Talk:African Americans/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

" African Americans are no longer the largest minority group in the United States"

Recently the majority minority group title in the United states has Shiffted from African Americans to hispanics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumple (talk • contribs) 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh ... if you'll read the statement, it says the "largest racial minority" -- and that we (African-Americans) remain. In fact, when/if Afro-Latinos are included, there are even more Black folks in the U.S. than any other "racial" minority. deeceevoice (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So are Afro-Latinos black or hispanic? all these labels are just insane... and a pity when trying to fight racism. That's why the U.S. goverment keep asking in the census the 'race'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.52.31 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I see, hispanics is not considered a race.

Different types of labels and not really comparable, one is a racial group (that includes Afro-Latinos) and the other is a group of people defined by culture, language and place of birth/where they grew up, which again includes Afro-Latinos but also white Latinos, Latinos of indigenous Indian heritage and Latinos of mixed heritage. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

When I initially clicked on the "Edit" link for this article, my intent was to point out that, according to recent U.S. Census Bureau publications, Hispanic/Latino-Americans are now the largest racial minority in the U.S. However, I found the December 2008 comment offered by "Deeceevoice" to be reasonable and persuasive. As a practical matter, the concept of race and the way people have been categorized based on race, has historically been determined by countries where the ruling governments were predominantly white. As a result, we ended up with racial categorizations that were inherently biased based on stereotypes and misconceptions about people from other cultures. In this regard, it is worthwhile to note that until the Presidency of Richard Nixon, the group of people now known as Hispanics/Latinos were simply considered White/Caucasion. It is also noteworthy that as recently as 2000, the official questionnaire of the U.S. Census Bureau did not include Hispanics/Latinos among the other race categories in that form. Instead, it first asks whether the respondent is of Hispanic/Latino descent. Then, it asks the respondent to identify his or her race. Given this, it seems that the comment of "Deeceevoice" is well-founded. In the end, I think the July 2009 comment offered above by "SqueakBox" is the most correct. No matter how much our society has evolved when it comes to race, we continue to categorize people based on outdated factors that make little sense today. By way of example, our President is 50% white, and 50% Kenyan, yet he is considered by both African Americans and White Americans, by Democrats and Republicans, by Liberals and Conservatives, to be African American. As Americans, we should at minimum find this odd, and more appropriately be bothered by it. In closing, I have to admit that when I re-read what I wrote above, I sort of got on my soap box at the end. I decided to leave it, though, because I think it fits with the dialogue that preceded my contribution. I hope that whoever reads my comment takes it in the respectful way in which it was intended. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmenditto (talk • contribs) 08:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Abortion in the African American community

I think there should maybe be a specialized article about abortion in the African American community. Many scientific surveys have reported that African American women have an unusual amount of abortions, one of the highest in the United States and indeed of the entire world. It would therefore be appropriate to have an entry which would explain this phenomenon. [1][2] ADM (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Those sources won't work-- they seems to be making some kind of political point. futurebird (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the broader issue of fertility might be better for this topic. Don't make it just about abortion. I have also seen some important papers about access to fertility medicine in black communities. The gist was that doctors did not take concerns from black women about their reproductive health as seriously. So, if a black woman was having trouble conceiving she might be less likely to get information about treatments for fertility problems from her doctor. futurebird (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"while having the choice to use terms such as Haitian-American or Ethiopian American"

I deleted the bolded phrase from the article:

Although the terms mixed-race, biracial, and multiracial are increasingly used, it remains common for those who possess visible traits of black heritage to identify or be identified as blacks or African Americans demographically while having the choice to use terms such as Haitian-American or Ethiopian American to denote cultural ancestry socially.[3][4][5]

Of the three sources, the first and last are newspaper articles that mention the terms "Haitian-American" and "Ethiopian American". The middle source is a report from the U.S. Census Bureau about the ancestry of Americans, as reported in the census.

I deleted the phrase because it has absolutely nothing to do with the first half of the sentence. Also, none of the sources say anything about people "having the choice to use terms such as Haitian-American or Ethiopian American to denote cultural ancestry". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Clearly fails both WP:NOR and WP:IRRELEVANT. Middayexpress (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so anal about ancestrially hypenated terms? We both know not all blacks have the same ancestrial background and not all blacks call themselves African-American. Terms such as German-American, Irish-American,etc are common termonology that all racaial groups use. Its used on both the white American and Asian American pages. Using your standards I could remove 90% of the stuff on this page. I will rephrase, I ask that you stop removing itSourcechecker419 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read any of what I wrote? What do Haitian-Americans or Ethiopian-Americans have to do with multiracial people? Plus, the sources don't support what you've written. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It also said MULTICULTURALSourcechecker419 (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources don't support what you're claiming. In fact, the latest source states that Ethiopian Americans primarily identify as Ethiopian or Ethiopian Americans. No surprise there. Nowhere does it state that they identify as much less are African Americans. Let's stay on topic here & stop invoking peoples whose respective histories and backgrounds this actual article does not describe. The former already have their own ethnic group articles for that purpose. Middayexpress (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Admixture"

Why isn't there a section on admixture like with the White American article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.138.203 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blood Bank Inaccuracy

Dr. Charles R. Drew hardly "conceptualized" blood banks in 1940, there were many around in the Soviet Union in the early 1932s, and he wasn't even the first American to establishment one, that would be Bernard Fantus in 1937.

Charles Drew didn't even "conceptualize" his own blood bank, he was only called upon by John Scudder to help set up and administer an early prototype of one.

But that is a common misnomer which I can understand being here, but saying the "establishment of blood banks around the world" is his doing is beyond incorrect, that's downright stupid, by the time Charles Drew earned his doctoral thesis Cook County Hospital in Chicago had been a "Blood Bank" (A phrase coined by Bernard Fantus, not Charles Drew) for 3 years, and the Soviet Union had been storing blood for around 8 years. Gigith (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken it out of the article.

Now, I did take out any mention of him there, but only because the whole mention was false, pretty much every word was incorrect, and I can't really think of WHY he should be brought up, if the truth is to be told about him.

I don't mind if somebody adds him back, but unless they cite myths then I see no real reason to talk about him, he wasn't all that important in my opinion, but yours may differ so feel free to do so, but please, just because you can source people who believe in this myth doesn't mean it's not a myth which has been disproved on other articles. Go edit those articles first if you think you understand this subject better than I do, then move on to this one. Gigith (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the term

Hi. The definition of African American currently says African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. (emphasis mine). I don't know if it has already been discussed but: do people living in Canada, Mexico etc. of black African descent fit the "African American" description, or not? It sounds strange to me to limit "American" as merely "USA resident", but I am not American, so I'd like to be sure. --Cyclopia^talk 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This stems from our argument at Soul food. Here's my two cents: I'm a Canadian, and we have never referred to blacks as "African Americans" in our country. We only use that term to refer to blacks who are in the United States. I'm guessing that that is the general consensus. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems indeed they're called individually Black Canadians, Afro-Mexican etc. However Merriam-Webster, for example, in its definition makes no specific mention of USA. --Cyclopia^talk 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, but they say "American"; I don't know about outside North America, but over here, Canadians don't refer to themselves as Americans, ever. Gary King (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. See African diaspora#See also for a long list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Being Black does not mean African American

I am a black man but I am not African American. I am a Nigerian American. I identify with the Nigerian-American society. I eat the food, drink the drinks, and dance the dance of my father people. My last name is not Johnson or William. It is very African. I have never eaten soul food or even know what it is. My upbringing is very different from that of most African Americans that I have met. A shared skin tone does not mean a shared identity of culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.196.143 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay and your point is? I think the article does a good job of not implicitly stating Africans are African-Americans68.34.12.93 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few very significant words missing from the heading - "Being Black and American does not necessarily mean African American". Roger (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this is NOT a forum. Nobody cares if you agree or disagree with the article's topic. This place is for discussing ways on making the article better or improving it. Personal opinions are not allowed. Read the first part of this page, folks. B-Machine (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

African Americans collectively attain higher levels of education than immigrants to the United States?

