world today 102.90.43.233 (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

African Diaspora

It is not clear if the information in this section is factual as the source url does not work properly.--Mayor1704 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article for 'Kush' link

In the subsection Dispersal through slave trade in the History section of this article, the 'Kush' link - in "Most Aithiopian slaves in the Greco-Roman world came from Kush (modern-day Sudan) ... [bold emphasis mine]" - takes users to the Kushan Empire article. The Kushan Empire was a polity in the Indian subcontinent, not modern-day Sudan as the quote claimed. The Kush article link needs to be changed to the correct article.

Thanks. Factthinker (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's afrodescendant population figure

The data for Brazil has been edited to keep consistency with the article to include multiracial afrodescendants as that is what is included in the UK and US' population. the US and UK's multiracial figures include people like Rebecca Hall who have biracial/black parents and she's not even 10% African in ancestry via her test results, so if someone like her counts for the mixed black population then why is Brazil suddenly different?

- Black and Pardo Brazilians have substantial African ancestry. White Brazilians, despite also largely being afrodescendants, were excluded from the population figure

- All Brazilian Pardos have significant African ancestry, even in states like Amazonas that have had historically less to do with slavery. The averag African ancestry is about 17%, such as seen here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3779230/

- I gave multiple sources showing that with the exception of first and second generation immigrants and showing across the board African ancestry is prominent

Please try not to use ethnocentrism about what quantifies someone as being an afrodescendant or not and be instead partial and fair. If you are going to include multiracial American and British figures in this article then do the same for Brazil Kyogul (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reiterate my response

I have given plenty of sources, particularly in the notes section here, here, as well as other ones that correspond with what I said about Brazilian pardos having prominent African ancestry. All regions of Brazil basically have prominent African ancestry, even the ones where indigenous Brazilians are the most prominent such as in Amazonas where the average African ancestry is almost 1/5, as seen here.
The self identification of being mestiço/caboclo (indigenous+Portuguese ancestry) does not preclude someone of having African ancestry as seen in the sources above which are in depth genomic studies covering the entire region. It's also very disrespectful to erroneously dismiss the legitimacy of these sources, especially mislabelling peer reviewed collaborative efforts by multiple scientists and researchers as well as university-sponsored publications as simply being some blog articles written by "undergraduates"
I even specified in the notes distinguishing the amount of self-identified black Brazilians versus afrodescendants/pardo Brazilians. This is why we have notes. I also intentionally avoided including White Brazilians in the figure even though they also technically would apply, so no, I am not including people with merely "one percent of African ancestry" as I was erroneously accused of earlier. I also never ignored the census. Literally the Brazilian census board, as seen here, agrees that pardos are afrodescendants: ^{"Among the hypotheses to explain this trend [of black and mixed-race Brazilians now being the majority], one could highlight the valorisation of identity among Afro-descendants," Brazil's census board, the IBGE, said in its report."} So who's ignoring the census now, actually?

Again, if you have differing opinions, keep the talks in here and not the edit notes and please present your sources AND reasoning (not just the latter) if you disagree instead of giving emotionally-charged disagreements like the users @2804:6f80:c069:4e00:6568:8860:afa6:590b + @2804:6f80:c069:4e00:9587:f399:5777:c888. Thanks. Kyogul (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Pardos have African ancestry. The majority does, not all. When you include all pardos as being part of the "African diaspora", you are doing original research. And genetic studies only show the "average" ancestry of a certain population, it does not testify that the whole population share the same ancestral components, which implies that not 100% of Pardos have African ancestry, particularly those who are of Caucasian/Amerindian admixture. Xuxo (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need sources for that because literally the Brazilian census has commented on it and disagrees with you. Kyogul (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PT. 2

Brazil has some of the lowest amounts of indigenous people in all of the Americas--way less than the US, barely more than Canada, and in context of its huge population is basically one of the lowest amounts in all of the Americas, meaning the amount of Brazilians who are predominately~purely indigenous is extremely low. Also accompanied with the fact that the region where they are most prominent (basically certain areas in Amazonas) is extremely far away from where European migrants settled, let alone Portuguese settlers predominately settled, so the notion of widespread mestiços without African ancestry basically does not exist to begin with due to this fact as well as the fact that Brazil has some of the lowest amounts of peoples with overwhelming~pure indigenous ancestry.

