Talk:African Americans/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Images

All the images of black and white ones of civil rights leaders. I think it may be better to have a bigger variety of images, after all, civil rights advocacy is not the only thing African-americans have ever done. How about a few musicians, perhaps Jim Hendrix? Muhammad Ali was named the sportsman of the century and Michael Jackson put out a record that sould 100 million units. Tupac Shakur, Oprah, Louis Armstrong, Bill Cosby, Will Smith, Chris Rock, Bessie Smith, a whole bunch of people in a lot of different professions exist that could qualify. Zazaban (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, why don't you do something about it? Just complaining isn't going to get you anywhere. Roger (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the infobox? A discussion about it started a while ago at Template talk:African American ethnicity#Third Line of Photos, but it petered out. I think a better range of pictures would be appropriate, but I recommend against using people whose careers are still active. I've seen edit wars at other ethnicity templates (American Jews, for example) over which celebrities to include.

I'd like to propose that any further discussion be carried on at Template talk:African American ethnicity. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Under the title "Who is African American" it states that since 1977 blacks in the United States were declared African Americans. IN 1961 Barack Obama birth certificate says African American. What did the term mean in 1961. PepsiSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.17.54 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The opening images are lopsided with people from the civil rights movement and people of liberal philosophies, it needs to be updated to people of modern times and people who differ in opinions. Condi Rice and Barack Obama are two of the worlds most notable African Americans, it would be almost disrespectful for them not to be apart of the opening images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Virtually everybody agrees that including Obama during the election season might seem like an endorsement. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring to insert Obama against consensus, have you considered adding any of the famous African-Americans mentioned in this section or the following section? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullcrap there was a picture of Obama on here for the past five months in the the political legacy section. What does it matter if hes there or on the top. And why remove Condolezza Rice, she is not in a general election. You are not the dictator of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. Read the comments on this page and at Template talk:African American ethnicity. You'll see that editors agree not to include Obama in such a prominent location. As far as Rice goes, you've included her in a montage with Obama. It's impossible to remove one without removing the other.

PS: If you're concerned about liberals — and not all the people in the old montage were liberals — why are you including Obama, who is a liberal? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro montage

• I would like to suggest that we replace W. E. B. Du Bois and Edward Brooke with images of Frederick Douglass and Barack Obama in the intro montage. I would be happy to compile a new lead image myself if there is a consensus on the issue (I previously created the current intro montage for New York City). Any thoughts? --Jleon (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

-Oops, I now see there is an old discussion on Template talk:African American ethnicity that never reached a consensus, but I think it might best to have the discussion here (just for the sake of higher visibility). Is anyone opposed to my suggestion above? --Jleon (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the others, but I don't think Barack Obama should be put in the montage. I'm not saying he hasn't accomplished anything, but he has only been in the public eye for a very short period of time compared to all the so many others that can be used. The argument has also been previously made that with the pending election, it could be construed as endorsing him as a candidate to use his picture for so many articles. Kman543210 (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good point. One concern I have is that the image should not be so overly dependent on civil rights leaders that other contributions are overlooked. I notice that many other sub-ethnicity articles (i.e. American Jews, Italian Americans) have montages with more than two rows of images, so we should probably do the same here. I would like to create a third, or even fourth row that would include Harriet Tubman, Jackie Robinson, Miles Davis, Spike Lee, and Toni Morrison. Any other suggested additions or subtractions? --Jleon (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I never thought about how many civil rights leaders were in the montage, but that's an excellent point. It could make it seem like that's all that black Americans are notable for, which is obviously not true. I will say that one thing that I like about this montage compared to some of the others is that it does not rely on current celebrities and entertainers. What are everyone's thoughts about including Oprah Winfrey? I know that she is a celebrity; however, I feel as if she is definitely notable enough and not just for one thing. Kman543210 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should have African-Americans from a wider range of endeavors than politics and civil rights. With respect to Obama, I think his picture would be a mistake as it might appear to be an endorsement of his candidacy. Benjamin Banneker was suggested in a previous discussion. My personal preference would be to include African-Americans in fields beside entertainment and sports; a few entertainers are okay, but let's try to showcase the full range of African-American achievement. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's doesn't appear to be any photos on wiki commons of Banneker. There is one of Neil deGrasse Tyson though, who is a noted astrophysicist. --Jleon (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Obama is a poor choice while he is a presidential candidate. - Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur - if he gets elected then maybe, but not while he is a candidate. Toni Morrison would be a good candidate for a photo, as would Spike Lee, Guion Bluford to name but a few other choices. Manning (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I feel Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Clarence Thomas’s picture be prominently displayed. As one who judges our very laws, he is arguably the most powerful “African”-American in our nation.Mark Stroud (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a post correctly, but I just wanted to say that Ronald McNair is a horrible choice for the montage. Astronauts contribute nothing to society. You could try to say the same thing about Oprah and Michael Jordan, but they're larger-than-life celebrities who are well-known internationally and prominent in pop culture. You should either put Clarence Thomas or a musician, preferably a rapper like 2Pac, in his stead. African American musicians have had a huge impact on modern popular music, perhaps more so than the modern musicians of any other ethnic group, and virtually no impact on space. I think that it's pathetic Miles Davis is the only musician here. - wingoman64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingoman64 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we add more images just to show more occupational diversity which is displayed in the White Americans montage. Just a few examples we can use: Billie Holliday, Bill Cosby, Dorothy Dandridge, Clarence Thomas, Jim Beckwourth. If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and include them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali should also be there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please make a specific suggestion at Template talk:African American ethnicity. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

meaning of the term African American

-Limiting the term African-American to one of a group of people who "...are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa..." is an incorrect interpretation of the term. The definition extends itself to one who is either an African-born, American-naturalized OR an American-born, African-naturalized citizen, no matter the race. South African-born Dave Matthews of the American rock group Dave Matthews Band is one such example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.1.35 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, that's not the way the phrase is used. Please see the Talk archives, because this subject has been discussed many times before. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this person is uneducated. If you're black, I feel sorry for your self-hatred. If you're white, you must have anti-black antipathy. Look, Africa is a continent, not a country. It is made up of 50+ countries. Your nationality refers to your country, not continent, of birth. If a person from Nigeria emigrates to the United States of America, the person is Nigerian American. Kenya to the USA - Kenyan American. See this: List of African countries. The nationality is on their "Demographics of..." link. Oldnew (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are people who don't like the term "African American" for various reasons; however, it is a set term in the English language, and we cannot just go by our opinions for the definition. Here are how the sources define the term:

Random House Unabridged: A black American of African descent.