This sentence appears in the article, but seems very implausible, as immigrants generally have higher-than-average educational attainment, while AAs have lower-than-average educational attainment. The reference cited deals with an unrelated topic and does not not support the claim at all. 66.49.158.164 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in

"The term Negro, is largely out of use in the younger black generation but is still used by a substaintial bloc of older blacks Americans, particularly in the southern U.S.[153]"

"blacks" should be "black"

but I cannot get into the document to edit it out. DogFaceGears (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Dumarest (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Americans vs. African Americans

I don't know where to find a source for it, but someone else may want to: In South Florida (and probably other places with large populations of Caribbean blacks), African American is considered an offensive term for Haitian and Jamaican Americans, who do not like to be associated with African Americans. In these places, it is "black Americans" that is preferred (as one cannot differentiate an African American from a Jamaican or Haitian American). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CGrapes429 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Segregation in churches

There doesn't seem to be an article on racial segregation in American Christianity. This has got to be an important historical topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

link to lynching article

hi. shouldnt there be at least a link to the lynching article in here? something like:

" led to a movement to fight violence and discrimination against African Americans that, like abolitionism before it, crossed racial lines." (from the section civilrights movement). If you would insert Lynching as an internal link after "violence", the reader would at least have the possibility to get there..... --Corduroycouch (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following sentence to the last paragraph of the lead section (I came to the article looking for this info and had to go rooting around in the body for it):

"As defined by the US Census, there are over 37 million African Americans, making up approximately 12% of the American population.<ref name=census/>".

Thank you, 86.41.64.98 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: 2008 Election of Barack Obama - statistic error

"Ninety-nine percent of African American voters voted for Obama" is incorrect. The number is between 95(CNN) and 96% (Economist and Politico). The 99% figure is from a pre-election poll. The numbers of 95-96% are post-election estimates.

CNN citation: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/

Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

The Economist is a paid site, but quotes 95%.

Taylorjr (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Jerry T.

Thank you for identifying the error. I've fixed it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Influences in the United States -- not well sourced

The last three paragraphs of the section "Cultural Influences in the United States" -- only cite one source. This source is a self-published ebook with sections such as: Five Black U.S. Presidents

The citation (http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/1865post.htm) doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia standards for reliability of a source. WP:Reliable. A number of the assertions in those three paragraphs aren't reflected in other historical sources. Hoping To Help (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Here is one of many statements from the self published source that is at odds with all other reliable sources:

<quote>

Vivian Thomas was another pioneer in surgery, the first to perform the misnamed Blalock-Taussig shunt on a dying baby girl.

</quote>

Here is a bio of Thomas: http://www.medicalarchives.jhmi.edu/vthomas.htm that describes him as being quite amazing -- but not performing the surgery as claimed. He was a surgical assistant (he did not have medical degree having only attended one year of college) -- so among other things it would have been illegal for him to perform surgery on a living human. He seems like an amazing person that accomplished a huge amount -- just not what the article claims. When Wikipedia uses poor sources to put forth untrue assertion it gives Wikipedia a bad name. For now I'm just going to remove the statements that seem to be overreaching -- but later I may remove the everything that is sourced by (http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/1865post.htm) unless better sources are found to support what is left. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Images

I think Jesse Owens deserves to be in the picture of african americans. can we get his pic in there? Someone65 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Barack Obama here?

When will people understand that he's not black, he's mulatto (half white, half black). Saying he's black would be like a person who's half white and half Oriental/"Asian" saying he/she is white. Same thing with Rosa Parks, as a matter of fact, Rosa Parks clearly doesn't look full blooded black (she isn't), she has lighter skin.--Fernirm (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you are not the first person to bring this up. This has been mentioned ad. nauseam, check the archives. The U.S has essentially operated with the One drop rule when it comes to blacks of mixed ancestry, and Obama himself identifies as a black man, thus he is considered black and certainly belongs here. At the very top of the page it states "In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is white blood never important? If a person of mixed black and white descent wants to identify as white, they can't, but when they want to identify as black, then they are accpeted as such. Besides, people and shows say that Barack Obama is the first "African American" president, but he's not, he's mulatto, and regardless of how people view him, his race is mixed, not black.--Fernirm (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you show a lack of understanding of how this issue is viewed in the U.S., which reinforces my theory that you are not from here. Obama identifies as a black man. I repeat, in this very article it states "In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." Obama certainly falls into this category. He, nor do any other African Americans of a mixed background fall under the "white" category in the U.S. Regardless of your personal opinion on the subject, Obama is a black man in the United States. This is because of the long history regarding the identification of people of visible black ancestry in the U.S. And regardless of your opinion, Obama is the first African American president, as he fits the criteria designated. It is Wikipedia's job to accurately report what actually goes on in the world. Whether the term is correct/incorrect or ignorant is not actually relevant here. The media calls Obama "African American", Obama calls himself "African American" and the term (both in direct reference to Obama and generally) is widespread throughout the entire English-speaking world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So I have a question then. In USA, what are mestizos classified as? Mestizo = person of mixed Euro & Amerindian descent. I'm sure you've seen many mestizos because majority of illegal immigrant Mexicans are mestizos. Yet people (general public) falsely says their of "Hispanic/Latino/or even Mexican" race. What race would USA classify them as? (Yes in case you didn't know, Latin America is not a race and are as diverse, or even more diverse than the US). And what about Amerindian Latin Americans, are they getting same treatment as Amerindians from USA? Nope, they're not even considered the same race. Same thing with white Latin Americans (especially Spaniards, which most white Latin Americans are), they're viewed as not white. So how is this issue solved in the US?--Fernirm (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Obama is here because in the US their is in general the so called "one-drop-rule" which basically says if you are part black you are black. And this also goes for many other races to. The one-drop-rule is why Obama is considered. What is going to lead to your classification by most people is the way you look because most people don't know you family history. In America if you look black even if you are only a quarter you would be pushed to identify with blacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.49.2 (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., people aren't classified as "mulatto" or "mestizo". Mulatto is an archaic term that is generally considered offensive. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read these articles regarding that subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic/Latino_naming_dispute

Again: It is Wikipedia's job to accurately report what actually goes on in the world. Whether the term is correct/incorrect or ignorant is not actually relevant here. Is how the U.S. views race entirely accurate? That's up to interpretation. But on this site, we operate on reliable sources and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

