Wikipedia

Talk:List of black Academy Award winners and nominees/Archive 2

< Talk:List of black Academy Award winners and nominees
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Middayexpress in topic Move Review
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RfC: Should this page be moved to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees?

Latest comment: 10 years ago103 comments18 people in discussion
Closing as yes. See rationale all the way at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the title of this article be changed to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees so that its scope would include black Oscar winners and nominees from countries other than the United States? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

(Please begin your response here with Support or Oppose and provide a brief reason, but please put all threaded discussions in the subsection below.)

Actually, the version of the page you link to from when it was first created proves that it was not reserved only for Americans. The original page creator included black people who are not American on the list (including Sophie Okonedo, who is British and Jonas Gwangwa who is South African). 99.192.48.205 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting; that's the same argument that Metropolitan90 raised above. The page creator likely assumed that Marianne Jean-Baptiste and Sophie Okonedo were African-Americans since they tend to do a lot of U.S. work using American accents. The fact remains, though, that the list itself was originally reserved for African-Americans, as clearly stated in its intro [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You can assume what you want about what the list creator was thinking, but the fact is that non-Americans were included on the list from the start by that person. It also is true that some people (especially Americans) sometimes forget that "African-American" does not mean the same as "black", and so somtimes call black Canadians or Brits "African-American" even when they know the person's nationality.
By the way, I did not mention Marianne Jean-Baptiste as an example, but I did mention Jonas Gwangwa, who is not known for working with an American accent, has a distinctively African name, and did the music for a film about South Africa. It seems quite plausible that the list creator knew that Gwangwa is African, but not American. 99.192.70.121 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
It's doubtful that the list creator was even aware of Jonas Gwangwa's background since Gwangwa's wiki-page at the time did not exist. This too doesn't alter the fact that the list was originally reserved for African-Americans, as plainly stated in its intro ("the following is a list of African-American winners* and nominees from 1929 to the present" [3]). Middayexpress (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
If the list creator did not know Jonas Gwangwa's background, how did he know to include him on the list? Your logic is suspect. Also, it's silly how you quote the page description and the use of the term "African American" while ignoring the fact that to Americans the term "African American" and "black American" mean the exact same thing. It's just some people prefer "black" and some prefer "African American" and some don't care either way. You assume that the list creator was making a distinction that no one in America makes. 99.192.48.212 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
The list creator perhaps assumed that Jonas Gwangwa was African-American based on his name (sorta like Ashanti). At any rate, what's certain is the original purpose of the wiki-page per the list creator him/herself (viz. "the following is a list of African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present"). No need for speculation; it's written right there in the intro. Middayexpress (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Reply to the dynamic IP: You say "to Americans the term 'African American' and 'black American' mean the exact same thing". What about non-Americans, which is what you want to expand the list to include? This thinking entrenches systemic bias on Wikipedia and is not WP:NPOV. HelenOnline 08:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
First, you continuously ignore the fact that to the vast majority of Americans the terms "black" and "African American" are viewed as exactly interchangeable. You might think there is a clear and different meaning, but that does not reflect the vast majority of usage. So what you assume about the list creators thinking does not line up with actual practice. It is much more likely that this person did not see the difference as you do.
Second, You seem to put a lot of weight on the fact that the term "African American" was used in the original intro and assume conclusions about the creators intentions. But it is just as reasonable to point out that the original list creator included not just one, but many non-Americans on the list and to conclude that this is proof the list creator intended to include non-Americans. At the very least there is a clear inconsistency in how the page was originally constructed, so your assumptions are just that, not fact.
Third, Anyone familiar with WP:OWN will recognize that your continued insistence on talking about what you assume the list creator intended the list to be, even if you are right, is a huge red herring. The person who created the page does not own it. What that person intended the page to be about is not a relevant question. The only question that matters is which version of the page is better, one that excludes people based on nationality or one that does not. I am absolutely certain that you would object to this page being called "List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees" even if that were the original title of the page. Because if you would not object in that case, then you should have no objection to a new page being created with that title. After all, if a new page were created with that title and the page creator intended it to be a list of black nominees and winners, then your own argument here would support keeping it that way. So your argument based on the original intention is disingenuous. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
"Black" and "African American" aren't interchangeable, nor is Marianne Jean-Baptiste for one even American. At any rate, per WP:LEAD, the intro outlines the actual topic. And that intro indeed clearly states that it was originally reserved for African-Americans [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The list has included non-Americans for many years and removing them has made them invisible. WP:ETHNICGROUP does not say "black" is unacceptable, and includes "self-identification" as a criteria, which this designation would seem to fit. The article black people makes it clear that this is an everyday English language usage and not unacceptable. There are a number of other comparable lists including black Golden Globe winners, models, baseball players, Nobel laureates etc. Melcous (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That's obviously untrue since the other entries are in fact already covered on List of African Academy Award winners and nominees and List of English Academy Award nominees and winners. Moreover, the actual counterparts to this page are "List of white Academy Award nominees and winners", "List of brown Academy Award nominees and winners", "List of yellow Academy Award nominees and winners", etc., none of which of course exist. It seems that for whatever reason, certain users are quite content to single out this one group across multiple wiki-pages. For its part, WP:ETHNICGROUP doesn't mention "black", "brown", "white" or "yellow" because those are not ethnic groups to begin with, as you yourself conceded. That guideline only mentions actual ethnic groups as acceptable naming conventions, such as "African-American". Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per same reasons as Metropolitan90. "African American" is a nonsensical politically-correct neologism. Charlize Theron is from Africa and became a naturalized American citizen. Why is she not considered an "African American" Oscar winner? --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously because Charlize Theron is an African immigrant, not an African American. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Charlize Theron is a White person, aka European. I thought that was obvious from her European features. In South Africa, and in Africa and in the rest of the world she is not referred to as "Did you see that African women in the film monster"! It seems a little stupid to create this wonderful universe where the obvious is no longer obvious. I have no idea what a black person is. Do they have black skin or black hair? Is it defined by what?--Inayity (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
"I thought that was obvious from her European features." So you want a list that is defined by third-person assessments of what people look like? Did you know that Carol Channing, who is on the list, only revealed her African heritage in 2002 and before then publicly identified as white?
"I have no idea what a black person is. Do they have black skin or black hair?" If this is a serious question, then clearly you are not qualified to comment on the use of the word "black" and clearly fdo not meet the "expert" criteria that justifies Middayexpress canvassing your contribution here. (=99.192.48.205)
Expertise in the field is not determined by whether or not editors personally agree with anonymous ips, but instead on their actual work in that area. Middayexpress (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is not about the African American term per se so Shivertimbers433's (false in my opinion) reasoning is tangential to the discussion. My understanding is that the African American term is widely accepted as being synonymous with being of black African descent and also American. (Like most people of Afrikaner descent, Theron could well have some black African ancestry, but that is another story.) The black term is much more open to interpretation though, both inside the US and elsewhere. Would it include Latin Americans, some of whom identify as black? In South Africa most African Americans would not be considered "black" if they lived here as that term has not historically been used for people of mixed race. If you expand this article from a fairly well-defined localised US group to a less well-defined global group of people, it will not be so easy to decide who belongs in it. HelenOnline 08:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The list is noteworthy for documenting how the Academy has homored people of a particular race. The nationality of those people is of minor significance. Steve McQueen is the first black person to direct a film that won Best Picture and he won as a producer of the film. That he is British makes this no less significant a milestone and it is comparable to the achievements listed here. 99.192.48.205 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The same argument could also be raised for the first "brown", "white" or "yellow" winners, so it doesn't mean much. McQueen is likewise already on List of English Academy Award nominees and winners. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? The same argument could be made for white winners, but a list of white winners is not notable as a separate list since the vast majority have been white. This is, for example, why Wikipedia has a page called "List of National Hockey League players of black African descent" but does not have one for white players. It just is too common to be noteworthy.
As for "yellow", I know of no Asian people who accept "yellow" as a common term to describe themselves, but there are millions and millions of people who find "black" or "white" as acceptable terms to describe themselves. So to compare using "black" here to using "yellow" is absurd.
Finally, McQueen being on a British list is nice, but it ignores the fact that his achievement is notable for being the first of his race to direct a Best Picture. Putting him on a list by nationality does not show this. You continue to pretend that nationality is important to this list. It is not. 99.192.70.121 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