American Heritage Dictionary: A black American of African ancestry

Webster’s New World College Dictionary: An American having ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; black American.

MSN Encarta encyclopedia: (American blacks or black Americans), racial group in the United States whose dominant ancestry is from sub-Saharan West Africa.

U.S. Census Bureau: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

All the sources are very specific that it refers to black Americans, as a racial classification, and not to white Africans who came to the U.S. I'm not saying that I do or don't agree with the definition, but it is what it is; the article reflects the current definition. Kman543210 (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please people, give it a rest, this topic has been discussed ad nauseum! Roger (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If we base the definition of African Americans off what the dictionary refers to it as, then just about every American would be an African American and just about every black American could be called an European American (a term not widely used, because they are known as whites). So many black Americans are mixture of so many races and cultures that African American does not fit the profile. And if we really delve deeper, blacks' African hertiage has been stripped from them, thus their African culture is nothing more than just than complexion of their skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.31 (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Another ignorant person who knows nothing about black folks and culture. We created most of the nusic that existst today. Look at jazz music. The origins of jazz music and hip-hop and techno are African. Why? Because they're made up of the call and response method, which is an African way of communicating. You don't get that from Indians and whites. And just because I might have a white slavemaster or an Indian in my family tree doesn't mean I'm not of African descent. It doesn't change a thing. I'm still black, I'm still of African descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandyu (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

African American is a cultural/geographic identity and is not the same as being black. There are counterexamples to the dictionary definitions cited above. There was some white dude who wrote during slavery who is considered African American because he identified with their culture. Black is the color of one's skin. The terms do not mean the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.163.15 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The term describes people of any race or ethnicity, originating in Africa and having be naturalized in the United States. A split of the article is in order, "African American" and "Black American", to maintain encyclopedic integrity. The article as it is now can become "Black American". --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, it would be appropriate to add a section to the page describing the confusion over the term. Linguistically speaking, the term "African American" means (roughly) "a person from Africa who has become an American". In actual usage it is used to refer to Americans of the black race (descended from black Africans). However, it ls also worth saying that the term is quite commonly mis-used to indicate *any* person of that race. (Such as a major newspaper erroneously referring to Nelson Mandela as an "African American", when he is actually an African African.) It's actually a poor term because of that confusion inherent in its structure, and while it's not Wikipedia's place to try to *steer* usage, it is not inappropriate for Wikipedia to point out the disparity and describe the common mis-uses of the term. Strictly speaking, "African American" is a nationality, not a race, and its usage as a racial identifier is idiomatic, not proper grammatically. -- Stephen R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.184.38 (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Would the term "African-American" work better in this case? Similar to English-speaking.69.169.132.34 (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)JDG

Under the Political Legacy section is says, "In 2008, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama became the first African American presidential nominee of a major American political party." As far as I know, his father was black and his mother was white. That's 50-50 people, he's no more black than he is white, so isn't a bit ignorant, prejudicial, and inaccurate to label him African American just because he has darker skin? What if he were born with his mother's complexion, would he be a 'European American' all of a sudden? No- he'd have exactly the same heritage as he does now. He's an African American/European American (or for simplicity's sake, half-black half-white) and like I said above he's 50/50- there's no way anyone can argue he's more black than he is white unless I'm missing something. DC Guy 14:43, 5 September 2008 How about telling the truth about Obama he is half WHite and half Luo Kenyan. This a fact in 1961 no Kenyan would label his child as a Negro, NO Kenyan living in America would ever call their offsprings an African American.

Please consult the archives - this argument has been thrashed beyond all reasonable measure already. To put it simply, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide "what is right" or "settle the argument", only to accurately report what actually goes on in the world. Whether the term is correct/incorrect, bigoted, ignorant or what have you is not actually relevant as far as the 'pedia goes. The media calls Obama "African American", Obama calls himself "African American" and the term (both in direct reference to Obama and generally) is in widespread currency throughout the entire English-speaking world. Many find the term misleading and offensive (and the article notes this fact quite thoroughly), but that's just the way things are. When they change, the 'pedia will be updated accordingly. Manning (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "African American" was adopted in 1977, however, Barack Obama was listed as an African American on his birth certificate in 1961. What did the term "African American," mean in Hawaii in 1961? Pepsi Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.17.54 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Manning said it pretty well that it's Wikipedia's job to accurately report reality (using reliable sources of course). By definition, Obama is mulatto, multiracial, mixed race, biracial, etc.; however, it is documented that he self-identifies as African American (or black American). The media also reports him as African American. Right or wrong, this is his chosen identity, even though many Americans consider him biracial. Kman543210 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the American sense, Obama is more black than white. The majority of African Americans have various non-black ancestors, where as most whites are entirely white. Obama's father being from Africa, and therefore, presumably 100% black. So Obama is closer to more towards the black side in that sense. Either way, because blacks are a minority, half black will often be considered black, though of course really the person can pretty much decide what they consider themselves, if they want to consider themselves anything at all. Gtbob12 (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The same way Barack Obama could say he is a White American or his white part doesn´t count?--88.18.149.75 (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In a couple of points, a reference is made to the fact that ninety-nine percent of African-Americans voted for Obama. Should it be underlined that this is the result of a Gallup poll, rather than a "count" of votes? Just a thought. 173.76.235.128 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is African American? (suggestions)

The "Who is African American?" section uses an acronymn that is not defined in any other part of the article: OMB

A Wikipedia search reveals that OMB has several possible meanings.

Judging from the context in which OMB was used in this article, I assume that the author intended OMB to mean "The Office of Management and Budget".

Reading from US Census Bureau webpage, the OMB does indeed set the standard for determining race in US Census data.

So, in addition to the fact that the current article does not define the OMB acronymn, it does not provide an example of the methods the OMB uses to determine "who is African American". Such an example is important to include since it is a DIFFERENT method of determination than the other methods included in the article.

Quoting directly from the US Census Bureau webpage, the OMB does provide a definition for its racial categorization: "They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria".

So, the current article defines "who is African American" in the "one drop" method, or any person with a direct genetic connection to the peoples of Africa. However, the OMB method is much different and is worthy of note in this article.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html

Barkleylee (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 134.192.141.24 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC) I think it's a mistake to place a photograph of Congressman Jesse Jackson near the discussion of the term African American. It wasn't Congressman Jackson, but his father the REVEREND Jesse L. Jackson who popularized the term African American.