One last question, are African immigrants considered "African Americans", because I saw some article here called African immigration to the United States, so are people called "African Americans" for only descendants of African slaves and not immigrants from Africa? And by the way, I was asking about US gov't classification and general public classification. Because I know general public of US is very misinformed (sorry to say), trust me, I am a white Mexican who's experienced it first hand.--Fernirm (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

African immigrants are generally referred by their country of origin. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian-American

African Americans are basically descendants of the Atlantic slave trade, or just blacks born and raised in America.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 

(john) Basically what the leading scholars say is that white people raped african american women ancestors and there were more mixed race people during slavery than any other time as much as 20% of the black population. The result is that many african americans have significant white ancestry from varying degrees. This means that there is no way to easily distinguish someone who is half white in the sense of obama from someone who is half white in the sense venessa williams the super model, who is so fair skinned she likely has some white ancestors but is considered african American. That is the african american identity includes mostly people who have some form of white ancestry, in fact gates said it was 58%. So to say Obama is not African American because he has white ancestry, even though most African americans have white ancestry is to basically tell 58% of african americans they are not really african american. That seems silly to me. Most mexicans are some kind of mix of white and indigenous americans but no one calls them white, we just call the mexican/latino race regardless if they are 100% indigenous or 25% indigenous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.18.213 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The first American Census

I think the facts and number used don't make sense because in the constitution it specifically states that slaves are to be counted as 3/5th of a person not a whole person. Unless this is adjusted to add 2/5th to the population this is invalid. And also only slave were to be counted as 3/5th of a person but free blacks could be counted as whole person so those numbers presented don't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.49.2 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. The first census counted all black people as full people. (See 1790 United States Census.) For purposes of determining the numbers of representatives a state would have in Congress, and only for that purpose, enslaved people were counted as 3/5 of a person. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You idiot! If you have one lil' drop of black in you then your black! Rosa Parks is black too, she has lighter skin cuz during slavery white people raped black slaves and then they got pregnant, and their babies turned out wh=ith lighter skin!

Obama's race

"For example, 55% of European Americans classify President Barack Obama as biracial when they are told that he has a white mother, while 66% of African Americans consider him black." First off the link to this poll isn't available, and secondly I have been led to believe(by hearing so elsewhere that this poll wasn't done by Zogby International's telephone polling, but by their non-scientific internet poll where they only poll members of their community. I've started a discussion here about using them as a source, and I think this should be removed from this article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request Yam link

In the sentence "The cultivation and use of many agricultural products in the U.S., such as yams...can be traced to African and African American influences", yam links to Yam (vegetable). This link goes to yams in the genus Dioscorea. Dioscorea yams aren't grown in the US. The yam grown here (and widely used in soul food) is in the genus Ipomoea. This link should be directed to Sweet potato as that article discusses the yams grown in the US (there is also a disambiguation page at Yam which mentions both Dioscorea and Ipomoea yams. 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

African-American

In the USA so called blacks are Americans who just happen to be "black", most of whom have black African ethnicity; and whites are just Americans who just happen to be "white", most of whom have European ancestry. No matter how or what, color apparently will always come into the equation. However..... Preconceived ideas about color should not determine how someone, or the (conditioned response) individual for that matter, defines their ethnicity. Americans like to fit everyone in some kind of so called racial box. Most so called whites want to keep it a black and white thing, so called blacks want to keep it a so called black and white thing. That is not having the ability to see that we all are not alike, some are more unlike than others. Contrary to, and be damned the social constructs, scientific and genetic facts point to a new genotype/phenotype that exist within and among Americans who were historically classified as white and black, and they are, contrary to opinions or socially ingrained biases and prejudices, neither so called black nor white.

It appears that some American 'blacks' are more focused on "race" because they have been defined or categorized into a misnomer of what they are. Many of them and the powers that be have tried to make them Africans...and most anyone from Africa will tell you that they are not. It is an attempt to retro-define a group of people who come in various hues, colors, sizes, shapes with bits and pieces of various sub cultures. If individuals who are genetically mixed are no longer in one box, then they must be in another. Those who are still in some box, need to get over it and accept those who are not, but in another so called American box. Individuals are not responsible for their parentage, nor should they have to apologize for it or acquiesce to others to be what they are not. Here, the one shoe does not fit all. The media, Africansist, academics, and OMB have grouped all blacks to equate to being African. Many blacks do not use the misnomer and do not equate black with African-American. In the USA so called blacks are Americans who just happen to be "black", most of whom have black African ethnicity; and whites are just Americans who just happen to be "white", most of whom have European ancestry. No matter how or what, color apparently will always come into the equation. However.....

An African-American is either a naturalized citizen who migrated from Africa, or a black person born here to African immigrant parents.

Utoo (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite your opinion, the term 'African-American' is defined at the top of this articles page:

"African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry."

African immigrants are identified by their country of origin (ie Nigerian-American.) Please do not modify or remove sourced reliable content from this article because it is not compatible with your view on what an African American is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

African American

The use of the label African to refer to black Americans is a misnomer and disingenuous. Most blacks in the USA have black African ethnicity, but they are not Africans, an arbitrary classification chosen by OMB because many misguided black individuals were told that they were Africans. And in Obamas case, even one of the many so called definitions of an African in America does not fit. If the man is not biracial, then he is black. If white is still white, then black is still black. Subsaharan-Americans is a more befitting label for black Americans who are descendants of slaves. The classification by OMB, labels individuals, it does not define the ethnicity of individuals. It is an attempt to retro label individuals, including slaves, who certainly were not Americans, they were property, to be sold or rented. The blatant use of the misnomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utoo (talk • contribs) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, despite your views on the subject, the definition of an African-American is at the top of this page, and is backed by reliable references that render your opinion moot. An African-American is a citizen or resident of the United States who has origins in any of the black populations of Africa. This is the very definition used on the official U.S. census, and so it stands. It is not wikipedia's job to report what you feel is accurate information, this site reports what is reliably sourced. And "Subsaharan-Americans"? Patently ridiculous terminology.

Black American signing here to agree with the above poster.

African-American

A new and better classification of Americans is needed. Such issues divide. The 2010 American Census has muddled the entire ethnic classification even more. Without addressing the hyper-hypehenation that has become an obsession with some in this country, and begin to instill what it means to be an American, a country that is already on a hyphenated slippery slope will continue to be on that slippery slope. A great deal is about the mind set that everyone has to fit into some kind of so called racial box; where there is no definitive definition on what it(racial) means. Equating nationalities, culture, ethnicity, color or continent as being something akin to a racial category does not bring people to a better understanding of who or what they are. Attack the problem, discuss, yes, but a better classification of people(s)/individuals in this mobile, global society is needed.