McQueen is actually on List of English Academy Award nominees and winners. At any rate, "white", "yellow", "brown", etc. are the actual counterparts to "black". Many East Asians indeed reject the "yellow" label, and there is likewise no shortage of other folks/populations who similarly reject the "black" label. An argument could perhaps be made that a list of white nominees and winners is too common to be noteworthy, but this argument in turn wouldn't work for the so-called "brown" winners, among others. None of this changes the fact that a) this is the only Academy Award nominees and winners list of its kind on this website, and b) this list was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This was a list by race, about achievements by people of that race, not their ethnicity nor nationality. Recognition of black people as black people is still an issue and area of interest; books are published on the subject (which would cover General Notability), it is still discussed, and "the first black X" is still newsworthy. That's why we have things like "black history month". Keeping the list as just African-American makes many black winners and nominees effectively invisible. Arguing about the lack of other lists by race would come under WP:OTHERSTUFF on the list of arguments to be avoided; albeit in deletion discussion but I think it appropriate here too (FYI, I have no objection to other race-based lists, although a list of white winners wouldn't be much different from the overall list). Nothing in my reading of WP:ETHNICGROUP appears to ban, or even advise against, the use of the word "black" where it is appropriate, and I don't think its intention was to erase black people. The fact that people are listed elsewhere (for example, by nationality) means nothing as this is not a discussion about other lists, people can be listed on multiple pages for multiple reasons but this was the only list for black Academy Award winners and nominees. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, according to Melcous, the list under its "black" title was "about skin color rather than "race"." WP:ETHNICGROUP does not include "black", "white", "brown" and "yellow" among the acceptable naming conventions since they are not ethnicities to begin with. It does, however, mention "African American" as an acceptable naming convention. This list was also originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. WP:ETHNICGROUP is not an exclusive, exhaustive list of the only accepted terms on Wikipedia. At no point does it actually say the word "black" is forbidden. Besides which, I'm pretty sure it is meant to refer to articles about individual people. A list explicitly about black people is allowed to be about black people.
    2. The second section of WP:ETHNICGROUP is Self-identification which states "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." The group, black people, does self-identify as black. It is a common term and one used by the winners and nominees in this list as it was. Ergo, it is a perfectly acceptable term to use for the list according to WP:ETHNICGROUP.
    3. You have just undermined your own argument. If "black" is not an ethnic group, then the policy WP:ETHNICGROUP, on which your argument rests, does not apply. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It's actually the other way around. WP:ETHNICGROUP, also known as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), contains "conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities and tribes." It thus gives examples of the acceptable naming conventions for a hypothetical Elbonian ethnicity. "Black", "white", "brown" and "yellow" are not among the acceptable naming conventions because they are not ethnicities in the first place. "African American" is, though, so that is an ethnonym that the guideline gives as an acceptable naming convention. As you point out, WP:ETHNICGROUP also stipulates that "how the group self-identifies should be considered[...] if their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Since an autonym is "the name an ethnic group calls itself", "black" is even less appropriate because the most common autonym for many of the winners and nominees is in fact their own actual ethnic group (e.g. African American). Middayexpress (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • strong oppose Black is not a race. It is a color. Black according to SA is Indians, Chinese, and Africans. it is hardly a professional way of referring to groups of people who are native to Africa or Sub-Africa. And Wikipedia is way behind if these issues are still unclear. If it was Asian actors I do not think it would include Europeans who happen to be born in Hong Kong. And a lot of this comes from confusing Nationality with Race. African citizens (holders of passports of African countries) and African people (a race), which makes sense when you say African Diaspora. We all know that Bushmen got moved to San people, we know Eskimo is now Inuit. It would be strange not to see between Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson the term "black" has no formal bases for defining anyone. --Inayity (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    Black people disagrees with you. Furthermore, this is not a topic exclusive to Wikipedia. A winner or nominee being black is a subject of comment in the media, in journalism, and in literature. Professionals in these fields, and others, use the term "black" as a race to describe the winners and nominees. Books are written on this subject. This will continue to be the case as long as the phrase "first black X" is still being used for current events. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISION, Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The black term is too poorly defined, especially at a global level where different conventions apply. It is a can of worms. Who gets to decide who is black? Editors in America? Editors in Africa? Editors from Africa may not even consider African Americans to be "black". A list is effectively a category. According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, ethnic groups are used when categorising people but race is not. Black is a (socially constructed) race not an ethnic group. HelenOnline 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Some food for thought on race as a social construct and systemic bias:
"I didn't know I was black until I came to the United States."
"There's a running joke amongst black people who weren't born and raised in America, but who, at some point in their lives, moved to America, that goes something like this: I didn't know I was black until I came to the USA." HelenOnline 07:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
That's all very interesting, but given that "African American" is defined as any "citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" it is interesting that the day these people arrived in the US to live that they suddenly joined a new "ethnic" group that they might know nothing about. So I don't see how "African American" is any less problematic. These people could all just as easily say that they were African American without knowing anything about what that means, which could be just as surprising.
All the hand wringing over the word "black" is, at most, a terminological red herring. It seems that all the people who object to using "black" in the title are ok with using "African American". Ok, then, let's look at the definition of "African American" again. It is: "citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa". Great. So if that is acceptable, how about some term (whatever that might be) that means the exact same thing as this, just omitting the "American" part? That is what people supporting the use of the word "black" are advocating. But if you don't like the word "black", then all we need to do is find some other word that means "people (of any nationality or who live anywhere) who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa." Surely if such a description is inoffensive when used to define "African American" it is just as unproblematic when the "American" requirement is removed. And surely all those people who say that they were surprised to find out that they were "black" were not ignorant of their Sub-Saharan ancestry.
But on that point, what about people who are ignorant of their ancestry? Have you seen the film A Family Thing? It stars Robert Duval who only as an older man discovers that his birth mother had ancestry from one of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. So while the word "black" is used in the film, it means that this character was surprised to find out as an older man that he was part of the ethnic group called "African American". The simple fact is that "black American" and "African American" mean the exact same thing. Some people might prefer one term over the other, but the idea that one is a racial term and one an ethnic term, so one is more problematic than the other on those grounds is a fiction.
A title like List of people with total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa who have won or been nominated for Academy Awards might seem too long, but that is the gist of what the supporters are advocating. If "black" is not an acceptable shorthand for that, then fine. Either we find another shorthand that is acceptable or we go with the longer name. Either is fine with me. 99.192.68.232 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
"Sub-Saharan ancestry" is problematic as well (albeit less so) because not all populations in Sub-Saharan Africa and Africa as a whole share recent common ancestors, just as not all populations in Asia share recent common ancestors. The prehistoric osteological/skeletal records in both areas alone demonstrate this. Europe is different in that most Europeans do share recent common ancestors [7]. African Americans are also a well-established ethnic group, with an equally well-defined genetic profile and distinct culture, language and history in the New World [8]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If "Sub-Saharan ancestry" is problematic and "African American" is defined by using that term, then it should be equally problematic to use in the title. The former cannot be any more problematic than the latter. But when you say that "African American" has a "well-defined genetic profile", I don't know what you mean other than "Sub-Saharan ancestry". Are you saying that only descendants of African slaves count as "African American"? This would be news to Barack Obama and all the people who think he is African American. But the omission of two-time nominee Djimon Hounsou, who is African by birth and American by citizenship, from this page suggests that you would exclude Obama and others of a similar "genetic profile". I wonder if Obama or Hounsou would be surprised to find out that they are not African American, like the people Helen refer to who were surprised to discover that they were black? 99.192.48.212 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
It's all explained in the link above. Middayexpress (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Re people with total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa, that is not a well-defined ethnic group or it would have a shorter name, is not verifiable for most African Americans, and is theoretically applicable to every human being on earth via Mitochondrial Eve. HelenOnline 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
HelenOnline: "that is not a well-defined ethnic group". I did not claim that it was. I only claimed that it was a fairly precise description that could be used for the basis of a list that did not use the offending term "black". Just as "African" and "Asian" are not well-defined ethnic groups, yet we have pages that are called List of African Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees. The title of this list need not name an ethnic group for it to be a valid name.
"is not verifiable for most African Americans". Really? Because this is the definition of "African American" that the Wikipedia page for that subject offers. If this is not what makes a person African American, then what does? You should be able to explain the criteria for counting as "African American" if you want to advocate using it as part of the title of the page, otherwise we have no way of knowing who qualifies for the page. So if the definition of "African American" does not tell us, how do we know? 99.192.48.12 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