African American picture

Please stop changing that picture every second. We need more modern pictures in there. I don't even know some of these historical people in that picture and nobody will know these days. Obama, Rice picture is much better than people 1000 years ago. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think these 9 pictures fully represent the achievements of african americans in society 50 cent michael jordan tupac shakur magic johnson biggie smalls julius erving T.I shaquille o'neal soulja boy

somebody please get back to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.240.140 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a sports star, or a rapper, does not mean they have accomplished anything amazing, this should be reserved for African Americans who have changed the country, and made great inventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.189.99 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Black white income gap

The article had said:

"In 2005, employed blacks earned only 65% of the wages of whites in comparable jobs"

I removed the part that said "in comparable jobs," because that's not what the source said. The source gave the numbers for all jobs, not for comparable jobs.

It would be nice to have a source that reports on the black white income gap that factors in things such as occuptation, age, education, experience, etc., and if anyone finds one, please add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen

This article is entitled "African American", yet it's often spelled "African-American" in the article text. Why is one favoured over the other, and (more importantly) why are both used in the article text? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it's been explained to me is that there shouldn't be a hyphen when "African American" is used as a noun, but there should be a hyphen when it's used as an adjective. That doesn't mean that the usage in the article is consistent.... — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the hyphenated version. That suggest an American of African descecnt, rather than an American who is an African. U-Mos (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, standard grammar conventions call for hyphenated compound adjectives only when they come before their modified noun in the sentence; thus we would refer to "an African-American person" or "a person who is African American." My opinion is that when used as a noun, reference to "an African American" implicitly is a shortened manifestation of "African-American [person]" and hence should be hyphenated. --BDD (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a number of cases in the article where "African-Americans" (with a hyphen) is used as a noun. If someone edits this article on a regular basis, they should correct this to ensure at least consistency in the use of the term. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture for Who's African American

Hi. I was wondering if I could add a picture to that one section in the article. That's all. Have a good day.Mcelite (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the picture at the top of the page: Why Robert Curbeam? Ronald McNair I think is a better choice. He has a crater named after him, and a federal scholar program... and he had a PhD from MIT. and he paid the ultimate price dying in the challenger disaster. plus who the hell is robert curbeam? also McNair's hair is way cooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.207.101 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comment to Template talk:African American ethnicity#Comment on photo, since the picture in question is part of that template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Hey ,could we add a picture of George Butterfield.?--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested revision for grammar

Article says: African Americans also have the highest level of Congressional representation than any other minority group in the U.S.[28]

In this sentence, it looks like someone changed 'a higher' to 'the highest' but they forgot to change 'than' to 'of' and delete 'other'

Can an authorized user fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonolip (talk • contribs) 20:55, November 10, 2008

Done. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Article says: "In 1860, at the start of the American Civil War, the African-American population increased to 4.4 million, but the percentage rate dropped to 14% of the overall population of the country." Can this please be changed to "In 1860, at the start of the American Civil War, the African-American population had increased to 4.4 million, but the percentage rate dropped to 14% of the overall population of the country." Without the 'had' it reads that the population exploded spontaneously at the start of the civil war. 58.175.52.44 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Keiran 06 June 2009.

Thank you for the suggestion. I've made the change. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

British North America & the USA

Im confused on the debate Im having with user Squeakbox. S/he believes that the first sentenced should be phrased, "The first recorded Africans in British North America (including most of the future United States) arrived in 1619"

This wording is confusing, as how could Africans arrive in "most of the future United States". To my knowledge British North America was Canada and the United States and "future United States" (what was there formally) was supposed to distingish it from all of BNA. The current wording seems to suggest that Canada will soon be apart of the United States.O_o.I believe this user maybe confusing British America with British North America. Or maybe it should just be called British America? Either way I dont like the wording of the first sentence, cause it comes of very akward. There needs to be away to distinguish between the name of the British colony back then and the current boundaries of the the U.S.A. while including all Africans that were there at the time. Therock40756 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this then? "The first recorded Africans in what would (later) become the United States arrived in 1619..." Roger (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be changed to the "first recorded Africans in the English colonies..."? Otherwise, the date might be 1526 when Spainards brought African slaves to settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape in South Carolina. Of course, at that time, it was part of Spanish North America.The Original Historygeek (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

First let me apologize for forcing my post to the top. If it is deemed necessary to move it down, I understand. I am still learning the ways of Wiki.

I have tried multiple times to add a controversy section to African American. Each time I have been denied and cited as a vandal. Is this page above controversy? How could this possibly be acceptable? Please note I am not asking your opinion, I am presenting facts. Argue the facts or take your hate somewhere else. Thank you.

Here is my post; ( I have updated it to be more accurate and within the guidelines of wiki)

sources;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070718140829.htm, http://www.salon.com/april97/tiger970430.html Here is my addition; Controversy, The lineage of every human can be traced back to Africa <ref1>. Currently African Americans are either included or excluded due to the color of their skin. This group also uses known racist policies like the one-drop rule to fill their ranks. Examples of individuals being used (sometimes against their will <ref2>) are Tony Dungy, Barack Obama and Tiger Woods.

(talk) 10:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" sections you've added have been belligerent ("African American is a well developed piece of racist terminology") and unsourced. You are trying to manufacture a controversy where none exists. Please stop your disruptive editing. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Claiming its AAs who use the one drop rule is clearly ridiculous, it was invented by whites to exclude AAs. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wetodid is obviously stupid and knows nothing about American history. White people invented the one drop rule to acquire more black slaves. Anybody with a brain and knowledge of U.S. history knows that. It seems this person has a problem with the idea of blacks having self-determination and being able to define themselves. And this person does not have a clue about race and ethnicity. I'm guessing this person has a Stormfront account. Pandyu (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Unfair_Deletion_and_Declaration_of_Vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have received no evidence that my facts and references are incorrect. I have received no evidence that my article is not neutral. I will again try to include my additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you add the same material you will be reverted and then likely blocked for chronic edit warring, see WP:3rr. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

squeakbox you have failed to provide evidence to support your claims. You may have the power to block me, but you do not have the authority. If you continue to abuse your power I will be forced to escalate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What authority? What are you talking about. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The addition is off-topic soapboxing and has been reversed. Looking at the history and this talk page, reversed by multiple editors. You should really take a step back and reconsider your actions. You are engaged in edit warring; and having multiple editors tell you that the content is not appropriate to the article should be telling you something. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like some form of a controversy section. Specifically addressing:

A) How African American is used in general by Americans and the American media. Many Americans seem to claim all Africans/Blacks as their own, using the term to describe those they see of darker skin whether they are American, British, simply African, whatever. Not only are all these people not American, not all are even African as, for example, Australian Aboriginese (spelling? - firefox doesn't recognize that as a word. Aborigine?)share many of the same facial characteristics (and that's just one example. Hell, some Native Americans could be mistaken for an African American. If one sees a black person and that person isn't necessarily African and not necessarily American what use is the term African-American applied broadly, simply based on visual characteristics?

