Talk:African Americans/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 27

African Americans have South Asian and Indian ancestry from India.

Many African Americans are mixed with Indian blood from India and have South Asian ancestry due to their white British slave owners’s ancestors from England mixing with Indian labourers before slavery in the United States. African Americans are mixed with Indian because England colonized India and race mixed with Indians way before American slavery. Add their Indian/South Asian ancestry to their section.

National Geographic says African Americans have Southwest Asian/Indian ancestry: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations/

You also have to remember that African slaves may have mixed with Native American populations adding in that genetic history to the pool. Whether the East or South East Asian DNA came from a recent ancestor or one from the colonial era depends on the individual in question. FusionLord (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. DNA testing to determine ethnic descent is no older than thirty years, if that, and historically had nothing whatever to do with race relations. If you remember your history, the one-drop rule prevailed in the United States, meaning essentially that if people knew that any of your ancestors were black, you were considered black. That is why it was possible for somebody like Adam Clayton Powell, who certainly looked white, to be called black. If a black man had said, "Don't lynch me, I've got Indian blood in me," the lynch mob would have laughed.

In general, since no people on the face of the earth uses DNA testing to determine whether or not all the people who say they are members of that ethnic group are of "pure blood," so to speak, actual genetic make-up is always irrelevant to the question of self-identification.

Context matters; not everything that is true is relevant. DNA evidence is utterly irrelevant to the matter in question, that is, that black Africans transported to the American colonies from the 17th to the early 19th century bore offspring whose black skin or whose known ancestors with black skin determined their social, moral, and political status in a brutal racial hierarchy and who know constitute an ethnic group that came into existence because of these moral outrages. This is an article about those people and who they thought they were racially in light of who whites thought they were racially; their ethnic and racial identity is not to be determined by people who read National Geographic who think that they can correct black peoples' claims about themselves. Are you going to argue that, if it turns out that Emmett Till had Indian ancestry, he was not really black, so that his killers made a mistake? Wordwright (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what exactly are your arguing? No one is saying that African Americans aren't Black because of recent or historical mixing. All I was saying that any Asian dna to be found could be due to recent marriages(within the last 100 years) or due to Native Americans mixing with African Americans down the centuries, and Native Americans are descended from the same groups that would be the forefathers of the current inhabitants of Asia. I am not trying to down play anyone's connection to their African ancestry.FusionLord (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Mental Health

Leland, J. (1997, July 14). 'Don't show weakness:' Black Americans still shy away from psychotherapy. Newsweek, 130(2), 60.

Lukachko, A., Myer, I., & Hankerson, S. (2015). Religiosity and Mental Health Service Utilization Among African-Americans. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 203(8), 578-82.

Thompson, V., Bazile, A. and Akbar, M. (2004). African Americans' Perceptions of Psychotherapy and Psychotherapists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(1), pp.19-26.

Turner, N., Hastings, J. and Neighbors, H. (2018). Mental health care treatment seeking among African Americans and Caribbean Blacks: what is the role of religiosity/spirituality?. Aging & Mental Health, pp.1-7.

Earl, T., Alegría, M., Mendieta, F., & Linhart, Y. (2011). “Just Be Straight With Me:” An Exploration of Black Patient Experiences in Initial Mental Health Encounters. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(4), 519-525.

Scherezade K Mama, Yisheng Li, Karen Basen-Engquist, Rebecca E Lee, Deborah Thompson, David W Wetter, . . . Lorna H Mcneill. (2016). Psychosocial Mechanisms Linking the Social Environment to Mental Health in African Americans. PLoS ONE, 11(4), E0154035

Villatoro, A., & Aneshensel, C. (2014). Family Influences on the Use of Mental Health Services among African Americans. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(2), 161-180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.98.163 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018

Please add the fact that some people described by the term "African American" actually dislike it and prefer to be called black, most notably Morgan Freeman. I can't find an online reference, but it was stated in the biography about him. Also, is it possible to mention something about both the over-broadness of the term and its exclusivity? It encompasses black Americans of Australian descent, for example, whilst not describing white Americans whose parents and/or grandparents fled to the US after Robert Mugabe began his pogrom in Zimbabwe. Naughty Autie. 185.4.118.145 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I can second this with a reference, at least when discussing historical articles. "African-American" was considered offensive according to this black owned newspaper in an article published in 1921. At this time, it implied foreign birth. "According to a statement made to the Black dispatch by Rev. E. W. Perry of tabernacle Baptist Church and Dr. S. C. Snelson, secretary of the Oklahoma City Branch of the National Association for Colored People, And who proceeded down town Thursday...they were directed to fall in line behind the foreign born section of the parade, and directly behind a cage of monkeys. They refused to take this position with the FOREIGN BORN and returned immediately to the Negro section..." 175.36.196.38 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 14EmmettTillBefore (2534273093).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