"Asian" and "African" refers to continental distinctions, not race NOR ethnicity - e.g. Asian means "winners who are from any countries in Asia". Those winners could be of any race or ethnicity.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You have missed the point entirely. I know that "Asian" and "African" refer to continents, not ethnocity, which was exactly why I mentioned them. HelenOnline was saying that my proposed title was not valid because it did not name an ethnic group. I pointed out that titles need not refer to an ethnic group and gave the continental list titles as examples. For the list title to be valid it need not name an ethnic group or a continent. It just needs to name a well-defined criteria that is deemed to be a relevant one. The discussion we should be having is whether or not a grouping that would have us put James Earl Jones, Halle Berry, John Singleton, Djimon Hounsou, and Lupita Nyong'o together on the same list is worth having. To point out that they do not all share a nationality or that they do not all share a continent of birth does not show that they do not belong to some grouping that could be used as list criteria. What they have in common is their sub-Saharan ancestry. So either that can be the basis for a list criteria or not. No one has been able to say why it cannot, especially given that "African American" is defined in terms of sub-Saharan ancestry and that is a criteria that has been supported here. 99.192.82.92 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
"Sub-Saharan" ancestry is problematic for a number of reasons. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:SALAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value" and "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." Also WP:EGRS: "Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations." There should be reliable sources stating that the people in this list are African American (which is all we need) but I doubt you will find reliable sources for many stating that they have "total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa". Please don't bother replying, I am not going to waste any more time on someone who can't hear me. HelenOnline 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You can declare victory and withdraw from the discussion if you like, but I will reply for people interested in this discussion. Your quote from WP:SALAT is irrelevant to the discussion. You advocate a list criteria that would include approximately 100 people on it while I and others advocate a list criteria that would make a list of approximately 8 people longer. That is hardly "too general or too broad". Secondly, getting sources that show that a person is of sub-Saharan ancestry is a lot easier than you think. By definition, anyone we have a source indicating that they are African American is someone we have a source for this criteria, since the definition of "African American" includes sub-Saharan ancestry. For the Black British nominees and winners, there is a similar definitional element that means any source for their ethnicity is also a source for their sub-Saharan ancestry. That just leaves the people who actually are from sub-Saharan ethinic groups themselves. There is no sourcing problem here. 99.192.82.92 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
People with "total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" is not WP:CONCISE, and would indeed include pretty much the whole world given the Out-of-Africa migration. Some so-called "indigenous" populations that today inhabit Sub-Saharan Africa also did not in the recent past, which is another complication. There were likewise periods when the Sahara was lush and was inhabited and traversed by diverse populations, as cave paintings, fossils and archaeological artifacts show. Middayexpress (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This cannot be taken seriously as an objection. First, as I have pointed out many times, the term "African American" is defined in terns of sub-Saharan ancestry, so if we have no idea who is or is not of sub-Saharan ancestry, then we can have no idea who is African American. Secondly, are there any Academy Awar nominees or winners for whom there is some open question as to whether or not they have ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa? Many people might be surprised to find out that Carol Channing has sub-Saharan african ancestry, as she did not reveal that to the world until 2002 and did not know herself until she was an adult. Peter Ustinov was controversial as an inclusion when the list used "black" as the title, but his Ethiopian ancestry is documented so he clearly counts under a "sub-Saharan ancestry" criteria. So are there any cases we don't know the answer to? If not, you are just kicking up dust.
(As a side note, it seems odd that Carol Channing is uncontroversially a member of an "ethnic" group that she had no idea she belonged to until she was an adult nor did anyone have a clue she was a member of until she told them late in her life. It suggests that being a member of an "ethnic" group can be based entirely on your ancestry and have nothing to do with your language, culture, nationality, or anything else. So "ethnicity", then, is no more a clear concept than anything else being discussed here.) 99.192.82.92 (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
99, you're right to point out that ethnicity is complex. However, what you are arguing for is not an ETHNICITY-based classification, it is a Race based classification. Would you consider the negroid tribes of Andaman islands the Sentinelese people to be black? What about the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea? They share many of the same morphological features as certain sub-saharan african groups, and are (or have been) called "Black" in the past, and some may even identify as such, but their African origins probably go back tens of thousands of years or more. Ultimately, it's a question of degree. Determining whether someone is "African-American" is much easier than determining whether or not someone is "black"; global black identity is extremely complex, and there's no evidence whatsoever that the global "black" forms any sort of recognized ethnicity. Race is not a valid biological concept (especially not in the facile way it is being proposed here, e.g. people who have dark skin, curly hair, "African" features), and we do not permit categorizing by race, so there's no reason to start making lists based on it. While there's no doubt that the "social" construct of black exists, it's too vague to hang a list on - again I encourage you to read all of the different definitions of Black people. Nothing holds them all together.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"However, what you are arguing for is not an ETHNICITY-based classification, it is a Race based classification." No. Remember that RfC I posted at the bottom of this page that you closed off? Give it a read. I explain there what the objections are to using a racial term like "black" and then propose "sub-Saharan ancestry" as a better alternative. So whether I consider the people you ask about to be "black" is not relevant.
"Determining whether someone is "African-American" is much easier than determining whether or not someone is "black"" Yes, but I am not advocating that "black" be used. I am advocating that "sub-Saharan ancestry" be used, which cannot be harder to determine than "African American" is since "African American" is defined in terms of whether or not a person has sub-Saharan ancestry. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
No, that is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." As for not advocating a "black" race classification, you really are but just using different words that mean the same thing to you (or Americans in general). HelenOnline 06:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: WP:SYN. If we have a reliable source that says that a person was born in Los Angeles, do we have a reliable source that says the person was born in California? Or that the person was born in the USA? Only the most absurd reading of WP:SYN would say that we do not. So if "African American" is by definition "American" + "sub-Saharan ancestry", does not having a reliable source that says the person is African American also count as a source that the person has sub-Saharan ancestry? Of course we do. You literally cannot be the former without being the latter, exactly like being born in LA and being born in California.
Re: racial classification. If you are advocating that the inclusion criteria should be "American" + "sub-Saharan ancestry" (which is what "African American" means) and I am advocating just "sub-Saharan ancestry", then it is absurd to say that I am advocating a racial classification and you are not. The only real difference is you are advocating a nationality element to the classification that I am not. Please also note my previous comment about Peter Ustinov. He is not black, yet he meets the inclusion criteria that I am advocating. I don't think you could get clearer proof that the inclusion criteria I advocate is not based on race. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
You also literally cannot be human without having African ancestry, which renders your proposed grouping meaningless. HelenOnline 13:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So if "African American" is defined as an American who has sub-Saharan ancesty (which it is), then all Americans are African American. So you favored position is just as vulnerable to this criticism. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
African-Americans are multi-generationally mixed people, with the Africa-derived portion of their recent ancestry mainly tracing back to West Africa. Also, Sub-Saharan Africa today is populated by many different groups, some of which aren't particularly closely related. The situation is similar to that in Asia rather than Europe. It's ironic, though, that you should mention Peter Ustinov since he claims descent from Emperor Tewodros II, who in turn claimed Solomonic descent. At any rate, what actually exists today is Sub-Saharan geographic residence, which is altogether different from that long-winded/not WP:CONCISE title. Middayexpress (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear! It looks like you have a lot of problems here. First, "African-Americans are multi-generationally..." How many is "multi"? Two? Three? Seven? Your description is rather vague and makes it very unclear who should count. "...mixed people..." What do you mean by "mixed"? Do you mean mixed race? If so, then your term is a racial one and one you should object to. "...the Africa-derived portion of their recent ancestry..." How recent is "recent"? Fifty years? Three hundred years? More vagueness in your description that makes it impossible to apply. "...mainly tracing back to West Africa." How "mainly" is that? Must it be 50% or more to count, because if so there are a lot of African Americans who will take issue with that claim. If less, how much less? "Sub-Saharan Africa today is populated by many different groups, some of which aren't particularly closely related." So? You started a list for African nominees and recipients, so any diversity problem there is with "sub-Saharan" is even worse if you generalize further (as you did) and say "Africa". The bottom line is that "African American" is no more simple to assess than "sub-Saharan ancestry" is. In fact, you cannot do the former without doing the latter. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
Please calm down. The Africa list is based on birthplace and citizenship, not perceived ancestry; so no, it is not a parallel situation. Multi-generational mixed (MGM) is a term for individuals with multiple ancestries over generations. For instance, an African-American person with a Native American or Irish American grandparent. This is what the average African-American today is (i.e. MGM), as both genealogy and genetics clearly show [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite calm. Perhaps you are projecting? But if "mixed" means that the person has some Native American or Irish American ancestry, you still have not said what that ancestry is "mixed" with to qualify the person as "African American". Suppose a person has one Native American grandparent, one Irish grandparent. What might the two other grandparents be for the person to count as "African American"? If the answer is "black", then your definition is essentially one determined by race. If it is "sub-Saharan African", then we are back where we started and my proposal looks good. If it is anything else, I have no idea what it could be. So what element of the "mix" makes a person "African American"? 99.192.51.205 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
Well, excessive bolding does not exactly suggest calm (WP:SHOUT). The rest is all explained in the link above. Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I bolded quotations so they would stand out from the text that is mine. It's not shouting. Text code for shouting is all caps. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