B)Furthermore there are many White persons who have been born in and live in Africa, especially South Africa, and have Citizenship in an African nation. Should one move to America (or should a white American move there) that would, to me, indicate them as a true "African American" seeing as they have dual citizenship in both an African nation and in America. Yet I don't see anything about such a situation in this article, all those pictured are those viewed as traditionally assigned "African Americans" though I'm sure many (not tons, but some/plenty) white Africans have moved to America. Are they not African Americans? Why not?

However I haven't much literature on the subject, can't think of any sources, and little knowledge beyond what I consider common sense. Anyone agree or have a suggestion of how to incorporate this? This seems a touchy subject so I didn't want to just throw a personal account into the article. Stuflames (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not even to mention that nobody cares for the term European American. As you can tell I have a number of problems with this term as it is used, and were it used properly (that is, properly IMO) it wouldn't have nearly as much use. Stuflames (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking back it seems most of this has been discussed before. This is even more reason to have a proper controversy section. Because it obviously is a controversy. Stuflames (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss any such controversy, please add it to the article. Without reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of crap. If there is controversy (and I don't see it), it's obviously small. As for European American, it's used, but mostly by white supremacists and nationalists. Besides, this has been discussed ad nauseam before. Look at the archives. Pandyu (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then the controversy obviously isn't small on this discussion page :). But, I suppose my personal problems with the way the term is used and accepted isn't necessarily wiki material. If I come across anything relevant, though, be sure I'll be back! Stuflames (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1. In general, "controversy" and "criticism" sections are discouraged. This is more than routinely the case in articles on ethnicities.
2. This article is not (and should not be) an exercise in examining what the term African American might mean. It is about a generally recognized U.S. ethnic group. African American is not the only name for that group, but it is the currently prevalent name. Like most ethnicities, there are no clear boundaries around the group. The section The term "African American" goes into this at great - possibly even disproportionate - length. - Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine, I won't bring up again that I think the way this term as is commonly used is a misuse. However, I will close by mentioning that the section "the term 'African American'" doesn't really address any kind of controversy or analysis of the term and is simply a not-so-short history of it. I would also like to say that this will continue to be an issue, if not with me then apparently with other users, until some kind of controversy section ends up being accepted. Bitching about other users wanting a controversy section or simply saying that the subject has "already been discussed" is not going to end the (for lack of a better word) problem. I'm looking at you, Pandyu, my reasons for disliking the term are simple, well reasoned, and perfectly logical in my mind, calling them "a bunch of crap" is neither convincing nor professional. Stuflames (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll start with your first paragraph. Are all people of African descent African-American? No. Blacks who are from the Carribean or West Indies are Jamaican-American, [[[Haitian Americans|Haitian-American]], Trinidadian-American etc. As for the continent of Africa, it's a continent, not a country. It's a continent made up of over 50 countries. Look at List of African countries. They're nationalities are in the demographics link. Nationality refers to your country, not continent, of birth. A person from Nigeria is Nigerian. If that person becomes an American citizen, the person is Nigerian-American. Somalia to the United States: Somali-American. Ghana to the U.S.: Ghanaian-American. Ethiopia to the U.S.: Ethiopian-American. I don't know how many times I have to explain this. Isn't geography taught in schools?

As for whites, they're not considered African by many people, including me and the indigenous people in that continent, for historical (and even racial) reasons. Many people, including me, think the indigenous Amerindians are the real, true Americans. Everybody else came here on boats. As for the term black, people of South Asian descent can be considered black for their skin color. Just because somebody has dark skin doesn't mean they're of African descent. By the way, why don't I here people like you criticizing the term Asian-American? Aren't Iraqis, Indians, Israelis, and Afghans Asian? Those countries are in the continent of Asia. Also, check out Irish-American, Scottish-American and Italian-American. Those are white ethnic groups.

In conclusion, your explanation is not logical at all. If anybody is making it a problem, it's you. Pandyu (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Padyu, yes, precisely! As a geographic cultural identity, Iraquis, Israelis, etc may consider themselves Asian American! Since there is an obvious definition of the term (American from Asia), and that definition applies to a person, then that person may call himself that. That fact that Stuflames isn't in on this discussion in the Asian forums is inconsequential to the debate.

African American is similarly a matter of cultural/geographic identity. If someone is American and from Africa, they may consider themselves African American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.163.15 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this article and chat, my 2 observations are (a) that I am grateful that user Pandyu just above pointed out the 3 articles on Irish-, Italian-, and Scottish-Americans, which do indeed contain "anybody with that ancestry" definitions. Those articles and definitions appear to me invalid on their face, and those articles ought to be changed to reflect the only sound usage which refers to, eg, Scots who have that nationality and then move to and acquire also the nationality of the US, like Craig Ferguson. By contrast Donald Trump is not a Scottish-American; he's just an American. All those articles and this one need adjustment. My other observation (b) comes after I took the trouble to surf to user Ketodids 2 sources and discovered that they do indeed say what he asserted when he started this subsection. Whether I like his comments are not, his edit seems factual, and his manner seems professional. By contrast I am concerned about the conduct of user Pandyu in his earliest thoughts above. He calls the other contributor "obviously stupid", lacking "a brain", guesses him to be a violent white supremacist, and other personal low-blows all within one short paragraph. This seems obviously violative of the absolute rule that both in articles and talk pages one must discuss content of contributions not attack the person of the contributor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks> and that <see the header of the talk page> one must "be welcoming" "assume good faith" "be polite" and "address the content". This last was not done even by the polite administrator Malik. In sum, I would like to see (1) user Pandyu's comments on the talk page remain but that he be strongly cautioned, and (2) that editor Malik address the CONTENTS of contributor Ketodid, rather than just offhandly dismissing the edit as though Ketodid were personally unprofessional "belligerent" (he certainly wasn't) or as though the edit was "unsourced" (when it certainly was sourced, and accurately), and failing that, to leave user Kerotid's edits unreverted, lest Wiki's policy against obsessive reverting be violated. Again, I know none of the parties, and have no dog in this fight, but I'm very very concerned at the responses both of the attacking user Pandyu and the polite editor Malik. 76.169.18.152 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Neutral Observer

Ethnic groups

Perhaps an interesting attribution would be which ethnic groups the african americans are mostly composed off. Africa has many ethnic groups, and very often during times of slavery specific countries are used the most, so it might be documented. In comparison, much is know about which ethnic groups the "European Americans" are composed of. Grey Fox (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, during slavery many black slaves' ethnic group identities (including their cultures, languages, religions, etc.) were stripped from them and they became simply "black". However, there has since been voluntary immigration from Africa to America, thus there are Swahili Americans, Yoruba Americans, etc.. Gringo300 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