The classification of people(s) into some distinct so called "racial" category is just that an invented artificial social concept promulgated by theories beginning in the early 17th century and culminated by the artificial labeling in the 19th century. African American is a misnomer. People of color who are descendants of enslaved "black" Africans are of black African ethnicity, but they are not Africans. Therefore no one, of any hue is technically an African American. They more aptly might be called  "black" Americans. And the topic makes sense because all Africans are not "black" so why not "white" African Americans. But again, it is just a muddled misnomer. And the descendants of slaves wont work either, because there were Africans in America who were not slaves, but rather owned slaves, both "white" and "black" ones. This issue is that is is not an opinion but a fact. OMB got it wrong, because they did not follow the recommendations of the committee that finalized the categories.  If Wikipedia insist on being correct, then they should include the whole story bout how the usage of the use of  misnomer has come into play..not just the Jesse Jackson version. It is just a simple matter of an observation, that many black Americans do  not use black as synonymous with African=American. Noting this as a part of the AA information would make it more correct. Not opinion but first hand knowledge having had input to  the committee's recommendation, that OMB choose to ignore.  Some reasons are  pointed out within the topic. therefore not dealing with a definition but a classification. Utoo (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utoo (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 

Utoo (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

African-Americans are not the largest minority group in the country. Hispanics are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.100.210 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually blacks are the largest racial minority and hispanics are the largest "linguistic ethnic group minority".

Utoo I don't know if this answers your concerns but I think it's generally accepted that African-American refers to the heritage of American slave descendants (this also obviously includes free blacks who descended from the slave-era 1619-1865). It isn't official, but it's widely known (at least in the black community) Black immigrants refer to themselves by hyphenated national origin just as whites do when referring to their heritage. The only ones confused are non-blacks, and thats really not our problem. The point is that we know who we are. There is really nothing complicated about the term. "Black" does not differentiate me from a black from Haiti or a black from Nigeria, African-American does. And no I don't think Im African, Im very comfortable with my Americaness.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

granville woods

in the paragraph about famous inventions, it mentions that granville woods invented some sort of telegraph system. but the article it links to says that woods was of aboriginal australian and malaysian descent. dpes this really belong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.17.94 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Family names

I was just looking for info on African American family names and was a bit surprised that WP does not seem to have an article on the topic. (That is the general topic of what sort of names people have and why, not a list of names.) Should there be a section in this article? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiculturalism additions

I don't understand how the information was so off topic when there is only mention of African American and European admixture. In addition, including information on Gates statement (which is not 100& accurate) and not including information that comes from many more geneticists and reliable sources that contradict Gates statement because he made it seem like it was a perfect assessment of admixture when it is not. Also I thought the mention that Native American women actually bought African men which explains how many people who are considered African American are also of Native American descent and matches the multiculturalism. Also no mentioning that Africans and Native Americans were enslaved at the same time just doesn't make sense to me or maybe it should go in a different section. Either way it should be mentioned, that is apart of African American history.Mcelite (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The problems are: (a) multiculturism has nothing to do with the subject of the article and (b) in a section about white/black admixture, the information about Native Americans smacks of "me too"-ism. It seems to have everything with making a point and nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay I don't understand that is apart of African American history point blank. The information on Dr. Gates assessment isn't even accurate and that is not my opinion but based on many other geneticists and historians that have made it clear that to put African American ancestry in those terms isn't accurate. All of that is from researchers/universities that were not pleased with the assumption/misinterpretation of any of the genetic testing. What do you mean "me too"-ism because if talking about not mention African-Native interactions is excluded that's deceiving and makes it look like there was no interaction what so ever. If things need to be reworded than fine...but how is explaining something significant isn't encyclopedic? If things need to be worded differently find but all of that information being excluded is wrong and comes off biased. Especially since's Gate's statement is not accurate, I have nothing against Dr. Gates I actually like that man but why leave information that isn't accurate on the page like it is 100% correct?Mcelite (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is about African-Americans, they're culture, etc. That's it. Adding other stuff to the article makes no sense and it trivializes and downgrades the cultural contributions and other contributions African-Americans have made to the USA. B-Machine (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The information is about African American culture...it's a significant part of African American culture and unique. How is leaving a statement that isn't 100% accurate and having it phased in a manner that makes it come off as absolute when it has been proven wrong by numerous experts encyclopedic??Mcelite (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the paragraph about Skip Gates wasn't very mature. "If I can't put my information in the article, I won't let you have your information either. So there!" Keep it up and you're going to be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I want an answer why Gate's statment which is not "100% accurate" being used when it is clearly sourced as not being accurate used in a manner that it is correct. How is that justifiable and how is no mentioning of interactions between Native Americans and African Americans when that is 1. A part of African American history, 2. it is rarely taught nor acknowledged by some 3. they come from reliable sources 4. If it seems off topic then where is the proper place for them because interactions between NAs and AAs is mention in the Native American article. In addition, it seems very biased to only mention African American and European interactions. Where is the neutrality in that?Mcelite (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't presented any significant arguments why Gates' information isn't "100% accurate". The sources don't say what you think they say, so you rely on vague appeals to authority: "studies by historians and geneticists", "argued by many geneticists". Then you muddy the waters with a sentence like "African Americans with Native American ancestry have either been accused of not having Native American ancestry or having little native ancestry"—what does that have to do with the subject of the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The source does specifically talk about Mark Shriver's research and fine if that sentence is off topic than screw it. It's just the fact that Gate's statement which was based on Shriver's research is not correct and the way it is written makes it seem like that's the way it is.Mcelite (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Underground Railroad

The Underground Railroad was not underground, neither was it even a railroad. It was, however, a passageway where slaves could escape to the north more easily. Harriet Tubman was one of many slaves that were successful by the use of the Underground Railroad. She made about 15 trips to the south to help enslaved African Americans reach the safety of the north. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.24.5 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems

I have some problems with the admixture part of the article. What does that have to do with anything? Criticizing a show? Indians? They don't belong here. B-Machine (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself an African American and by reading wikipedia's definition I now understand why no college professor accepts this source as a form of reseach in any research paper I have done. thank you for helping me understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.111.142 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear God, please help me understand what the "Admixture" section has anything to do with this article? Its claim that *all* AAs have Euro or Native ancestry is inaccurate to a fault. Also, it purports to say that H. Louis-Gates is an authority on the concept, primarily since he himself propogates his own race-mixing agenda (notice that the 58% number is identical to his own research about his own heritage).Rajpaj (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On African-American Health: the two oldest persons in the United States (one of whom, Mississippi Winn, recently passed away), are Afican-American. Is there a personal agenda re: this article?Rajpaj (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in claim of specific African-American in "Washington Crossing the Delaware" and Oliver Cromwell in painting

This article makes the claim that a specific African-American individual accompanies George Washington in the painting "Crossing the Dealware" without a reference or proof of this claim. The African-American depicted at the front of the ship is nameless, and any claim that the individual is a specific person is erroneous. In addition, Oliver Cromwell lived in the 17th century and is not depicted in the painting, though the author of this article stated that the painting includes Cromwell. No citation was given for this claim, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmassey84 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

European y-chromosome haplogroups of african americans?

What are the specific european y-chromosome haplogroups that african american males have? This information could be used to find the specific european ethnic group of males who raped black women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather from various studies and dna testing sites such as 23andme, White-Americans are typically of West European descent, and they mostly carry Y-haplogroup R1b. I have also seen some African Americans get R1b on their test results, suggesting a West European male ancestor.