99, it sounds like you are problematizing the definition of African-American. This is fair, but would apply to every list and category that uses African-American. You keep on citing the wikipedia definition, but this is NOT how African-American is determined by society-at-large; for example, a recent African immigrant who gets an American citizenship does NOT become African-American, even though they are unquestionably of African descent (see [10], many other articles). Sub-saharan is a short-hand, but is not sufficient, as there are "black" people and tribes that live north of the Saraha desert, and that if they went to the US, lived there for 100 years, would eventually be called African-American more because of the intersection of their physical traits (e.g. looking like other Negroid populations + their social/cultural interactions) than any DNA measurement ensuring their ancestors were below the Saharan line. Ultimately African-American is not determined by descent at all, it is socially determined, and for that we have to go by reliable sources - this is the reason Obama was not universally accepted as African-American, even though his father was 100% Kenyan. The problem with your definition is (a) Black as a social definition is much more diffuse and differentiated in the 190 countries of the world and is not a reasonable grouping at this level and (b) "Of sub-saharan african descent" would require original research, and measurement or threshhold of what percentage must be sub-saharan African, and an understanding of "native" vs "recent arrivals", how many generations back, and what percentage of the DNA, and physical/morphological characteristics (there are "white" people who have been in South Africa for over 500 years, but I would guess you wouldn't want their descendents on the list), and finally this sort of grouping brings together a continent of unlike people (while excluding those above the Sahara). The list of African winners should not be problematized, as we are simply grouping by continent, with no concern for skin color, descent, nationality, etc - if you are from in Africa, you can be on the list - so Charlize Theron is there I think (but if your parents are born in Africa and you are born in the UK, you should NOT be on that list) - so a nationality-based list or set of categories is a completely different story.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"99, it sounds like you are problematizing the definition of African-American." No. I don't think it is a problem. All I am saying is that if the term is thought to be unproblematic enough by Midday and Helen for them to advocate using it as list criteria (which it seems it is), then the term "sub-Saharan ancestry" cannot be any more problematic, since the former is defined in terms of the latter. I am pointing out that they are taking contradictory positions by saying that one is ok, but the other is problematic. I think neither is problematic, but that "sub-Saharan ancestry" is the better scope for the article because it is wider than just including Americans. Midday and Helen want the list to be for Americans only.
"You keep on citing the wikipedia definition, but this is NOT how African-American is determined by society-at-large." Yes, I know. I did point that out to Midday as well, but he just stubbornly ignored the fact that the everyday use is different, so I gave up that battle. I have only used the Wikipedia definition because it is the one they insist on using, and it is sufficient to show they are wrong.
"Ultimately African-American is not determined by descent at all, it is socially determined, and for that we have to go by reliable sources" If that is so, it is so much the worse for Midday and Helen's claim that "African American" is some precise ethnicity description. It is all the more reason to abandon the term and use just an ancestry descriptor. But it sounds like you think that "african American" is not a term that picks out a race or an ethnicity, since it is a term that can be applied based on some ever changing social consensus about whether a person has the right pedigree or not to count. Which is all the more reason not to have a list that uses "African American" as its criteria. It puzzles me that you think "African American" is a nebulous term and do not oppose using it for this list. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
The fact of the matter is African-American is clearly an ethnicity, and even though the borders are fuzzy, it is still strong enough to carry a list, and it is not race-based. Having "sub-saharan African blood" is likely part of what allows someone to join the club of "African-Americans", but it is far from the only determining factor (as I've pointed out, recent African immigrants aren't immediately accepted as "African-American", and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were a number of so-called "African-Americans" who actually have less "sub-saharan African" DNA than people classified as Hispanic/Latino/Mestizo/Mulatto/Arab/what have you - you keep on focusing on that "descent" question but that is one input into a complex societal equation which forms a uniquely American ethnicity. There was a recent story in the news of a white supremacist who was found to have 14% African DNA but it will be a cold day in hell before he is accepted or identifies as an "African-American". "Of sub-saharan African descent" or "black" is NOT an ethnicity, nor is it a geographical designation - because you would not allow Charlize Theron on such a list even though she's from sub-saharan Africa. You're dancing around the issue, and I must DISAGREE that African-American is simply a nationality-constrained version of "Of sub-saharan African descent" - it's simply not true, and if wikipedia's article states that, it's wrong and should be fixed. African-American is a complex socially constructed identity/ethnicity that doesn't have a single objective and irrefutable definition, and there will always be edge cases, but that doesn't prevent us from making a list or category on same based on reliable sources. "Of sub-saharan descent" on the other hand would require original research into genealogy to determine whether someone's ancestors were really "originally" from Sub-saharan Africa, or were they from Libya and moved south 100 years ago, or were they from Madagascar and thus have different facial/morphological traits to not look "African" enough, or were their parents a mixture of portuguese/arab/berber/black and thus not black enough to qualify, or did they actually come from Papua New Guinea, etc etc - it's hopeless, and ultimately when in the real world such lists are constructed it is done based on perception of race rather than any informed research on descent, which we should NOT perpetuate here. As has been noted, we are ALL of sub-saharan African descent, every last one of us, so trying to make that some sort of objective inclusion criterion is hopeless because it would require arbitrary cut-offs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
(Partial outdent to eliminate squeezing, but still maintain the threading)
Your last comment actually supports my case. "Having "sub-saharan African blood" is likely part of what allows someone to join the club of "African-Americans"" I would go further. I cannot think of a circumstance where a person would be counted as African American but not of sub-Saharan ancestry. So as I have said many times, there is no greater problem establishing that a person is of sub-Saharan ancestry than that they are African American. As ancestry is "far from the only determining factor", it is actually going to be much easier to determine that a person is of sub-Saharan ancestry than that they are African American because of those other factors. Obama is a perfect example. Some question whether he counts as "black" and some question whether he counts as "African American", but there is no doubt that he is of sub-Saharan ancestry. So my suggested criteria is easier to establish, making it a stronger one to use.
"There was a recent story in the news of a white supremacist who was found to have 14% African DNA but it will be a cold day in hell before he is accepted or identifies as an "African-American"." This also helps my case. Is this man "black"? Some might say yes, others no, and he probably would say hell, no! Is this man African American? Some might say yes, others no, and he probably would say hell, no! Is he of sub-Saharan ancestry? Well since the DNA evidence was reported by reliable sources, we know that he is. What he and others think about the matter is immaterial. Ancestry is an objective fact and not open to whether a person wants to be part of a group or whether others will have him. My criteria again is the sole objective one.
"African-American is a complex socially constructed identity/ethnicity that doesn't have a single objective and irrefutable definition, and there will always be edge cases" That sounds no worse than how it would be if sub-Saharan ancestry were used. Furthermore, given that HelenOnline just today added the word "black" to the description of what counts as "African American" on that page, it seems clear than any worries about the radically different ways the word "black" is used infect the term "African American" as well.
"you would not allow Charlize Theron on such a list even though she's from sub-saharan Africa" Now I think you are not being serious. The term "sub-Saharan ancestry" is not as mysterious as you pretend. It is a grouping of many, but not all, of the ethnic groups of Africa. Since there is a Wikipedia page called "White Africans of European ancestry" that talks about ethnic groups of European origin in Africa, you might check there if you have doubts about what "ancestry" means here.
""Of sub-saharan descent" on the other hand would require original research into genealogy" Nonsense. Either we have a reliable source that identifies the person's ancestry or we do not. If we have no reliable source for the person's ancestry, they stay off the list until such a source is available. It's the same as any other inclusion criteria: let the sources prevail. Now since it is not possible for a person to be African American without being of sub-Saharan ancestry (surely you will agree that the latter is a necessary condition of the former, even if it is not nearly enough to be a sufficient condition when coupled with nationality), everyone on the list now with "African American" in the title would stay on the list under the title "sub-Saharan ancestry". For the roughly eight or nine other cases that would be added under this broader heading, in each case they have Wikipedia pages that have sourced reports of their ancestry, so they would be included as well. The list might not be complete, but most lists are not. Some might get left off who belong because we don't have adequate sources, but that happens right now. (Take Carol Channing, who is on the list but would not be had she not revealed her partial sub-Saharan ancestry in her 2002 autobiography. For the first 35 years after her victory she would have made no one's list of African American Academy Award winners.) 99.192.51.205 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
"I cannot think of a circumstance where a person would be counted as African American but not of sub-Saharan ancestry." How the hell do you establish sub-saharan ancestry? DNA tests? Do you really think DNA tests are used in this way before someone get's to be a card-carrying African-American, or before we classify them as such? Read One-drop_rule, and esp about the experiences of immigrants who werent' previously considered "black" but who show up in the US and are put in the "black" bucket. It has NOTHING to do with DNA tests, or sub-saharan ancestry- it has to do with morphological and cultural linkages. What sort of reliable source are you going to use to establish ancestry? The only reliable source I can think of is a geneological tree, that you trace back. How far back do you have to go before you hit an African? You might be surprised to find that such sources would indicate many people who are today white actually have African DNA from not too long ago, but they "pass". But their status as African-American is not determined by such heritage, it is determined SOCIALLY. So your attempt at creating an objective criteria fails b/c it would require original research. Anyone can be an African-American, even if they only have 1 drop - one great great great great great grandfather who was provably a slave is enough, if they so choose to identify as such, and even in spite of facial features depending on how things pass down, they could or could not be accepted.