Why is there a related ethnic groups section in the first place? Isn't it pretty narrow? African Americans are related to all people of African origin in the Americas, for example, Afro-Brazilians, being that they all mainly came from the same regions and ethnic groups in Africa. I was looking at the Afro-Brazilian page as well, and being the two largest Black groups in the Americas, there would be genetic relation. It seems actually to be grouped not by the common African heritage, but by their relations to European colonization. Example, Afro-Brazilians based on that page are only related to other Black groups in Latin America, whereas Black Americans are only related to groups of African Americans who settled in Africa? There should probably be a link under related ethnic groups that leads to another page that shows a list of all "Afro-" groups in the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.206.150.232 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem here, but one that US people do not seem to want to address: what about the black population in the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries which was mixed/absorbed/assimilated in the Spanish Empire? Tapatia55 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)tapatia55

Yeah I think there should definetly be a mention of ethnicities that made up the African American nationality, this would be helpful and a bonus to the article, I think. Plus the European American article and other hyphenated American nationalities aren't shy too shy of stating ethnicities that make up their population. Just a thought. -- Ukabia (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The n-word

I was wondering why the usage of he word "nigger" is not mentioned in this article (and is not in African American History). It's usage was pejorative or even as insult but its usage is a historical fact. I have the feeling this is hushed up.

It actually has an entire article. See Nigger. Roger (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

"Queens County, New York is the only county with a population of 65,000 or more where African Americans have a higher median household income than European Americans."

I'd really like to see this sourced... 138.251.234.15 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

is not an african-american, I know this subject been touched before but he is not, if he is african american then he is also white american because he's half-half, stop prejudice--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very old issue on Wikipedia on many other articles. I think to not accept what he considers himself (African American) at best is splitting hairs and at worst smacks of racism (although I'm not calling anyone racist). Using how he designates his own racial identify to resolve this issue is far superior to dredging up old arguments such as the "one drop rule" or percentage of "black blood" to be considered African American; take a look at the edit history of G. K. Butterfield, where edit warring has occurred because he does not look African American). In fact, if you want to look purely at racial heritage, he is half African and half American. That's makes him as much or more African American as almost anyone claiming that heritage. But that is beside the point. It's how he identifies himself that is critical. Ward3001 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he is not an African-American. Not because he is half white (whites want to change the rules yet again so they feel comfortable), but because his black side is not of African-American origins. As far as his white side being what would not make him an AA, if that is so, than MANY AA's should not be AA's! WHites made the one-drop rule, so you live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to be racist user 76.28.93.188, a counter argument would be that Black people call him African American so they think they actually got a "brother" in the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.149.50 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If he was just some random guy and someone saw him walking down the street, that person would say he was African American or at least black. It's just a label white people made a long time ago to differentiate between different groups of people. Now since he is president, people want to say, "well he really isn't African American, he's..." or, "oh, tiger woods isn't African American he's...". If he was just some random guy that appeared on COPS everyone would just say he was some black guy. The problem is that African American is just a loosely defined term but his birth certificate says he is so oh well. But does it really matter what people label him as. Of course it does because it's America, without random pointless distinctions trying to say one group is better than another where would we be? The point is that everyone calls him African American and better yet, he is already being identified as african american and white american because when we say american we think of the americans who stole the land from the natives and attempted to "americanize" the savages. (Jvclark2 (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree, he is as African-American as anyone else. By world standards, your paternity heritage decides it. By U.S. standards if you are not pure (which most of black americans arent)and you have any noticeable percentage of African heritage, then you are deemed black. It has been that way since the first wave of Africans became African Americans. Now they are just Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.172.130 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Basic Definition

Why black and why only the US of A? Not all natives of Africa are black. America is a large place that goes from Argentina up through Greenland. Every one who is a native of this space from Argentina through Greenland is an American. This wikipedia creates way more questions than answers. Why can't we all just be humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.65.67 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Recall that the term was used around the time Malcolm X organized the OAAU, AfAmer. was a functional political term to denote the nationality of African descendants throughout the Western Hemisphere. Mainly descendants of the 'Maafa', or Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Why was my comment on definition and nomenclature deleted? S.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.146.112 (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened

...to the infobox or template that was on the right side of the page? Restore it, please? Urabahn (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It was blanked by a vandal. It has been restored. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the scholarship on this page. "African Americans" in this country usa, is not just from africa, but from all over the world. There is ancient artifacts in Asia, ex: anchor wat (spelling error). The Olmec heads in Latin america! Some say those are older than the egyptian sculptures, you know the ones with the nose and lips blown off. And these same people were also in europe and were called moors. So you see, it was ALWAYS a mistake to call us African American. Also Black, which originally was a class label was also wrong. Still much work has to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalgoddess (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

More information in Who's African American

The information that was given is relative to the topic. It clearly explains why genetic history and explaination of African Americans and the discrimination that African Americans whom are of a mixed or generationally mixed background go through. The term colored also meant Native Americans as well just because u only see in movies that African Americans are only referred to as colored doesn't mean that the that shouldn't be mentioned that clearing holding back information from the viewers. Why is it that Henry Louis Gate's estimations which have been proven incorrect for numerous reasons is able to stay but the information that clearly explains why those estimates are not completely accurate is not included. I don't have a problem with his estimates being mentioned, but that should be cleared up. Also for the further information those articles that were included go into more depth, and are completely related to the article.Mcelite (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The information you keep adding seems like WP:SYNTH unless a WP:RS has mentioned it in connection with Henry Louis Gates and his work. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well a part of it is criticizing him for not being thorough, and making estimates that are inaccurate which has been said by historians, geneticists, and universities as noted by one of the sources. I don't have a problem with it being there but it's misleading at some points.Mcelite (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else going to discuss this issue?? It is important. Thank you Malik for respondingMcelite (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this whole article suggest that the beginning of "African Americans" legacy was slavery? Check outJohn Henrik Clark for more info and Dr. Ben Yosef Jochanan. There are so many scholars that could have been used for this research. One more question....WHY, do so many think that our history and the erasing of our beautiful history is not important enough to research and discuss? So sad. Because all I got from this article on Wiki is that blacks now call themselves African American, they got over here to the americas basically thru slavery and they are only good at making music. I mean that is very disappointing and its 2009!!! Collectively everyone has done their job of distorting the truth about our people and the legacies that were left behind. In school my child learns about slavery and segragation and the civil rights movement. Like that is all. We are the oldest living race of people on this earth! I have truly lost hope that our country will EVER get rid of racism. And this site on "African Americans" didn't help the situation one bit.