Studies should show what you're talking about. If what you're saying is so true, statistics is compilation of data, meaning if what you said was true it would be reflected by the various data shown, including of indigenous regions of Brazil still showcasing prominent African ancestry. It's already been discussed as well that being mestiço doesn't preclude someone of having African ancestry but it very clearly implies the native mixture is much more prominent than the African one, as we see in the most indigenous state such as Amazonas.

If I'm also going to be pedantic, I can make accusations of casting doubt upon the black population of Brazil because of many historical and recent accounts of white Americans/non-black Americans passing for black for various reasons, such as the story of Clarence King doing it for love, in addition to modern ones like Rachel Dolezal and Vijay Chokal-Ingam doing it for personal reasons.

Again, back up your responses with resources instead of giving speculation with no sources that are unfounded. Wikipedia isn't a place to play devil's proof. I gave well over five sources that are all reliable and for it to just be invalidated just because of incredulity and you have no sources is pretty unprofessional. Until you provide sources, let's not do that erroneous edit again Kyogul (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though a significant part of Pardos people have some sub-Saharan African origin, there are still Pardos people who are Caboclos (European and Amerindian), when you put the number of 113.9 million Afro-Brazilians you are including all black people and all Pardo people as African descendants, literally ignoring the Caboclos.

There is no current source that accurately indicates how many Pardo people are Afro-descendants and how many are Caboclos, so it is not correct to simply assume that all of them are Afro-descendants, this is a subjective assumption.

Furthermore, not only Amazonas, states such as Pará, Roraima and Acre, the Pardo population has slightly more Amerindian DNA in its composition than African. Although in other states the Amerindian contribution is also important (Central-West and northern part of the Northeast region).

Finally, it is necessary to clarify that even in Pardo people, the portion of sub-Saharan African DNA is substantially lower than the European DNA (Iberian in the vast majority of cases), according to studies from several Brazilian universities. Placing these people as part of the African diaspora, even if they are 1/4 or even 1/3 sub-Saharan African, is a complex issue.

Putting the entire Pardo population together with self-declared black people as Afro-Brazilians is not honest. The Brazilian Census should be the sovereign source, and gives us the number of 20,656,458 Afro-Brazilians (10.2% of the population). This is the official number released by an official organization of the country, the rest is speculation. Accepting the number of Pardos+blacks, this article loses its reliability. Wikipedia should not be a place for subjectivity. Ohio Statein (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, being mestiço/caboclo does not preclude someone of having African ancestry, it just means the Amerindian ancestry is relatively more prominent, and genetic studies from multiple sources say that.
Already discussed the demographics and migration patterns that pose people who are purely European+Indigenous as being very unlikely
If you don't have sources then the claim is baseless. Literally the IBGE which conducts Brazil's sources already considers Pardos to be afrodescendants
Amazonas was just one state, but other studies I linked also include the entire region. Again, if what you say is true, the data would reflect that. Statistics is just a compilation of realities. If mestiços without African ancestry in the North(east) were that common the data...would reflect that and it doesn't.
Being afrodescendant does not mean you have to be predominately African, and both in the template as well as notes it is clarified that the figure for Brazil includes multiracial people. Even in the US, being black does not mean being predominately African; historically it has ranged as low as being 1/32 or circa 3% classifying someone racially as being black
Before responding please read my responses next time because the IBGE already commented on how Pardos are part of the afrodescendant population in a response I wrote above. So why are you trying to question them when you already posed them as the final authority? In addition to the fact that you've had no sources so far?
As I said before, if the US and UK figures include multiracial people, then so will Brazil's. If you want to exclude multiracial figures for the US and UK then it is only fair to only include the 'preto'-identified population for Brazil.
You talk about subjectivity but...link no sources. I linked almost ten sources so far including from the IBGE but you're dismissing them because of your own biases and incredulity.