First Arrival

According to this Smithsonian web page, Africans first arrived in North America in the early 1500s. The common statement that Africans arrived in North America in 1619 is incorrect. The Spanish brought slaves with them and set up a colony in 1526 in South Carolina. The Smithsonian web page has more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtwhitaker (talk • contribs)

References

This is a WP:Due weight matter. Like WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." What other WP:Reliable sources report what the smithsonianmag.com report? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no question that before 1619, there were Africans in lands that currently make up the United States, namely the Spanish colonies in Florida and the Caribbean (and perhaps even in California and elsewhere in the southwest). U.S. history, however, is usually told as the history of the English-speaking colonies (where the first Africans arrived in 1619), not the Spanish-speaking colonies. This article might do well to mention those who preceded the 1619 Africans, but don't expect it to buck two centuries of historiography. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC) a se

Some quick googling turned up Landers, Jane (1999). Black Society in Spanish Florida. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06753-2. Pages 12-14 there, in a section headed Africans in the Exploration of La Florida, mentions that the founding population of San Miguel de Guadalupe (in 1526) included African slaves. It mentions that one slave in particular, in a 1539 expedition into what is now the southeast U.S., settling near present-day Camden, South Carolina. It also mentions that sub-saharan and Moorish slaves "went over" to and comingled with the indigineous population in the Americas. Pages 14-15, in a section headed Africans in the Establishment of Florida mentions a 1554 expecition which imported 500 African slaves, probably 50 of which accompanied first settlers. There's probably more in there, and other/better sources probably exist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC).

There is no question about it, and no serious historian would tell you otherwise. The same is true of the land that now makes up California and the southwestern United States. The Spanish brought enslaved Africans there before any English-speaking settlers arrived.

The issue is that American historiography starts at Jamestown, with the arrival of the first British settlers, not in Florida, with the arrival of the first Spanish settlers. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way American history is taught by the overwhelming majority of (English-language) sources. Should this article buck the trend and start with the first Africans in the land that now makes up the United States (i.e., those brought as slaves by the Spanish to what is now Florida), or should it follow the overwhelming majority of history books and say that the first Africans in American history arrived in Jamestown in 1619? As I wrote, we should probably mention the earlier Africans—I may be mistaken, but I think this article had a paragraph or two about them at one time—but as an encyclopedia, we as editors are supposed to summarize the history books that are out there, not create our own historical narrative, or give the same weight to the 5% as we do the 95%. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz. Here is a major textbook by a leading scholar: "The history of the African American people in what is now the United States began in late August 1619." Henry Louis Gates (2011). Life Upon These Shores: Looking at African American History, 1513-2008. Gates a few pages later covers early events in Mexico and Florida as part of the New World history as early as 1513 but not as part of United States history. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Three Americas

African descendants inhabit in North, Central, and Southern America, we well as the Caribbean Islands. Thus, the African American(s) geopolitically extends past the USA and should not be separated via politically loaded terminology such as African Diaspora. They occupy the whole western hemisphere, live in various countries and speak multiple languages,etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:371B:A400:7DE9:2D1E:3175:70F1 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do we park on the driveway and drive on the parkway? Language evolves through usage, not necessarily according to what some people think is most logical. Perhaps because they (we) inhabit the only country in the Americas that calls itself "America", black Americans call themselves African Americans, not African Unitedstatesians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

African American

I saw your message, regarding ihan Omar the news media refer to her as somail-american not African American, that just like calling Michael Jackson Mexican, I understand the sub Saharan thing, but still she reffered as Somali American not African American in media. Hornets23 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hornets23, it sounds like you meant to place this message somewhere else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This is following on this comment which I placed on your talk page. I don't think your Michael Jackson example is very good. I would say that this is more like descibing Angela Merkel as a German rather than as a European, both of which are correct but one of which is generally better here. I take your point about Omar being described in the media more usually as Somali American rather than as African American. I don't think we have a disagreement there.

My choice of section heading there wasn't very good, The comment wasn't intended to be an A vs. B comment re the terms, but rather a notification that I had reverted your removal of List of African-American Representatives, which does list her, from the See also section of the article. Looking again, I see that I ought to have placed my comment in the Ihan Omar section there, along with most of the comments I'm now making here.