Why does —Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalgoddess (talk • contribs) 15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking to get something out of a wiki article that it was not meant to provide directly. Wiki articles are started and developed to inform people with reliable and verifiable facts. The articles are not written to advance a cause - even one as lofty a getting rid of racism. That said, I do believe that this article, with your help (e.g., citations for statements within the article reflecting works by your scholars mentioned above), can present the truth which will lead to understanding and elimination of fear and bigotry. That would be a good start. Hope you agree. By the way, ask your children how the article can be improved and have them help with getting good citations. Perhaps they can verify the citations already given in the article. After all that, they just might be able to teach their teachers. Pknkly (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not...

...put in a picture on a big enteratiner in the info box. Ex Michael Jackson or James Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZalleZack (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Barrack Obama

Hello,

I noticed that Barrack Obama appears in the third row of the montage at the top. According to the US Order of Precedence he should appear on top, above secretaries of States/Defense Rice and Powell, respectively. What does everyone think? Thanks, because I was just wondering. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 05:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen?

Have hyphens disappeared from "African-American" everywhere on Wikipedia recently, or were they always absent? In any case, why? Shreevatsa (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference is for the hyphen, but I've been told that the proper style is to use a hyphen when "African-American" is used as an adjective (e.g., List of African-American firsts) and not to use a hyphen when "African American" is used as a noun (e.g., African American). However, that rule is not uniformly applied (African American culture, African American history). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson Jr.?

Why is he featured so prominently in this article? I mean come on, his picture is larger than the President's photo. I think JJJ's photo should be replaced with a photo of Roland Burris considering Roland is the only AA in the Senate.Taxmandante (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition his picture is included next to a paragraph that mentions his father not him.Taxmandante (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think Deval Patrick would be a better fit..Changing.Therock40756 (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

Shouldn't Tiger Woods be featured in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.192.97.43 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

In the first sentence of the article, "African American" is defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa." If this is correct, then the entire section "Regions with significant populations" needs to be delated as the vast majority of these folks, by definition, are not citizens nor residents of the United States. Either that or we need to change the definition. Tubbyty (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. The "significant populations" are descendants of African Americans who moved elsewhere, but they don't satisfy the definition in the first sentence. I'll fix the infobox. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ummmm okay. There clearly needs to be more debate on this issue before someone can just blindly get this removed with a sentence long arguement. Lets take another look at the first part of the paragraph.

"In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the direct descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States,"

This sentence is enough to keep the regions with significant population where it is. Because the people in these populations are direct decendents of captive Africans who survived the slavery era era within the boundaries of the present United States, the key word is decendents. Even if someone of African American HERITAGE was born in Liberia that dosent negate them from still fitting into this part of the definition of African American. I will be re-inserting the regions of significant populations, these individuals in other countries need to be reconginzed heritage-wise. The definition of AA as it is clearly differentiates those of African American slave ancestry and black immigrants from other countriesTherock40756 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

You seem to be confused. The sentence in bold says that most African Americans are descended from captive Africans etc., not that descendants from captive Africans held in the present United States are African Americans.

A third- or fourth-generation Americo-Liberian isn't an African American, unless you want to define "African American" to mean something other than what it currently means. Similarly, a third- or fourth-generation descendant of an English immigrant to the US isn't an Englishman, he's an American of English descent. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well I think me and you simply have a disagreement on what it means, which is understandable considering there are two widely used meanings of the term "AA".It could mean either race or heritage, outside of the U.S. its defined more asthe latter than the former. I believe its best that the definition of "AA" remains ambiguious and just let nature take its course. Your Americo-Liberian argument hold no weight, its common for Americans who are several generation deep in the U.S. to call themselves German, Italian, etc. Barack Obama still calls himself "Irish", even though it only makes up 3% of his ancestrial makeup. This obviously could be replicated if an AA immigrates to a different country. They could be a Liberian of African American descent.Therock40756 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

Therock, that is a very fine piece of selective bolding of a quotation. Unfortunately, you forgot to bold the first part which states, "In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans...". The key word is not "descendents" - the key word is "Americans". The people in these African populations are NOT Americans, and are definitely not "citizens or residents of the United States" as defined in the first sentence. Sorry, but the "no weight" comment applies to you, not to Malik. Yes, Barack Obama can theoretically call himself an "Irish-American" as an AMERICAN with Irish heritage. However, it would be incorrect for him to label himself as an Americo-Irish as he is NOT a citizen or resident of Ireland. Regardless, there does not need to be more debate than a sentence long argument if that is all it takes. Let me repeat myself, those people living outside of the United States are NOT, by our very own definition, African-American UNLESS they are "citizens or residents of the United States". Since the vast majority of the folks living in those regions are clearly not citizens or residents of the US, the "Regions with significant populations" needs to be removed.Tubbyty (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article sound promotional?

Need for neutrality (POV) tag April 2009

I added the subsection title so others can find the section if they see the Tag message about the discussion within the Talk page. Pknkly (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just couldn't help but notice that the article has a pro-black bias, usually putting forward and exaggeration positive aspects of African Americans and downplaying negative ones. Now, I fully support the documentation of the efforts and achievements of blacks in this country, and they are vast, but I still thing the article is one sided. Therefore, I will place a POV tag. You are welcome to discuss about this. --Pgecaj (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, wtf are you talking about? Its going to sound pro-black because its about black people. There are clearly both negative and positives on the page. You even fail to give any type of example of how its "promotional". I ask that you please remove the POV tag.69.255.106.109 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it's balanced. The white Americans page also has a tag. Both articles are in need of being wikified. The tag should remain until we do so – it helps so people can come and edit.--Pgecaj (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim of continued institutional racism would qualify as bias, I think. Smithereen (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The article my read like it is about "black" people, but it is not. The term describes people of any race or ethnicity, originating in Africa and having be naturalized in the United States. This page needs a giant fix. A split of the article is in order, "African American" and "Black American", to maintain encyclopedic integrity. The article as it is now can become "Black American". --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicht Nein, go sit your tail down somewhere. It's ben established. Read the comments above and read the comments in the archives. This is a non-issue, whether you like it or not. Happy now? Klonk (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pgecaj. The anonymous user's comment "Its going to sound pro-black because its about black people." makes no sense - the article on murder is not pro-murder merely because it is about murder (in fact, it is not pro-murder at all!). Here are a few examples:

"African Americans collectively attain higher levels of education than immigrants to the United States." - This comparison is very not specific and doesn't fit. Most African Americans were naturalized in the US, as were their parents and grandparents. The comparison to immigrants is used merely to make African American education greater by contrast.