AlecTrevelyan402 (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a study that is more specific about which R1b some african-american males have? Even native americans and middle easterners can have a type of R1b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.6.118 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Replace Beyonce With Miles Davis

Miles Davis should replace the picture of Beyonce. 74.214.36.94 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

She does look kind of silly there. Who is considered the greatest African American in the field of music? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to expand the range of careers in the montage how about Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., perhaps the greatest African American in the military. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain why Michael Jackson's picture was replaced? He is the most influential African American musician of all time and deserves to be pictured.

Exactly! He was replaced just because of IGNORANCE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.214.26 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to ban user-created montages from Infoboxes

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups. Bulldog123 09:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

review image File:African American Religion chart.png

It looks like the 3rd largest group is listed out-of-order in the legend box? Tielk (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA

This series of edits introduced material that has been disputed. Per the bold, revert, discuss model of editing, it would now be appropriate for the editor wishing to include the material to give a detailed rationale here, explaining why the edits may be appropriate and building consensus regarding inclusion and wording. The source cited is freely available here. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources say nothing about African Americans having North African or Middle Eastern ancestry. But even if they did, it doesn't matter. Most African Americans have some European ancestry, but that doesn't matter either. What makes people African American is the presence of sub-Saharan African ancestry, not the presence or absence of other ancestry.

And the other edits, about some African Americans descending from North African or Middle Eastern immigrants, just isn't supported by the source at the end of the sentence, a source that has been in the article since 2007. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

In the section 'Cultural influence in the United States', this article, when talking about African American inventors, makes an unsourced claim:

Most slave inventors were nameless, such as the slave owned by the Confederate President Jefferson Davis who designed the ship propeller used by the Confederate navy.

In addition, these entire three paragraphs: By 1913 over 1,000 inventions were patented by black Americans. Among the most notable inventors were Jan Matzeliger, who developed the first machine to mass-produce shoes, and Elijah McCoy, who invented automatic lubrication devices for steam engines. Granville Woods had 35 patents to improve electric railway systems, including the first system to allow moving trains to communicate. Garrett A. Morgan developed the first automatic traffic signal and gas mask.[125]

Lewis Howard Latimer invented an improvement for the incandescent light bulb.[126] More recent inventors include McKinley Jones, who invented the movable refrigeration unit for food transport in trucks and trains. Lloyd Quarterman worked with six other black scientists on the creation of the atomic bomb (code named the Manhattan Project.) Quarterman also helped develop the first nuclear reactor, which was used in the atomically powered submarine called the Nautilus.[125]

A few other notable examples include the first successful open heart surgery, performed by Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, the air conditioner, patented by Frederick McKinley Jones. Dr. Mark Dean holds three of the original nine patents on the computer on which all PCs are based. More current contributors include Otis Boykin, whose inventions included several novel methods for manufacturing electrical components that found use in applications such as guided missile systems and computers, and Colonel Frederick Gregory, who was not only the first black astronaut pilot but the person who redesigned the cockpits for the last three space shuttles. Gregory was also on the team that pioneered the microwave instrumentation landing system. In 2000, Bendix Aircraft Company began a worldwide promotion of this microwave instrumentation landing system.[125]

link back to a single source, [125], with the exception of the 'Lewis Howard Latimer invented an improvement for the incandescent light bulb' bit. [125](http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/1865post.htm) is not a reliable source per WP:Source and WP:NPOV- it, in addition to the above-mentioned inventors and inventions, claims that U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge were black (which grossly violates the current consensus), that the model for the Statue of Liberty was a slave, among other equally spurious claims. In addition, the site's founder, Leroy William Vaughn M.D., M.B.A., has no qualifications in history or sociology of any kind! He is a doctor only of Opthamology- a science with no bearing on history. He provides no proof or backing of his claims, either, which violates WP:Verifiability. In addition, he claims the existence of a perpetual motion machine, which violates Newtonian thermodynamics and has been debunked many times.

For these reasons it is obvious that source 125, http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/1865post.htm, is not a reliable source and goes against both WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.125.253 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this problem. I agree that computerhealth.org is not a reliable source. I'm going to find good sources where I can, and delete what can't be supported. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The portion of the article on AIDS HIV continously mentions "In the city" but does not mention what city. The reference is without citation, and I could not find any source that verifies the numbers listed for any large American city. The article seems to imply that the statistics apply to the general african american population (considering african americans are about 40 million, 1 in 5 would equate to about 8 million, meanwhile the total HIV/AIDS population in AMerica is about 150,000) these numbers need to be changed. They give dangerous and often racially tinged false notions of the AIDS rate among black americans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.35.140 (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request 6/22/11

Please remove Hinduism from the list of religions in infobox. There are not even any sources cited for that. Moreover, the given pie chart doesn't show Hinduism (also Buddhism). 117.204.85.233 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your suggestion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Incarceration

Sourced info at Incarceration in the United States (although it is ~1/2 the rate mentioned by the NY Times for the same year). Not worth mentioning? — LlywelynII 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Consolidation of African-American,Afro-Carribbean, U.S. African immigrants

Id like to start a discussion about radically changing this page and consolidating these 3 distinct groups to one page in an effort to mirror other racial/ethnic group articles. They will be on one page but distinct from each other. Im not sure if tis was ever attempted before but it seems like its inevitable as the U.S. becomes more culturally diverse. Please give me your thoughts and suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're suggesting a merger of the three topics, I'm strongly opposed to it. The three groups have distinct backgrounds, cultures, and histories, and the resulting article would be a god-awful mess. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadful proposal. For starters, Africa is a very large geographical area with many different ethnic and racial groups inhabiting it. Merging this page on African Americans -- who are actually descended from only one particular group of people inhabiting one particular part of the continent i.e. West Africans -- with that of recent immigrants from Africa in general only serves to obscure this basic fact. It also downplays the obviously very different cultural and ancestral backgrounds & histories of the various peoples concerned. As such, a merge is out of the question. As for Afro-Caribbeans, while they of course share some recent ancestry and history with African Americans, much of it is quite different at this point, especially in terms of culture. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese-Americans have a different history than Korean-Americans. German-Americans have a different culture than Italian-Americans. Yet theyre all consolidated on "Asian-American" and "white american" pages. What makes "black or african-american" so different? The lede even alleges that Africans, Carribbeans and afro-latinos are in fact "African-American" yet there is nothing in the article about them on the page. So shouldnt they be taken out of the lede entirely? Its utterly ridiculous to continue to subtly pass off the idea that all blacks are decended from slavery and fought for civil rights. Perhaps its because blacks (or actually society as a whole) refuses to acknowledge the big pink elephant in the room that everyone knows and refuses to acknowledge and that is the fact "African-American" should actually be an ethnicity rather than a "race". The govt defines it as a "race" but hardly no one in the real world does. Anyway the moral of this story is the either one of two things need to be done.

1) Africans, Afro-Latinos, and maybe even West Indians need to be excluded under the definition of "African-American". Meaning they are taken out of the lede and we more or less keep the page how it is.

or

2) The page needs to be consolidated with photos of Africans, Afro-Latinos, West Indians etc. And they should be differitiated from blacks who trace thier history and culture to the U.S.

How do we deal with this?Therock40756 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC).