I am fine with objections, but it's a waste of time to entertain incredulous responses with absolutely no sources. If you are just going to theory craft and are devoid of any objectivity and want to dismiss any source I have including literally from the Brazilian census itself (IBGE) then I don't think you are in any authority to talk about subjectivity or in a position to edit the article without bias.

I will reiterate my point again, the IBGE (Brazilian census) has already commented about the trend of afro-descendants in Brazil (both pardo and black/preto brazilians) being the majority of the country now. And yet you are still questioning it but providing no sources. If you have no sources then there's nothing worth responding with Kyogul (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyogul The IBGE never said afro-descendants are majority in Brazil. This is a disruption from afro-centric media. From the official manual for the last census: "Ademais, o manual do IBGE deixa claro que se o entrevistado se declarar de cor ou raça "negra", o entrevistador não deve pressupor nem a classificação na categoria parda, nem a classificação na categoria preta, e sim insistir para que o entrevistado escolha uma das 5 categorias: "Explique que o IBGE usa apenas as 5 (cinco) categorias mencionadas, desde o Censo 1991, e peça que o informante escolha uma das opções. Jamais assuma que negra é preta ou parda".[3]

Kyogul, why do you keep reverting me, when I already provided a first-hand source from IBGE (Brazilian census) clarifying that Pardo shall not be confused with black? It seems you cannot read Portuguese, so I ask you to use google translator and stop edit-warring: "Furthermore, the IBGE manual makes it clear that if the interviewee declares himself to be of "negra" color or race, the interviewer should not press for classification in the "pardo" category, nor for classification in the "preta" category, but rather insist that the interviewee choose one of the 5 categories: "Explain that IBGE uses only the 5 (five) categories mentioned, since the 1991 Census, and ask the informant to choose one of them. Never assume that negra is preta or parda" Xuxo (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response the first time, but the reply button was not available so I could not reply and it still is not available as you can see here. I'll reiterate my points for the nth time

I linked a source from The Guardian which gave commentary specifically from the IBGE about how "African-Brazilians"/afrodescendants are now the majority of the country and comments on the trend. The article says African-Brazilians are both black brazilians and pardos and so does the IBGE in the article. The Guardian is not afro-centric source. This is the third time you've been asked to read the article and you've refused to read it before shutting it down. The Guardian is a well-known and reliable international source of information, it is not afro-centric by any means.
What you linked doesn't contradict what I said since I never said that pardos classified themselves as black. African diaspora includes afrodescendants which includes multiracial people of African ancestry, and as I said before, if the multiracial population for the US, UK, Colombia, and more are included then it only makes sense for Brazil's to be included. If you think that is "sullying" the integrity of the article as you say, which makes sense to a degree, then that is fine but multiracial populations across the board should be excluded, not just for Brazil.
I already linked multiple genetic studies showcasing prevalent African ancestry across the entire country across racial classification including for self-identified black Brazilians, white Brazilians, and pardo Brazilians, in virtually every region.
You're misusing the word "fake". One, the source is very real. Two, the source comes from a university in Brazil, and you're using fallacies such as fallacy of composition by being pedantic about the wording. The statement was broad and is very clearly talking about people of colonial stock and says people of immigrant ancestry are the exception, which German Brazilians are not of colonial stock in Brazil and are relatively.

This is my last proposal with you. If you want to exclude multiracial populations from the article that is fine but you have to do it across the board for all countries rather than cherrypick which country's afrodescendants count or not. Elsewise start a dispute since you're being obstinate and you have a history of doing edit wars on Latin American articles based on your own ethnocentrism and incredulity. Kyogul (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1- Fake. The Guardian source cites IBGE, but nobody from IBGE is being interviewed there. By the way, I already posted a first-hand source from IBGE, the manual for the last census, which claim that Pardo should not be confused with the Black category. Nowehere in the source it claims that Pardos have African ancestry. By the way, all the genetic studies that you repeatedly cite show that Pardo Brazilians have an overwehlming majority of European ancestry, so to count them as "African diaspora" is just an American neo-colonialism trying to impose on Brazil their bizarre one-drop rule, which does not exist in Latin America or outside the U.S. The genetic studies you brought show that Brazilian Pardos have a majority of European ancestry, so they mostly cluster in a European diaspora subgroup, not African one.