"It is a grouping of many, but not all, of the ethnic groups of Africa" - ok, which ones are in, and which ones are out? Who maintains the list? Who is the arbiter? this is a RACE-based classification, pure and simple. Look at Congo_Pygmies#Early_history_and_origins vs People of Ethiopia, they are likely much further apart than Spanish and Russians, but they have been put together into the imagined Negroid race (some suggest certain groups of Ethiopians came from the Arabian penisula a few thousand years ago, thus much of their heritage isn't really indigenous african at all!) It's all social construction!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"Do you really think DNA tests are used in this way before someone get's to be a card-carrying African-American, or before we classify them as such?" You are missing the point. Let me put it this way. Do you know of any person who counts as African American, but who it is known that they do not have sub-Saharan ancestry? Or better yet, can you offer even a hypothetical circumstance where a person would be widely accepted as being African American even if it were also widely accepted that the person had no sub-Saharan ancestry? If not then that just shows that the ancestry is a necessary component of being African American.
"...it has to do with morphological and cultural linkages..." and "Anyone can be an African-American, even if they only have 1 drop ... if they so choose to identify as such..." And how is this different from being counted as "black"? You sound like you are talking about a racial grouping, not an ethnic one.
"Look at Congo Pygmies vs People of Ethiopia, they are likely much further apart than Spanish and Russians..." Yes, but by the "one drop" rule there can easily be people who are extremely different yet, as you say, can count as African American because they choose to be counted as such. The idea that sub-Saharan ancestry is somehow broader or more diverse than being African American is not true. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
"Do you know of any person who counts as African American, but who it is known that they do not have sub-Saharan ancestry?" - you can also ask the opposite question - do you know of people who DO have sub-saharan African DNA, but that aren't considered African-american? Yes. Likely 20% of White and Hispanic americans fall into this group - including the white supremacist mentioned earlier. Google "mistaken for black" for many instances of people of color who are taken to be African-American even though they're from Brazil, or India, or Palestine, etc. Most people who consider themselves African-American do so because one of their parents was African American or otherwise considered "black" - and it just goes back up the tree. Very few people who consider themselves African-American have had DNA tests done to determine where they are from, and per the one-drop rule, having a single great great great grandparent was often enough, esp back in the day, to be considered black. Now, in the main I believe they are right, so it would be rather rare to have someone with no AA heritage who considered themselves as such, but the point is there's no verification society that checks on these things. Per one drop rule, the descendants of that barely-black person would/could also consider themselves black, or decide not to. it's SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED. you keep on missing that. My point is, your "sub-saharan ancestry" is a racially-driven invention that has no basis in biology, and is untenable as a list because we can't do DNA tests on academy award winners to figure out which haploid groups they have.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"you can also ask the opposite question" No, you can't. The point of my question was to demonstrate that knowing that a person is African American means we know that they have sub-Saharan ancestry. The only way to deny that this is true is to claim that some people are African American, but do not have sub-Saharan ancestry. So my question is relevant and your reversal of it is not.
"Google "mistaken for black" for many instances of people of color who are taken to be African-American" I will just note here that throughout the paragraph you wrote above, and really throughout your comments, you equate "black" with "African American". So the idea that one of those terms is unacceptable and the other perfectly fine seems strange. You use them (as almost all Americans do) interchangeably. "African American" is really a racial descriptor.
"it would be rather rare to have someone with no AA heritage who considered themselves as such, but the point is there's no verification society that checks on these things" Yet you still think we can use "African American" as an inclusion criteria. So yes, sometimes there will be errors if we use either "African American" or "sub-Saharan ancestry", but only equally so. So if one is no good as a criteria then the other is no good as well. Your objection does not work unless it also blocks your preferred solution.
"it's SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED. you keep on missing that." So if it socially constructed and "black" is socially constructed and "sub-Saharan" is also a socially constructed category no one of them is different from the others in it's legitimacy for use here.
"we can't do DNA tests on academy award winners" We don't need to. We either have reliable sources that report their ancestry (just as we do now for status as African American) or we do not. In the absence of a source establishing their ancestry, we leave them off the list. Just think of how Wikipedia reports sexual orientation. There are lots of gay people who are not included on lists of gay people because they have not publicly identified themselves as such, so there are lots of lists missing lots of people who fit the criteria. But that is no reason to abandon the list or the criteria. In the absence of information about, say, Tom Hanks' ancestry, he is left off the list. If, like Carol Channing, we find out ten years from now that he has some sub-Saharan ancestry, we add him then. No problem. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
"Sub-Saharan ancestry" is not comparable to "African-American ancestry". For one thing, not all modern populations inhabiting Sub-Saharan Africa share recent ancestors. Certain groups instead have stronger genetic affinities with populations outside the region (e.g. [11], [12]). African-Americans today also have their own well-defined genetic profile and distinct culture, language and history in the New World. By comparison, the descendants of the early pilgrims aren't nearly as distinct from modern populations in Northwestern Europe since there was little bidirectional marriage between them and other populations in the New World. The gene flow was instead largely unidirectional i.e. into the African-American and Native American populations. Genealogy and genetics show this as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
see Near Black: White-to-Black Passing in American Culture for a whole book about such stories of white people passing as blacks. It's likely more rare than the opposite (e.g passing for white), but it does happen. Remember, there's no final authority - it all rests on perception, so if you act and dress and talk and live "black", you can pass, even if a DNA test might prove you wrong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
If white people sometimes pass as black (or as African American), then Wikipedia just might sometimes get things wrong. So what? Wikipedia is not infallible. There is no reason to think that someone is more likely to try to pass as African American when they are not than that they will try to pass as of sub-Saharan ancestry when they have none, so the problem of error is faced by both terms equally, so again you have not shown that "African American" fares any better than "sub-Saharan ancestry" 99.192.51.205 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
RE: "Black is a (socially constructed) race not an ethnic group"; so what? Lists are not restricted to just ethnic groups, so not being an ethnic group (which is incorrect here but never mind) is irrelevant to the topic at hand. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories, lists, and navigation templates are all systems of organising information on Wikipedia, in this case people. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to categorise people by race, so why would it allow editors to get around that by having lists of people by race? HelenOnline 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Helens and Middays statements, as they have already explained my stance on this. AcidSnow (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose we should not perpetuate stereotypes of race by creating race-based lists. The linkage between an African-American who grew up in the south with a British-born Nigerian are minor at best. We should judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. What defines "black" anyway? it's different on a per-country basis - for example, in South Africa, "Black" can include people of Chinese and Indian descent. Brazil has many different color variations. Ultimately, cross-national race categories and lists are a BAD idea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you regarding varying definitions in different countries, but I would like to clarify something about South Africa. "Black" in a social sense has a narrow meaning relative to other countries, it generally means "100% black African" (although some people who identify as black have discovered they are not in fact 100% black African via DNA). However, as Chinese and Indians were classified as "non-whites" during apartheid they are now eligible to benefit under Black Economic Empowerment as previously disadvantaged individuals. I would not say they are considered "black" in a social sense or identify as "black". It is complicated yes, which is why this proposed move is a can of worms. HelenOnline 07:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's true - "black" includes chinese/indians in the context of the law, but not for personal identity. However, if we're making a list, do we go by the legal definition of "black" in south africa, or by the identity? In any case, it's an interesting wrinkle. I think most of us would be rather surprised by what we find in our DNA...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Easily solved by using citations. If person X is described as a black winner/nominee in news or books, that's verifiable and good enough for Wikipedia. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not enough in such matters. Per WP:ETHNICGROUP, self-identificaton of the ethnic group the person belongs to, among other things, first and foremost factor in, and terms regarded as derogatory by members of that ethnic group are to be avoided. Middayexpress (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
But what about citations in other languages? "Black" can translate in a lot of ways. I think it's far too broad for inclusion criteria - the definition of "black" varies to widely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:ETHNICGROUP is still not an absolute ruling and it makes no mention of "black person" as an identity either way. I still see nothing in it that conflicts with any "List of black X" articles. As for citations, if it's verifiable by citation from a reliable source it should stand (as with everything on Wikipedia). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:ETHNICGROUP is indeed not an absolute ruling, but rather a naming convention guideline. Policies and guidelines determine Wikipedia best practices. "Black" isn't mentioned there as an acceptable naming convention because it is not an ethnic group. WP:ETHNICGROUP also stipulates that each ethnic group's autonym/self-name would be the best article title. Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Not so much since WP:ETHNICGROUP at the time didn't yet exist. Middayexpress (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It should be noted that all three of the editors who have just added opposing comments above (Inayity, HelenOnline, and AcidSnow) were all specifically recruited by Middayexpress and asked to provide input here. This is defined on Wikipedia:Canvassing as "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions". 99.192.70.121 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)