Again, Africa is inhabited by many different ethnoracial groups. African Americans historically only descend from one of those groups (Black Africans) and from one particular part of the continent to boot (West Africa). As such, merging the article on recent immigrants from Africa in general with this article on historical Black African immigration from West Africa is a no-go. The lede states that African Americans "are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa". It does not and logically could not state that African Americans "are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the populations of Africa" since African Americans only actually descend from West Africans. This is why it also states that African Americans are "also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes". Still, I see your point about the focus perhaps being too broad. The lede in my opinion should be changed to concentrate on just actual African Americans, rather than, say, recent West African immigrants like Nigerian Americans or Ghanian Americans. These groups' constituents are of course to a large extent biologically the same people, but they still have very different histories, backgrounds and cultures. This cannot be denied. There is, on the other hand, obviously a great deal of overlap with fellow New World groups like Haitian Americans, Afro-Cubans, etc.. On this point, perhaps a compromise can be reached. Though here too, there seems to be some measure of difference at this point, particularly in terms of culture and language. Middayexpress (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

African Americans do come from many groups as well. The DNA proves this. There was no "One group" in West Africa. Radically different people populate W Africa Some speak Niger Congo some speak Hausa (no relation), . But for different reasons I agree with Shabazz and Middayexpress. While there is only one Africa (never seen a black African, nor a red Indian or yellow Asian) and technically African-American can also apply to the voluntary diaspora of Africans. But the history of African-Americans (involuntary Diaspora) is so deep as it is, you cannot hope to achieve any success merging these different groups. And it is something that is a challenge beyond Wiki. My opinion is another term is needed to clarify the difference. African (voluntary) have a culture not destroyed by slavery, a completely different profile in America. Caribbean is practically the same (U could argue Southern African-Americans have a different culture to those in Chicongo), the minute they arrive in America there is ZERO difference and many Af-Am have Caribbean roots. But still no need to merge just to accommodate.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

African Americans actually do overwhelmingly descend from only one group of peoples inhabiting Africa. Namely, West Africans since West Africa is obviously where most early African Americans were brought from. This has been proven genetically too (c.f. [6]). There is also no single African people or culture. There are, however, manifold African cultures and peoples, many with little relation to one another other besides geographical proximity. As such, the only peoples that could perhaps logically be accommodated onto this page are fellow related New World populations originally from West Africa that share, besides of course similar ancestry, roughly comparable founding experiences as well. The best solution, though, is to focus the lede on just actual African Americans. We don't, for example, see African Americans being forcibly accommodated into the Afro-Latin American article. Those groups have their own histories, languages and cultures at this point. Middayexpress (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. Not sure what you mean by "ethnoracial" Midday so I guess we need to first establish if we are on the same mind frame when it comes to the differences between race and ethnicity. Race to many doesnt even exist but imho its biological and is largely based on physical characteristics (skin color, hair texture, nose, etc). You seem to be saying blacks can only come from West Africa. Its a fallacy to suggest African-Americans are only a biological similar to West Africans. As there are blacks from all over Africa and every where else who share these same physical charateristics. Its also incorrect to even suggest blacks "only" came from West Africa. This is widely believed because they were SOLD in West Africa. Just as many came from Central Africa. Some African-American DNA test are even being traced to East and South Africa. So the discussion needs to move away from biological differences based on regions in Africa. African-American tribal heritages are too mixed for that thus the conversation will go no where.

Where the conversation needs to go surrounds ethnicity. In the way a Jamaican is different from a Nigerian or a American slave decendent is different from a Afro-Dominican. African-Americans (an by AA I strictly mean American slave decendents) do have a very rich culture and its currently reflected on this page. Much of it is of course, derived from the American South and spread across the U.S. Although the culture is just as legitamate as anything from Jamaica or Nigeria. So lets focus on if we can successfully distingish ethnic differences between them and other groups.Therock40756 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are answering statements I never made. African Americans are overwhelmingly of West African descent. This is a given. It is thus logically also a given that they are overwhelmingly of a comparable biological heritage (please see founder effect). The paper I linked to above states it plainly: "The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals". At any rate, this discussion is devolving into off-topic questions revolving around the relative merits of African American culture and history. The bottom line is that the focus of the article should be on the topic of the article i.e. actual African Americans. Their history, culture, etc.. Anything else is irrelevant. Middayexpress (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Midday even if eventhing you wrote is true it doesnt address the problem that, so far everyone has agreed does exist. Malik says the page would be a "god awful-mess", Halaqah says its a "challenge beyond wiki". So we agree there is glaring contridiction on the term "African-American". You say "The bottom line is that the focus of the article should be on the topic of the article i.e. actual African Americans. Their history, culture, etc.. Anything else is irrelevant." Well we still have not agreed upon clarified what an African-American is as far as Im concerned. I wouldnt think its up for debate if African-Americans have a culture as it wouldnt have developed any differently than any culture in the West Indies or any other route on the slave trade. Resolving this problem comes down to doing one of two things. Either

1)redefining the term African-American in the lede to exclude those who do not share the history and culture of American slave decendents or 2) We do the merger

Its not hard do fix this problem that we all agree exist. Id hate to make an executive decision due to lack of anyone wanting to tackle this issue.Therock40756 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The merger with the African immigrants article is out of the question for the reasons already explained above by me and also by Malik. That is, African Americans are only descended from and thus closely related to one particular group of immigrants from Africa i.e. Black Africans, mainly from West Africa. The cultures, histories, ancestries and general backgrounds of other immigrants from Africa are, generally speaking, completely different. The proposal is thus between (a) leaving the lede as is; (b) redacting the lede to focus on just actual African Americans; or (c) merging the contents of the other two related articles i.e. Afro-Latin American and West Indian American. Malik and Halaqah have both indicated that they oppose a wholesale merger, so that leaves options (a) and (b). Middayexpress (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I also don't recommend continuing revert-warring. Per WP:BRD, better instead to settle your other disagreements with Malik through discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to indicate in the lede that we only' mean the involuntary Diaspora. (I for one am partial to that term) because it accurately sums up who we are discussing. I know some continental Africans who are 2nd generation in USA would have issue but we have to agree they (both Diasporas) might all be "African" but very different even as a social study, an a historical study, cultural study. nothing is gained by confusing these histories. And it also reminds me of this issue with Diaspora. When we say African Diaspora Af-AM(Diaspora) usually only mean "Forced." But in Africa they say Diaspora to mean continental Diaspora. It gets confusing. And Af-Am is complex as it is, I really reject adding voluntary diaspora in there.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so that's option (b) i.e. redacting the lede to focus on just actual African Americans. This is clearly the only alternative now with the existence of the Afro-American peoples of the Americas page. Middayexpress (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Therock, it also occurred to me that the sort of article that you are looking for already exists. As its name implies, Afro-American peoples of the Americas pertains to all Black African descendant populations in the Americas. African American, West Indian American and Afro-Latin American alike are all covered there. Middayexpress (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree that African-Americans are somehow only or even overwhelmingly related to West Africans, but again that issue is a red herring in a discussion about group who lost all connection with African ties due to slavery. The Afro-American peoples page focuses on the entire continent rather than the U.S. I started this discussion to basically just put the African-American page in line with the other major U.S. racial group but there is clearly way too much drama involved in this for whatever reason. Anyway, Im opening to tweaking the wording in the lede. Halqah, why even add the voluntary or "involutary"? African-American by definition should pretty much more or less mean "involuntary". What you call everyone else is up for debate, black maybe? I really dont care. Then theres the case of children of purely immigrant parents. African American? Or perhaps it should be stated in some way childen may or may not self-identify with the term.Therock40756 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I added that as a suggestion to clarify which Africans we are discussing. As I stated the real reason is sociological. One reason people have names Jew, Arab, or whatever is because of shared something. The most distinctive thing here is unfortunately Slavery The same issue comes up with Russians. or Italian Americans, (it excludes Ethiopian who are 3rd generations in Italy who then come to America) Regardless of our positions like i said it is actually problematic. For me African-American means Roots and Cotton fields, Civil Rights, Jazz that entire culture. You come from all of that you are African-American. If you dont then how about American-African LOL.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the alledged reason for the ethnic conflict. Africans outperform AA's blah blah blah and they don't want to be associated with their poor image although I argue legal immigrants regardless of color outperform native borns, thats been going on for centuries. African immigrants are just butthurt about assimilating. I've never heard an African immigrant refer to themselves as American African, I have heard them say black (while at the same time making it clear they weren't AA) but as stated earlier this article is about African-Americans. Also slavery as a distinctive part of a culture is nothing to be ashamed about, the Jews have the holocaust and they're still kicking everybodys ass. This article is pretty much already about cotton fields and civil rights so it appears all that's left is to tweak the lede to reflect what appears to be an agreement here.Therock40756 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have perfered you discussed before preemptively making changes. I revrted your lede due to the strict interpretation of "enslaved africans" when its widely known there where many AAs who were free. The spirit of the article is to keep intact Blacks who trace thier history and culture to the United States. Some blacks were very wealthy in colonial days and some even held slaves. Its important the term the slavery-era term is used rather than the strict term of "enslaved Africans".Therock40756 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have specific suggestions, please make them here. Three people made improvements in the lede. You reverted a whole day's work by three editors in one fell swoop.