2- The multiracial population for the US, UK, Colombia includes those with African ancestry, but what you're doing doing for Brazil is different, since you're trying to claim that 100% of Brazilian Pardos have African ancestry, ignoring the Caboclo population of Brazil. You show a complete ignorance of Brazilian history. Me and Ohio Statein already show you that many Brazilian Pardos do not have any African ancestry, so to conclude that 100% of them are part of the "African diaspora" is fake news.

3- Can you read English? All the genetic studies you brought show that European ancestry predominatez in all regions of Brazil, not African one. Brazilian Pardos are predominantly European, in all regions of Brazil, this is old new, since 2000 genetic studies show that. One of your sources: "In all regions studied, the European ancestry was predominant, with proportions ranging from 60.6% in the Northeast to 77.7% in the South."[4]

4- The source you brought is fake, since is stated that only first and second generation Brazilians do not have African or Amerindian ancestry, which is not true. Model Gisele Bundchen, for example, is 6th generation and all her ancestors were Germans. It is not that rare in the South.

5- I'm not trying to "exclude multiracial populations from the article". I'm just removing your fake news that 100% of Brazilian Pardos have African ancestry, which is not true, given Brazil's historical Caucasian/Amerindian mixed population, or that the "vast majority of White Brazilians have prominent African ancestry", when the given source does not even mention that. You manipulate genetic studies to make false conclusions: as I explained, genetic studies show the "mean" ancestry of a population, not that the whole population has that same "mean". If a population has a "mean" of 70% European, 20% African and 10% Amerindian ancestry, it does not mean everybody have the same percentages; some people will be 100% European, others 0% Xuxo (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of all is holy, please stop erroneously using the word fake. Also, Your English is not good enough to try being snippy with me, particularly when you don't understand basic English words.
IBGE is an entity, not a person, therefore there is no specific person to be quoted, but the entity of IBGE was quoted in the Article. Your source also doesn't quote specific people; it quotes the entity/organisation of IBGE. You also lied about The Guardian being an "afro centric" source.
The census is for self identification, not genetic studies, so your source inherently is not going to say it but it did not say anything against it either. In my source it talked about pardos being part of the afrodescendant population when commenting elsewhere about trends of the Brazilian demographic
You don't understand the term afrodescendant. Everyone of African ancestry is an afrodescendant. Every black person is an afrodescendant. Not every afrodescendant, however, has to identify as black or actively identify as black. That is your misconception, therefore your accusation of me trying to apply the "one drop rule" is folly as I never classified pardo Brazilians as black. Black ≠ afrodescendant. That is your misconception. I even wrote that in the notes, and the fact that multiracial populations of UK, US, and Colombia are included also showcase that you can be multiracial and still be an afrodescendent. Afrodescendant merely means being of African descent, that does not mean someone is only of African descent. For multiracial people, their ancestry is not bimodal, it is all encompassing, meaning that they are European descendants, indigenous descendants, as well as African descendants all at the same time.
Being predominately European does not preclude someone of being an afrodescendant. If you bothered whatsoever to look at the studies, even self-identified pretos/black Brazilians are most often predominately European. This does not mean, however, that Brazil has no black people.
This Ohio person has not talked here nor shown anything, just as you haven't in terms of sources. As I said before also, being mestiço/caboclo does not preclude someone of having African ancestry, it just means the Amerindian ancestry is more prominent. Multiple genetic studies I've shown showcase this. You have none. For the nth time, back it up with studies or drop it
Gisele Bundchen is a white Brazilian and she is irrelevant to the conversation when talking about black and mixed-race Brazilians. Also being X generation doesn't preclude you from having recent immigrant ancestors either, i.e. you can have one great grandparent(s) who are recent immigrants in multiple generations.
Again, your English is too poor to actually understand what is being said here. I did not say you are trying to exclude multiracial populations, I was asking if you want to do that across the board to keep consistency. Because there is zero reason to cherrypick which countries get to have their multiracial populations included in the figures of afrodescendants or not. If you want to include people who identify as black only that is fair, but that means for every country it is excluding multiracial people.
You're arguing in bad faith, because I didn't manipulate anything. I just provided sources that back up my claims. You also didn't look at the studies because you're arguing about something it never talked about. The genetic studies are not of the overall genetic makeup of all residents regardless of racial identification, it does it for the three individual categories per state, such as average ancestry of self-identified white Brazilians, pardo Brazilians, and black Brazilians in various states or regions of Brazil. And focusing only on Pardo, you see significant African ancestry. There are no studies that back up your claims of huge cabuclo/mestiço populations where there are pardos with no African ancestry and only indigenous and African ancestry
Even if going based off of maternal haplogroups across the country alone such as from this study here, 28% of Brazil's population have maternal haplogroups, that's still over 60 million people. And not having an African haplogroup still doesn't preclude you from having African ancestry, either.
I'm not sure what your obsession is over white-washing Latin American demographics, but you have a history of doing this, such as in other threads where you were warned about it. This is a trend for you.