Please read the whole Wikipedia:Canvassing article. Notifying other users is not necessarily inappropriate. It is perfectly acceptable to notify editors with known expertise in the field. Middayexpress could not have known my opinion on the matter. I didn't even know my opinion on the matter until I had spent the best part of a day thinking about it and posted it here. Now read WP:NPA. HelenOnline 19:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying that you are an expert? What is your specific qualifications that make you an expert on the subject? I checked your user page and did not see anything there that suggests that you are an expert. All I know is that five different editors who were not canvassed to come here all supported the move, Middayexpress was the only person opposing the proposal, but then Middayexpress specifically asked three editors to comment and all of them joined in opposing the proposal. That looks like a paradigmatic case of canvassing to me. But if you can explain what makes you and the others experts I will gladly reconsider that judgment. 99.192.70.121 (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
As Helen explained, per that link, it is perfectly acceptable to notify editors with known expertise in the field. She is a prominent editor on WikiProject South Africa, so she is in a position to know whether or not the Charlize Theron claim made above holds water (it doesn't). She also participated and in fact started a previous discussion on a closely related topic, the renaming of the former Bushman page to San for similar reasons. Inayity also participated in that discussion and like AcidSnow, he is among the most active contributors to WikiProject Africa. That said, the more interesting question is how you as an anonymous ip know so much about Wikipedia when you ostensibly have just five edits, four of which are to this talk page [13]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Middayexpress, your answer explains why you canvassed these people, but it does not explain how they are "experts". I'm a Woody Allen fan, have seen all of his films, and have made some edits on his film articles, but I am certainly no expert. Your three friends are not experts on this subject either.
As for me, do you know what a dynamic IP address is? I have been editing Wikipedia pages for many years. My ISP changes my IP address frequently, which is why I have had two different ones (so far) on this page. If I go offline and come back in a few hours, I will almost certainly have a new IP address that might have no edit history or one unrelated to any edits I have made. But anyway, I would not say I "know so much about Wikipedia". I mean, I'm not an expert. 99.192.70.121 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
The policy you linked to permits contacting editors known for expertise in the field or who have participated in similar discussions as long as it's transparent and neutral. Both apply here as already explained, though I'm sorry if you feel differently. At any rate it's obvious you're a dynamic ip now, but from experience, users don't edit as such for long let alone years. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that you don't have a main account. Middayexpress (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