"African Americans favor "traditional American values" about family and marriage." - No citation

"Although African Americans generally support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce injustice" - citing the argument that progressive tax reduces injustice as a fact instead of an argument

That's only three examples of poor editing quality and POV in this article, and I only took those out of one section: Politics and social issues. The article in general needs some help from some experienced writers.

nomoreink 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article could easily be advanced, without materially changing the article, by simply removing the "weasel" words (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words ) and keeping future editors from using them. Pknkly (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Racial gap in life expectancy

I had added this to the article a while ago:

"Crime also plays a significant role in the racial gap in life expectancy. A report from the U.S. Department of Justice states "In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites" and "94% of black victims were killed by blacks." [6]"

But someone erased it, so I put it back. The info is from a U.S. government website, so it's very reliable.

If you don't like the way that I worded it, then make it better, but don't erase it. And make sure you include the numbers - that's very important.

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation for first sentence doesn't support the statement

The citation ( McKinnon, Jesse. "The Black Population: 2000 United States Census Bureau" (PDF). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2007-10-22. ) does not support the equivalency of "African Americans or Black Americans" as stated by the first sentence within the lead paragraph. The citation repeatedly refers to "Black or African American" not to "Black American or African American". The table in the citation clearly has "Black, African American, or Negro" and not "Black American, African American, or Negro". The equivalency may be so, but the citation does not support it. A better citation may be needed if the equivalency is there (please note that other citations within the article does not support this). On the otherhand, the citation does appropriately support the statement about "origins in any of the black populations of Africa". Seems the one citation is used to support two statements and it just doesn't work. It seems to contradict the equivalency and support the origin statements. Pknkly (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Where Is Booker T. Washington?

I searched the entire article, and there is absolutely no mention of Booker T. Washington in it. It seems to me that as one of the three first great Black Philosophers, along with Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois, that he should be included. Moreover, I feel an overemphasis on the Pan-Africanists and African culture and not enough of one about the unique American culture that the normal people take part in.

Please don't go trolling about how Booker T. was a "Uncle Tom" figure, do your homework first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.94.20 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that time was terrible to Booker T. Washington. Even so, I think that Booker T. Washington made the right thing, while he was living.Agre22 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Seems there is a consensus to add Booker T. washington..I will replace dubois as he's been up here a very long timeTherock40756 (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

People immigrating from Africa or the Caribbean

In the lead paragraph the citation ( "The size and regional distribution of the black population". Lewis Mumford Center. Retrieved 2007-10-01. ) supports the statement that immigrates from the Caribbean or Africa may (and apparently seem to do so) identify themselves with another group id. The citation, which originally was used to support the claim that African Americans also included the immigrants, is actually contradicted by the citation. So, I felt a statement removing the contradiction was needed. I hope the statement did that. I wish the original editor would have provided a better citation in support of their statement. There are several other citations within this article that do not use the OMB terms. In order to keep a neutral perspective it is important to bring to the readers' attention within the lead paragraph that not all black immigrants, or their descendants, see themselves as African Americans. Perhaps a rewrite of the lead paragraph related to who is African American needs to be rewritten to better capture a highlight of the "Who is African American" section and then move the statement about immigrants within the "Who is African American?" section. Pknkly (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all dont change the lead THEN try to gain consensus, it dosent work that way. Secondly I seen this discussed time and time again, and the conclusion has almost always been that "African" and Afro-Carribean" would not be included. Both fit under the definition of BLACK or African American as defined by the U.S. govt and mainstream society. It dosent matter what people "may" consider themselves, I could consider myself a maritan, that dosent merit it being included in a fact based article about Race. As stated before the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) classified terms are set the standand on racial classification throughout the U.S., any other "surveys" do not trump that. Immigrants from Africa and the Carribean are in fact BLACK or African American. Until that definition is changed on a national level other terms must be removed from the Black or African American page, otherwise it will just create a slippery slope. For example, under U.S. racial classifications a "African" can be of any race (white, black, Asian), an African American can only be black (AA is a RACE). By placing "African" on a RACIAL page, the term becomes a misnomer and excludes Africans of different races.

So just in case you dont understand. I will repeat the definition of "Black or Afican American." "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. Arguement over.Therock40756 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to stay focused on the citation that was used for the original statement and then in support of the one I added. It seems the original intent of the citation was to support the statement that immigrants are also being classified as African Americans. However, the citation clearly shows that some immigrants are being counted under the heading of Africans or Afro-Caribbeans. As mentioned in the section on "Who is African American?", OMB is just one source for defining the African American group. Does or does not the citation support the original statement that immigrants are classified as African American? If it does not, what would be a good statement that reflects the non-adherence to OMB? I thought my statement resolved the contradiction. Pknkly (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your citation is neither here nor there. African and Afro-Carribean are not Races. Your confusing the RACIAL term "Black or African American" with ambigous ETHNIC classifications of "African" or "Afro-Carribean". There is no contridiction, Black and African American are used interchangeably. If Black immigrants dont want to call themselves African American they can call themselves Black. While the other citation may suggest they are not African American they are in fact still Black even by your citations standards, and thus does not create a contridiction. Thats why the racial term is called Black OR African American .Therock40756 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all dont change the lead THEN try to gain consensus. Maybe you've never heard of WP:BRD. You should read it. Pknkly tried to follow by making a bold change, you reverted it but wouldn't discuss your change. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph - development

Please see Wikipedia:Lead section#Introductory text for this discussion. To this point the lead paragraph overemphasized the section "Who is African American" and missed other important sections (e.g., History, Education, Cultural contributions, etc.). The lead did have something about the demographics, but even that needs some tweaking. Pknkly (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the article on Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or other articles related to getting consensus does not exclude lead paragraphs. Pknkly (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I appreciate that you started the process of tackling the lede. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Political views: not supportive of gay rights

Interesting to note is that, despite heavy Democratic leanings, blacks are less likely to support gay rights. For example, 70% of blacks voted in favor of Prop 8. I believe this should be included if anyone has good sources and a good knowledge of the area.--Loodog (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The article hints at it: "African Americans favor "traditional American values" about family and marriage. Voting patterns on social and cultural issues continue to remain in line with ideologies of the Republican party." (under "Politics and social issues"). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I went to that source and fished out some more examples of what that means into the article.--Loodog (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, you shouldn't point to this raw data, as it is an exit poll that isn't even representative for African Americans. It should be mentioned that the use of this figure was critized. --CE (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually would like this whole part changed. Just like "African Americans favor "traditional American values" about family and marriage.", which I feel also makes an assumption on a group as a whole instead of pointing out that this is hardly a fact. There are, in fact, a lot of liberal leaning African Americans and a lot of Gay ones, that should be at least pointed out. Right now it sounds like poorly documented information is supporting the idea that Blacks aren't deeply divided over these issues. Or at least point out that "exit poll" is highly inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.159.5 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See also section