While we should deal with free people of color, the number of wealthy or slave-owning Blacks was so small as to be insignificant, despite the best efforts of neo-Confederate historians to exaggerate their number and influence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Malik your just trying to turn everyone against me.lol I apoligize for revert so much but there were too many problems. I could care less about "neo-confederate" historians. Whats important is that history is told accurately. Im actually willing to compromise about that Spanish portion you obsessively are trying to jam into the history, I have disagreements with it because it falls outside the timeline of the trans-atlantic slave trade and those Africans (who actually died off shortly while they were here) in the 16th were too insignificant and irrelevant. Much of AA history progressed from the English Jamestown colonies in VA. I am focused first on getting the definition of African-American correct, after that we can debate the merits of adding the 16th Spanish explorers failed colony. Please dont add it in until there is an agreement on the lede.Therock40756 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The text you added, shown below, makes no sense.

African Americans are generally known to be the direct descendants of captive Africans who trace thier history and culture to the present day United States, most of whose ancestors survived the slavery-era...

If you have a serious suggestion to make, and not just yank our chains, please make it here. Thank you.

For my part, I suggest we just say what we mean:

Most African Americans are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans...

I welcome input from other editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

At Therock, Had I not seen the title African-American I would have ZERO idea what on Gods Earth that sentence means....Which English speaker knows what that means? I am African and have no idea that might be referring to me. Make it plain and to the point NOT a circle of convoluted exceptions, its not a legal contract. and all of this is actually disruptive. And does not help make this article better (which is our purpose).--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Break

If your suggesting me and sourcechecker are the same your mad. Lets quickly resolve this issue as I have a life and cannot continue to make edits every day. I am willing to compromise on the lede, the stuff Malik is inserting without discussion Ill take care another time. Please point out what you disagree with in the following lede:

African Americans or Black Americans (also referred to as Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United States, the terms are used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. African Americans are generally known to be the direct descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although black immigrants or their descendents from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations may or may not self identify with term. As an adjective, the term is usually written as African-American.

If you must write your own version and we can combine. Be cognizant of the fact this page is about African-Americans-thier history, thier culture. Which of course excludes recent African immigrants to the U.S. who have thier own separate page. There is actually an interesting piece written here in the Chicago paper about this issueTherock40756 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Since three editors worked on the current lede, and you and your sock/meatpuppet are the only ones supporting your version, why don't you tell us what you don't like with the first paragraph of the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

African-American

It should be the grammatically correct form for Americans of African ancestry as opposed to Americans living in Africa. The last archive discussion had all in agreement to use it. Somehow disappeared again. Reason? — LlywelynII 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Further thoughts: Hmmm... Google oddly can't distinguish "African American" -wikipedia from "African-American" -wikipedia, but first ten results for web are 6/4 and for scholar are 5/5. The prestige sites (PBS, African-American museums in various cities) seem to prefer "African American," though, and even the prestige site preferring the hyphen (the LOC) is inconsistent about it. Seems like the current namespace is appropriate but the hyphenate version should be mentioned prominently. — LlywelynII 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverted your edits due to the profound changes you made to the page without any references or discussion.Therock40756 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Shouldn't Americans of Maghreb descent (Morocco, Lybia, Algeria, Tunesia, Egypt) also be called 'African-American'? If the answer is no, then they should be referred to as 'Supra-Saharan Americans', which in turn means (if one does not want to commit the discriminatory act of denying that group an ethnic designation) that Americans that are now referred to as 'African-American' should be referred to as 'Sub-Saharan American'. This is also consistent with Americans of European descent referencing to the part of the continent (e.g. Germany) they descended from, rather than to the continent (i.c. Europe) in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavernsenses (talk • contribs) 08:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 21 September 2011

Please remove the {{Sprotect2|small=yes}} template use from line 3, so this page won't appear at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. It just seems better. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

AA genetics

Race is a social contruct, and I think it would be illuminating to have a section on African American genetics. For example, (1) genetic analysis has shown about 20-25% of African Americans have European ancestry, and conversely, about 1-5% of "European ancestry" (aka white) americans have some african american ancestry.

(1) https://www.23andme.com/about/factoid/hidden_african_ancestry/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.237.50 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

West Africa

The intro states "Most African Americans are of West African descent.[5] However, some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations, or their descendants, may also self-identify with the term". But isn't it misleading to differentiate between West African descent and Caribbean/Latin American immigrants, who are themselves also of West African descent already? FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Obama not a real African-American by the definition

per all the debate of refining the definition why now is Obama including in African-America when we just excluded the entire immigrant Africans who do not come out of slavery. " when Barack Obama has been elected as the 44th and current President of the United States." And on another note do not explain confusion with confusion. Black people is even more complex as it relates to African than African-American (as a term). Notice they are not called Black-African - American. We do not need to over qualify the majority at every single turn. Africans do not run around defining themselves by sub-Saharan and supposed skin Blackness (one or the other). In other words Westernized ways of classifying people by skin color.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not a descendent of the enslaved Africans that were brought to the Americas; he should not be included in description used to describe people considered African Americans because of their relationship to those Africans that were enslaved in the U.S.Bklyngurl (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)blkyngurl