For reference, in case people are interested, there is a Wikipedia page called White Africans of European ancestry that explains in the first sentence that "White Africans are people of European descent residing in, or hailing from, Africa who identify themselves as white." The page uses the term "ethnic" frequently in discussing this group of people and the page belongs to the category, Category:Ethnic groups in Africa.

There also is a page called Black people that explains in the opening sentence that "the term black people is an everyday English-language phrase, often used in socially-based systems of racial classification or of ethnicity [emphasis added] to describe persons who are defined as belonging to a "black" ethnicity [emphasis added] in their particular country...."

So it looks like Wikipedia recognizes "black" and "white" as ethnicity designators. Additionally, the page Black British tells us that it "is used as an official category in UK national statistics ethnicity [emphasis added] classifications." So Wikipedia is not alone in using "black" as an ethnicity indicator. 99.192.70.121 (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)

The White Africans of European ancestry page is under the Ethnic groups in Africa category because it includes actual ethnic groups in Africa (such as the Afrikaner), not because it itself constitutes an ethnic group. Wikipedia's best pratices are also determined by its actual policies, including WP:CATGRS, which discourages categorization by "race" ("Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not"). Middayexpress (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
So given that the Black people page makes it clear that the term is used in ethnic classification based on black ethnicity, then a title like "List of black people who have won or been nominated for Academy Awards" would be an ethinc categorization, and one that does not limit the scope to just Americans. Excellent! 99.192.70.121 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
There's no such ethnicity; as Helen explained, it's a social construct. Ewe people is an actual ethnicity. Middayexpress (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, I agree with most of your comments, but this one is wrong. All ethnicities are social constructs. that's the nature of ethnicity. I think the better question is, is a global "black", referring supposedly to people of sub-saharan african descent but only carrying certain racial characteristics, sufficiently held-together as an ethnicity to merit making a list on same. There, I think, absolutely not - I'm not sure what experts say but I wouldn't rank it up there with other ethnicities like "African-American" - the global "black" is simply too large (it's sort of like "Asian" - which can serve as a continental container but not really an ethnicity).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer the dynamic IP's question, regularly editing articles about African topics, yes I (and Inayity and Acidsnow) have some expertise on the subject of Africans and race. That does not mean we necessarily have exactly the same opinions (which should be quite obvious from our comments), but hopefully we can provide perspectives other editors may not. As for other articles, Wikipedia is not perfect and never will be. It is better to focus on Wikipedia policy in discussions, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. HelenOnline 07:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