Your reading comprehension is poor, so I'm going to need you to re-read what I said multiple times until it clicks. I will reiterate my proposal one last time.

If you want the article to only include people who self identify as black, that is fair. But you must agree that you must exclude multiracial populations for other countries and the article should be exclusively for people who self identify as black only, not black in combination/multiracial with African ancestry. Kyogul (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuxo As @Mawer10 has said, you are forcing your views in the edits and therefore will continuously be reverted. You are doing bad faith misinterpretations of what the census says and cherry picking sources to fit your own narrative, as you've done in other articles related to Latin America

If you re-configure what the template says and take out multiracial populations for Colombia, US, and UK, then you can only include the 'preto' figure for Brazil. I'm not going to do it for you though, and if you continue with your current biased edits I will just undo them. I have more patience than you think.

This will be my last message to you. Cheers. Kyogul (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any person with any drop of African ancestry is to be included, then millions of Latinos should be added to the figures of the United States. Where are they? Or is your one-drop rule only applied to Brazil? Because millions of Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Haitians, Colombians or Venezuelans in the USA have African ancestry, but only the figure for self-declared Blacks are on the article. So do not make false claims, only self-declared Blacks are in the figures for the US, meanwhile you're trying to include any non-white person of Brazil as part of the "African diaspora". Why is your agenda only towards Brazil? Xuxo (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only responding to this because of the accusation, but I already had the vast majority of the sources for Brazil already so I knew where to look and therefore it was easier to edit. It would take time for me to search for reliable sources for other countries so I just stuck with what I was familiar with as I didn't feel like editing all of the countries. I thought about it though, but nothing specific to Brazil. Not responding to the drivel about the one drop rule and whatever as I already responded to that before.

Again, edit the other countries' figures to include black only and you get your wish. Elsewise your edits are going to be reverted. Not sure why you're being obstinate and not doing what I recommend. You get what you want, and I go away. Elsewise, I'm going to firmly stand right here. Kyogul (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also did do it for the US too, in the notes if you checked it out (you didn't, though). So your accusations of bias are yet again, amongst other things you've done so far, folly. Kyogul (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You lie when you claim the figure for the USA includes any person with African ancestry, because that is not what the source said. Only self-declared blacks are there, but you wanna include any non-white as African diaspora for Brazil, not only self-declared blacks, ad for the USA. This is strange. I will have to revert you, unless you change the figure for the USA to include any person with African ancestry, the way you want it to be for Brazil. Xuxo (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You lie" when I clearly have it in the note section where I include the figure for the few percentage of white americans with african ancestry...interesting.

Nothing more to say to you than this.