Actually the page reads immigrants and their decendents --may or may not-- identify with the term African-American. I purposely left the black immigrant question open to interpretation for readers to come to their own conclusion as opposed to just broadly categorizing them all as AA. No where in that sentence did it say Obama is African-American, it simply stated he was elected the 44th Prez of the U.S (even though he does identify as AA)..I again think its best for the reader to decide on thier own if Obama is African-American or not. There is an entire section called "African-American Experience" which further devolves into the topic towards the end of the page. As for the "black" thing I'm not sure what the issue is. I commonly hear Africans refer to themselves "black", even on the African continent, that whole thing about apartheid was about "black" Africans and "white" Afrikaners. It's just a descriptive term, I wouldn't mind using the caucasian equivalent --Negro, but everyone would be in an uproar about that too.Therock40756 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

you do not understand what I have written. Black OR African. Is enuff. The two do not need to be combined. like Red Indian And as for South Africa do you realize Afrikaan is not the same as African. As for "commonly heard" are you talking about Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Mauritania, Niger, or even Nigeria? Sure in America they will adopt American color conventions. But not in Africa. Go read the Nigerian Guardian and see where this term pops up. SA rightly so, and almost only so. But Never is SA has the term "White Afrikaan" Afrikaan means White. Italian-American means WHITE. Chinese-American means Asian. African-American OR Black-American means African. It is not just a descriptive term it is a silly un encyclopedic classification. black Sub-Saharan Negro African. And to deal with your example (because I was going to get there) In South Africa (where interestingly I have lived). Indians are also Black and now Chinese. You should use Negro because it is just SPanish for Black.

P But I came here to press a point about WHY. African-American came into being. Which is exactly to challenge what you said "descriptive term" it was African-American to reject a color label (Jesse and Malcolm).And this should be in the lede. Because the entire term was/is an evolution of African-American self-determination. Black people is casual, African American is official (per recent surveys).--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back to therock version as I feel it better reflects the realities. This is the African American page so I wouldn't expect the thoughts or opinions of Africans to be on this page at all. If Africans have a problem with the term black it should be taken to the African immigrants in the U.S. page. In addition Id prefer that Obama be removed as one of the pictures as he does not fit the definition of an African-American.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your anti-Wiki habits are not welcomed. You are one editor Sourcechecker419 or Therock40756. Is still one editor. It makes no difference to what you feel better reflect. Thats not how this place works. You use the talk page and do not revert multiply edits made by multi-editors. If you have an issue you do bring it here. What Africans are you discussing? Discuss the article and not your trivial opinions on "African immigrants". You are putting junk statements in the article without any valid explanation.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Political overtones :

The section on political overtones should be more detailed, the current phrasing is too vague for many people unfamiliar with the US.

The political overtones alludes to "Earlier terms". Which is relevant to this article/section. But such a vague allusion can be confusing for any non-US residents (of which there are very, very many, myself included). The current sentences are simply alluding rather than explaining : "Earlier terms used to identify Americans of African ancestry were conferred upon the group by colonists and Americans of European ancestry. The terms were included in the wording of various laws and legal decisions which some thought were being used as tools of white supremacy and oppression"

A few examples could be included, especially the N-word itself, which, after all, has its own wiki page (I'm just trying to help and will abide by the consensus, I don't want to start a controversy). The use of laws as a tool of white supremacy refers to precise thinkers and laws (Jim Crow ?) that many non-US residents will not be able to identify with certainty.

"Legal decisions" is also ambiguous btw : is it actually legal and therefore voted on by (federal or state) Congress, not decided, or is it actual decisions, and therefore from the exectutive or the judiciary rather than actual law changes.

I know that this subject may be controversial, but this paragraph is so unusually high-context that it does a disservice to those who need it most : people with little knowledge of the subject. JanvonBismarck (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is African American notable above all?

I would like please to understand why African American is more note worthy than any other race. If a person is Hispanic and African American, mostly they are called African American/black. If they are White and African American, they are called African American/black. If they are Asian African American, they are African American/black.

why does African American blood take higher order than any other race. Is this not a form of racism/racist exclusion in it's self? one example: Barack Obama. He is known by most as being African American while in reality he is "Mixed race" Would it not be more proper, more unbias to use the word "Mixed Race" to define those who have mixed race?

and then to possibly give a list of those known races within the Wikipedia Articles?

Or, is it better to push this bias and racist tone and keep calling mixed race men and women "African American"?

the scales are tipped as it stands, it is not unbias.

50.47.140.236 (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What does your personal (and uneducated) opinion have to do with improving the article's topic? This isn't Facebook or some other social networking site. These discussion pages are for explaining how to make an article's topic better, not personal opinions. By the way, Hispanic is not a race (see Afro-Latin American), you don't know what racism is, and many folks say race isn't real. B-Machine (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Certain outward physical characteristics, phenotypes, such as hair texture and facial features, appear to be genetically dominant: that is to say they show in the new generation whereas those non-African features, not so often or as much. This means that most mixed race people appear more "black" than they appear "asian" or "white" or whatever. So people look at mixed race people and, in most cases, see mostly African external features. Chrisrus (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, you sound like you're anti-black. B-Machine (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

Why is it this article is the only article about an etnic group that has a health section? No other article about an ethnic group has a heath section except this one. And who's to say those stats are 100% correct? Just because it's from government agencies doesn't mean it's true. I propose deleting the health section. B-Machine (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If true - Now that might be an issue if it is the only group. Unfortunately some of those stats are true. But my issue is you are saying no one else got their HIV rank blasted everywhere.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. B-Machine (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That section is under the heading "Contemporary issues", and it starts with a discussion of lower life expectancy and lower access to medical care. Those issues are probably relevant to an article about African Americans, although I'm not sure that herpes and HIV infection rates are. I think the section should be kept, but cut significantly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that part is relevant to the article, especially since no other article about an ethnic group doesn't have those things. White Americans don't have a health section, neither does Asian American. And there's a user named Hoping To Help who always adds negative stuff to this article. If nothing is done about this, I'm going to delete that section. B-Machine (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't see how shorter life expectancy and worse health care is relevant to an article about African Americans? What about racism? Is that relevant? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the principle issue (as I understand it) is less about the stats and why only African-Americans articles get this stuff pasted in their article. It kind of makes you think AIDS, disease, low health, single momma, everything negative is the exclusive domain of African-Americans. i can think of some articles (even if true) you would never see this stuff in. But it is hard to avoid the facts. I think some balance is needed to link WHY this is the case. i.e. Racism and exclusion. I have just seen the ip comment Malik just deleted about "high drop out and going back to Africa", it is because these people see these types of stats without realizing WHY these stats are so. But if you live in the hood and experience racism 24/7 off-course your health and prospect going to be shot. but Some would say "What racism"--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is if you're going to have a health section here, don't post negative stuff only concerning government statistics. The Asian American article contains contributions concerning health. Why not have that along with the negative? I'm just asking for a balance, not a one-sided talking point. And as for racism, of course that still exists, but I was not talking about that. B-Machine (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

B-Machine, the solution to your observation might not be to remove the section from this article, but to add it to the other articles. For example, you could use this to help improve the Asian American article, this to help improve the article on Hispanic and Latino Americans, this for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. That would be most helpful to Wikipedia. I hope you consider taking up this charge. Let me know if you have any questions, Kingturtle = (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)