I have tried to improve this section per seealso. Could probably use more help/input. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Does this "African American conservatism somehow extend from the reversed participation of AfAmericans in the original Republican Party? Any editor willing to verify this tidbit of AfrAmerican reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.146.112 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Shouldn't Michael Jackson be added?! After all, he is - seemingly - the most famous African American ... worldwide. Tajik (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree Michael Jackson should be added to the photo collage. He's made more contributions to the African American race than Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell. What have they ever done for black people? Cameron Green 16:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson may be added to the collage. Please join the discussion at Template talk:African American ethnicity. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave the Michael Jackson as is. There are too many politicians in the template. Please just leave it alone :) 97.124.244.104 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Who the heck is Philippe Derome?

Okay. I know I don't know every African-American artist out here, but I've never heard of this guy. Plus, it looks like he isn't even African-American, but French. (Is he even black?) Surely, with all the talented A-A artists we've produced, we can do better than the rather blah, black-and-white image that appears in the article. Not terribly appealing! deeceevoice (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the interest of this artwork is first the subject of the picture : the representation of an american black child sheltered from the rain by a precarious roof. The scene is situated in a town of Alabama and is dated from 1987, more than 20 years before "Katrina". It can be seen as an illustration of the "Contemporary issues" in the "African American" article. We can discuss the quality of the work or the intention of the artist but even these questions bring some new elements to the subject of the article.

I also think than African-American art and représentation of African-Americans in the visual art are two connected but differents subjects. I hope the both will be seriously handled on Wiki.

Wiki about Philippe Derome

Oscar glutermerck (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Steele

Why is Michael Steele on the collage? I mean he's not even the first one to become party chairman of a major US party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.43.195.15 (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Template talk:African American ethnicity. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights

In the civil rights war there a fight for color not justice and thats what i believed caused confliction between colored and whites it is not the color that matter its whats inside the colored.

Preceeding comment moved from the top, still unsigned. --Dumarest (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia fact

A fact from African American appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 August 2006. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know ...that Sesame Street's street scenes were centred around the fictional African-American Robinson family in early seasons, before the Muppets took on an increased role?" dyktalk|27 August|2006|

Preceeding comment moved from the top. --Dumarest (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

African Americans as a distinct ethnic group

I don't think Obama should be considered African American, primarily because African Americans share a common slave history in North America, and as a people have experienced centuries of inequality. It should be emphasised that much like white America, have a strong historic link to the Americas, and are from my point of view, as American "as apple pie". Obama's experiences (as a bi-racial American) are different even from his own admittance (i.e. growing up with his white grand parents etc.). Of course, he may identify as African American or even black, but from a historic point of view, is he really a typical member of that ethnic group?

I would definitely include him as a notable member of a broader "black America" (which includes members of even more diverse origins, be it afro-Hispanics, afro-Brazilians, Haitians, African Americans or anyone (black, white, brown etc.) who identifies or acknowledges their African roots). --165.145.79.179 (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I fail to understand how this bias way of discriminative thinking passes through Wikipedia at all! They completely shun the white side, just because they have a hint of African American blood they are "African American" and the Caucasian blood is ignored like it is unimportant, irrelevant or a bad thing. I would love to see Wikipedia start using real unbias data, instead of bias towards their own agenda and opinions instead of facts.71.112.222.254 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been talked about and it ultimatly comes down to the realization that this is about Black OR African-Americans. Barack would fall under the broader term of black. Although it could be argued that he is in fact ethnically "African American", he did marry into a quintessential AA family and certainaly acts more African-American than Kenyan. Ethicity is basically how someone acts, Obama does not act like a native Kenyan. If your talking about is "slave ancestry" or heritage and I conceed BO is certainly NOT of AA heritage but this has been addressed in "the term African-American" section. I think after reading that section people can come to thier own conclusions what BO is.Therock40756 (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Every American is an African

I was reading Obama's entry and wondered just what kind of weird notion of "African" would be used for African American and how the definition would cope with the possible combinations of number of great.<etc.>.great grandparents.

But I need not have worried. The definition includes all Americans with any African descent, and as mankind is thought to have evolved in Africa, then every person on the planet has all their ancestors with a direct line to Africans, so all Americans are Arican Americans. The serious point being the definition simply doesn't make any practical sense in light of the African descent of all humanity. Isonomia (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So, what's your point? τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 21:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what is your point other than using this page as forum, which is against the rules? Have you read this article? It means a black person from the U.S. who's of African descent; an American who's a descendant of Africans who were taken to North America during the Atlantic Slave Trade. And before you say anything, read Italian-American. Unbelievable. B-Machine (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You say: Read "Italian-American"? Yea, I read it. Last I heard, Italy was a country, and even though Sarah Palin doesn't know it, Africa is a continent, not a country. The day you start calling ME a "European American", the day when you start calling an American Ukranian an "Asian American", the day when you start calling an American Egyptian an "African American", then and only then will I call the Negroid descendants of West-African slaves "African Americans". And please: don't tell me that this has been said before in this pathetic discussion-squabble. There is a reason that what I'm saying has been said before: It's been said before because there are people in this world that care about logic. L-O-G-I-C. Logic. Why doesn't some smart person coin the term "logically correct"? "African American" is a silly term (that's a kind assessment). And mark down this MARK DOWN THIS! What I am saying has NOTHING to do with the fact that Barack Obama is a brilliant man and the smartest and best president of the last half century (which indeed he is, and I admire him and I actively campaigned for him) and that the African culture imported into the U.S. has without any question made the U.S. culture and civilization what it is today -- without the importation of African art and culture the U.S. as we know it today would simply not exist. I have complete awe and respect for that African contribution. But that's not the point. The point is that at the end of the day, "African American" is an illogical term, as is "Asian American". I, for one, shan't use them. Worldrimroamer (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama is half cast

should he realy be up there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.203.173 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

read before you type - this has been mentioned ad. nauseam Thealienamongus (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, "half-caste" is an insulting term which is rather irrelevant here, and you also misspelled it... AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"The African-American trend of voting for Democrats can be traced back to the 1930s"

This kind of slides over the fact that the Republican-to-Democrat switch was facilitated because African-American leaders felt that Herbert Hoover had very specifically stabbed them in the back over promises he made after the 1927 flood. AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)