If you re-configure what the template says and take out multiracial populations for Colombia, US, and UK, then you can only include the 'preto' figure for Brazil.

Elsewise, good luck in your edit war. Kyogul (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the template. It links to self-declared black people. Nothing about whited or Latinos with African ancestry. Or you add them to the total figure for the USA or I will keep reverting Brazil only for the figure of self-declared blacks, in par with the USA. Xuxo (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hyperlinks on the template were already there; I didn't edit the hyperlinks on the template because the format is too confusing and it can only be done manually and you can only link to one page. For example, the hyperlink for the UK only links to Black British and excludes the multiracial figure, but the sources add on to it to include the multiracial figure. France's page also does this too

2. There are no singular pages for certain countries like the US and Brazil to include Afrodescendants (afrodescendants =/= black) so I just left it as is. At best I thought about this page and forgot why I didn't include it

3. I wouldn't mind including the figure for white americans in the figure for the US, but for Latinos I wouldn't for a multitude of reasons. One, the overwhelming majority of them are Mexican and in the US there are two sets to consider: ones very recently from Mexico due to immigration, and the other who are multi-generational due to land acquisition from Mexico such as Tejanos and Chicanos. The latter group make a substantial portion of the Mexican-American population and many have intermarried with white Americans. Not only this but during colonial Mexico many Mexicans in the extreme northern territories were of solely Spanish descent, and so many of the multi-generational Mexican Americans are just Spanish rather than indigenous or mixed indigenous, so it makes the figure very ambiguous. For a similar reason I excluded including white Brazilians in the figure for Brazil, if you read the notes (you didn't).

Now, I can very easily edit the amount to include just white americans, but like I said above for a variety of reasons including Mexican-Americans in the figure is going to be not so smart Kyogul (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And not acuse me of trying to white-wash Latin Americans. Just check my battle in White Mexicans. I,M against biased people. It seems you are the one trying to white wash the USA when you do not want to include Latinos of African ancestry in the figures for the USA, but started a crusade to include for Brazil any person who is non-white as part of the African diaspora. Xuxo (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do not complain about my English, it is not my native language. And what about you? Can you speak any Portuguese? No, so look at youself in the mirror. Xuxo (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know enough Portuguese to read sources! Why are you continuing this edit war and refusing to talk? You ask for other populations to include mixed-race populations but don't edit them yourself nor do you want to talk about how I even agreed to add it for the US. @Xuxo

Please stop the shenanigans. If you aren't going to contribute positively you need to stop the edit war, a war you won't win anyways Kyogul (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuxo: Brazil has by far the largest afro-descendant population outside of Africa, it would be extremely misleading to place Brazil in second place after the USA here. It is estimated that between 65 million and 120 million Brazilians are of African ancestry, see here. Just 65 million represent approximately 31% of Brazil's current population of 203 million. A 2011 study shows that if the category "pardo" (brown/mixed) were excluded and Brazilians had to choose between "preto" (black) and "branco" (white), 32% of Brazilians would identify as black. In 2010 the Brazilian Congress passed the Statute of Racial Equality, a law that considers pretos and pardos together as constituting Brazil's black[negra] population. The IBGE frequently lumps browns and blacks together in official analyses and reports, using the category "negros" to refer to the aggregated group. Many scholars and social scientists agree that the sum of census blacks and browns should be conceptualized and studied as a single collective, collapsing them together under the terms negro, Afro-Brazilian or Afro-descendant. See here.

“

By the United States definition of race descent, at least a third and perhaps half of Brazil's population of 115 million is black, giving the country the largest population of African descent in the Western Hemisphere.

”

— The New York Times, 1978

A third now would be 67%. Many media outlets and organizations considers pardos and pretos as the same or talk about them together, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mawer10 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyogul: Where did the number 113,983,148 come from? I did a search and no reliable source came up. The sum of black and brown people using the 2022 census numbers is 112,739,744. Mawer10 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use a direct source for the specific numbers, but I did for the percentage. It could be slightly off so your correction is fine Kyogul (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]