Jump to content

Talk:Black British people: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Anthony Appleyard moved page Talk:Black British to Talk:Black British people without leaving a redirect: Requested by Newslinger at WP:RM/TR: There is consensus at Talk:Black British § Requested move 4 December 2019 to perform this move. The Black British page is move protected.
Requested move 4 December 2019: Technical request implemented
Line 137: Line 137:
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: '''moved''' (pending [[Special:Diff/930746158|technical request]]). <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>{{bcc|Sangdeboeuf}} —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 17:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: '''moved''' <s>(pending [[Special:Diff/930746158|technical request]])</s>. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>{{bcc|Sangdeboeuf}} —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 17:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
----
----



Revision as of 22:06, 14 December 2019

contextulisation

the African and Asian guests at a pub dinner given by the African and Asian Society found themselves seperated from other guests by a screen placed in the room[1]


so, cordless lary proposed i put this here for a discussion of where to contextualised this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat (talkcontribs) 23:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: The Story of Indians in Britain 1700-1947".
Just inserting that example into the article isn't helpful, in my view. It needs more context. Do we have sources that establish that this was typical of the time, for example? Why are we picking this example rather than others? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
nb edit conflict
I'm not sure what point is being made, implicitly that there was prejudice against/distaste of these people, of which this is an example. It isn't even clear who was segregated, the society members from the general clients of the pub that night or the white and non-white society members from each other. If the point is that there was prejudice, I would have thought a better, more general statement would be clearer covering something broader than this incident. Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film reel

Agreed. I feel the same about this. Why are we singling out this one film reel to open a section with? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the material about the film reel. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but if the film is in the public domain, would a captioned 'still' work as an image? as suggested here "would this be better as an image if poss?". Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that might make more sense - using it to illustrate the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision by 105.112.16.252

What are these sources? @105.112.16.252  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Am Chaos (talkcontribs) 14:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black British. 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) 08:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black British. 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) 18:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Africans born in Britain do not consider themselves "Black British"

Since when has Africans born in Britain considered themselves "Black British" or ever used that term to describe themselves? 81.141.15.52 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for as long as their skins been black — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesthefrank (talkcontribs) 09:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black British. 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) 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

photos

some captions have full stops others do not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.5.155 (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add that fact

http://web.archive.org/web/20181023134143/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

Requested move 24 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus against this requested move. (closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (tc) 15:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Black BritishBlack Britons – Per African Americans. Unreal7 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The usual and better understood term is Black British. ngram Limiting to British English gives similar results. Certes (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Use the common name. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –Black British is a much better term.Leutha (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Black British is generally more common. Barca (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I remove the Middle Age part

Mythological matter cannot be used as a proof for an hypothetical presence of black people in Britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:5018:7100:d930:9625:990e:7257 (talkcontribs) 02:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (pending technical request). (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 17:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Black BritishBlack British people – The phrase Black British could be read as a compound adjective, whereas we generally use nouns for page titles. Black British people matches the lead sentence, and is more consistent with various other pages listed at Template:African diaspora, such as Afro-Caribbean people, Afro-Dutch people, Afro-Portuguese people, Black Scottish people, and British African-Caribbean people, as well as plain old British people. See also recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.