An "other stuff" response might be valid in some cases, but in this case the "other stuff" I refer to are pages that you, Middayexpress, and the other editors he canvassed have been actively involved in editing over a long period of time and where none of you have objected to "white" or "black" being used in the article titles and descriptions. It is relevant to point out that this "other stuff" is deemed ok by the very same people who object to "black" being used here, which makes your position seems inconsistent. 99.192.68.232 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
My issues with other stuff are on record. Unfortunately I am only one editor and I have discovered that cleaning up historical Wikipedia articles can be a major stuggle, which is part of the reason I am opposing further pollution of the pond here. HelenOnline 12:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • note FWIW, I would have no opposition to Category:List of African academy award winners, which would list people who are actually from Africa (but based on continental, not racial, characteristics). That's a much more neutral way of framing it. We could create similar lists for all continents - european, asian, south american, oceanian, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Both List of African Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees already exist. The African list was created earlier this month in response to discussions on this page and includes only people who are African by birth or citizenship (I think). The Asian list was created in 2007 and is limited to people "who have Asian ancestry" regardless of where they were born or where they are citizens. So Natalie Portman, who was born in Israel and is an Israeli citizen is not on the list but Hailee Steinfeld, who was born and raised in the US and is "1/4 Filipino" by ancestry is on the list. The African list makes sense to me, but the Asian one seems crazy. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
Yes; that makes sense. Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If the title and scope of this article limits it to African Americans, with black nominees and winners from other countries being excluded, I don't think that serves the interests of readers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should this page be moved to "List of people with total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa who have won or been nominated for Academy Awards"?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Improper to start a different RFC while an existing one is running on a very similar issue. Let consensus form for the RFC above --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the title of this article be changed to List of people with total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa who have won or been nominated for Academy Awards so that its scope would be broader than just black American Oscar winners and nominees? 99.192.66.175 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)

Survey (Please begin your response here with Support or Oppose and provide a brief reason, but please put all threaded discussions in the subsection below.)

  • Support. In the above discussion the opposition to the previous change proposal to use the word "black" seems to be based on two concerns. First, that it is a racial descriptor while "African American" is an ethnic descriptor and the former are not ok, but the latter are. Second, even if racial descriptors were ok, the word "black" is used in very different ways in different countries, so it is not clear who would or would not fit under that description. It has also been mentioned that for some people and in some places the term "black" might also carry a negative connotation, thus should not be used. If we accept all of these considerations, it still does not really address the core of the suggestion that I and I believe others who have supported that change suggestion are advocating.
If you check the page "African American", you will see that the opening sentence offers the definition that African Americans "are citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa." So if this list is currently reserved just for African Americans, that is a description of who should be included. But if we just replace the words "citizens or residents of the United States" with "people" we get a more generalized description that fits the idea for the scope of the page that advocates for the change proposed above support. In short, using the title I am now suggesting means that the list would include all African American winners and nominees as well as Djimon Hounsou, Jaye Davidson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Lupita Nyong'o, Steve McQueen, Jonas Gwangwa, Sophie Okonedo, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, and perhaps one or two others I might have missed.
The description I have offered for list criteria cannot be any more problematic than the term "African American", since it uses the precise definition of that term. So if that definition is problematic for my proposal, it is equally problematic for using the term "African American". But my proposal also would give the list the wider scope that advocates of changing the title want, so it should be acceptable to everyone. The only objection that I can anticipate to this suggestion might be that the title is considered too long. If that is the objection I would first point out that there are other article titles longer than this one, so it is not a decisive problem, but secondly I would just ask for suggestions for a shorter title that captures the same idea as the longer title I propose. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing rationale

I've closed this proposal as successful. My closure is based on the following factors:

  • Raw votes are split rather evenly; if this were a simple yes-or-no issue, I'd definitely close it as "no consensus"
  • A lot of the supporters voted for change because they wanted to have non-Americans included
  • The opposers' rationales for their votes were all over the place. Some of them addressed the definition of race, others rejected the idea of a list of this sort in the first place, and we also get the discussion of African non-Americans and non-black Americans from Africa
  • In general, we appear to have consensus for the idea that this list, as long as it exists, should include non-Americans
  • African American says that "African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial historic ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa."
  • Lacking strong reasons, we need to be careful about contradicting parent articles; including non-Americans on a list of African-Americans would definitely be such a contradiction

Between the split vote, the consensus for including non-Americans, and the need to avoid a contradiction with the parent article on the subject, I'm closing this as successful. Given the debate on the idea of having this list in the first place, we might do well to have a separate discussion regarding that issue. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello editors, I have been watching this page, and the closers Talk page, since the RFC was closed. I had seen that some editors were trying to discuss with the closer on their Talk page to try and get a reverse of the move before taking the close to a Move Review. That effort seems to have stalled, and the article now sits with an improper title. The move was not correct. Not only based on the obvious "non consensus" of the move request, but the arguments presented. The rational for the close is also incorrect. If someone wants to start a move review, I would be happy to support it. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a review of the move underway right now. Anyone wanting to contribute to that discussion should go here. 99.192.50.212 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)
It's already linked to above. Middayexpress (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees/Archive_2&oldid=1136933067"