Yes, you can vandalize, but it'll likely get fixed quickly. Plus wikipedia is generally *not* written by moronic kids with no idea what they're doing. Don't make it sound like it is (90% of my "********" were for that alone). And the article doesn't just state that "oh well, black's a color". It provides a proper justification for it as well. And apparently the wikipedia community agrees.
I didn't mention vandalizing once, in fact, I showed how to properly submit changes to a protect page (which I believe that is).
Oh you mean the dictionary definition was from a robot or god or whatever, not a person?
Oh, I mean the dictionary that you use in education systems and to define words otherwise. We use the dictionary as a reference often enough (we as in the people here on the forum), and typically the dictionary definition is used to settle things. You by chance remember that "go back to whear you learn what look means" don't you? I'm guessing wherever that place might have been (I believe you suggested preschool) would have taught me the defition from a dictionary.
Buuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiiiiit. No they're not. They're often *used* in adjective form, but rarely referred to like that. You'd have to do that like "the red color" or "the color that is red" instead of "red". Do you do that? No you don't. And take the title of this thread, for example. It's a noun there. Just like in almost all uses inside the thread.
Alright, you got me, I shouldn't have said referred. You understood my point though, which is what matters.
Yeah sure, ignore the rest of the sentence.
"Although black is sometimes described as an "achromatic", or hueless, color, in practice it can be considered a color"
First of all, the part that you left out says *sometimes*. Why did you hide that, and even added "only in practice"? Secondly, it's still referred to as a color, just a special kind. The way I read that is that while it's sometimes described as a special color, it's usually a regular one. That said, I don't really like the wording there. Thirdly, white and gray are achromatic/hueless colors as well, so if you say that makes black a non-color, you must also say white and gray aren't colors. Do you?
And now I'll leave because I'm quite sure you're just trolling. You can't be serious with all that stuff.
The way I read this, it says sometimes that it is described as achromitic or hueless. It appears to me that "sometimes" has nothing to do with it being called a color "in practice." I didn't say that is what makes black not a color, I'm talking about how it specifically does not reflect any light, whereas white clearly does. The article states that as well.
qqwref:
1: I'm not saying people find it nonsensical. I'm only saying that science teachers and students will acknolwedge that people think black is a color, but by their scientific reasoning it is not.
2: Yes, that would normally be referred to as translucent orange though, or by most others I'm sure we'd hear "see through orange." Typically when people say something is clear, they mean colorless, much like water or glass.
3: Right, but if the definition of color states that light is reflected for it to be a color (which it does), then reflecting no light means you are not a color. Though I understand your point (reflecting/absorbing the photons), if you reflect nothing then you are not reflecting. I think a better way to word that would be there are 4 possible outcomes, instead of 4 ways to reflect light.
And about your "technically" comment, I thought that's why this thread was created? So people could debate about whether they are or are not colors (which would be a technicality matter?)