My remark re the definition of the term African American was intended to refer to the description of that term in the article lead in this article as (1) an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa and as (2) typically referring to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States (a subset of that larger first group). That's clumsy, I think, but also useful to point out. That clumsiness is, I think, on a par with the clumsiness of the typical description of people from the U.S. but not of people from Canada as Americans, even though both are from North America in the Americas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hornets23. I don't know the background of your question/comment, but I'd like to point out that a German who moves to the United States is called a German American. An African who moves to the United States is not typically referred to as an African American, because that phrase refers to a native-born American of African descent, typically one whose ancestors were brought to the Americas during the slavery period. Likewise, Sidney Poitier is Bahamian American and Mia Love is Haitian American; neither is considered an African American. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue came up in 2004 when Obama ran for the Senate in Illinois against Republican Alan Keyes, who claimed that he, not Obama, was the true "African-American". Indeed there were a handful of black spokesmen who did not consider Obama to be African-American. The black voters of Illinois, voted 92% for Obama. This book indicates that the consensus is to call him the first African-American president Omiunota N. Ukpokodu; Peter Otiato Ojiambo (2017). Erasing Invisibility, Inequity and Social Injustice of Africans in the Diaspora and the Continent. pp. 113–. In 2004 Keyes won 8 percent of the black vote, and 31 percent of the white vote in Illinois, according to https://books.google.com/books?id=GnKQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA144 I think the consensus of reliable sources today calls Obama an African-American. Rjensen (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Obama Contradiction

"According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (≈95%)."

[...]

"In 2008, Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected President of the United States."

His father was an immigrant from Kenya, his mother was white. So how does this make him an "African American"?

--92.217.221.205 (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

What do these statistics have to do with Obama? He isn't an immigrant, his father was. The statistics imply that his father wouldn't describe himself as African American. However, the quote also says approximately 5% of the African immigrants do describe themselves as African American, so he may have described himself that way. None of this has anything to do with Obama himself as he isn't an immigrant and he along with reliable sources describe him as an African American. ~ GB fan 12:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Not actually sure Obama Sr would count as an immigrant though he lived in the US a few years, but that's not important either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it again, you are right, Obama Sr was not an immigrant to the US but you are also right that him not being an immigrant has nothing to do with whether Obama Jr is African American or not. ~ GB fan 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys ... The lead sentence of this article currently defines African Americans as: "an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa". You may or may not agree with that. If you disagree, obtain consensus here to change it to something else. Until that is changed, please use that definition for purposes of this article. It seems to me that, by that definition, Barack Hussein Obama II, the ex U.S. President, is an African American. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If I was unclear, I have no problem with the current "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans)[3] are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa.[4][5] The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States.[6][7][8]" Or that Obama II fits within that definition. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, There is only one person in this conversation that was advocating any kind of change and the is the OP. They used a statistic about immigrants to try to justify the fringe theory that Obama is not African American. I responded saying it didn't apply and that he and reliable sources call him an African American so that is what we should call him. Then Gråbergs Gråa Sång agreed but corrected me on one point about Obama Sr not being an immigrant. ~ GB fan 11:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are not African Americans categorized as Indo-European group??

This pseudolinguistic is only valid when this corroborates with the "Western" pseudohistory? BarbarianAshamedLiar (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What WP:RELIABLE SOURCES do you have about this and what text do you suggest the article should have based on them? Or if you are not asking about this article, Wikipedia:Reference desk may be a better place to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was famously mistaken for a "recent American immigrant" by French President Nicolas Sarkozy),[272] said "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that." She has also rejected an immigrant designation for African Americans and instead prefers the term black or white to denote the African and European U.S. founding populations.

A newer designation, that seeks to distinguish black Americans that descend from victims of chattel slavery in America from more recent black migrants and their descendants, is the acronym ADOS founded by Antonio Moore (Los Angeles lawyer and host of Tonetalks on Dash Radio) and Yvette Carnell (political writer and founder of BreakingBrown). ADOS stands for American Descendants of Slavery and —seeks to reclaim/restore the critical national character of the African American identity and experience, one grounded in the group’s unique lineage, and which is central to their continuing struggle for social and economic justice in the United States. Tkenblack (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

There no such person as an African American, We are AMERICAN of African descent. Just like there is no German American, no Italian American, no Polish American, no Mexican American and on and on.

Please put the truth and Not the lies. 99.56.116.222 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ungrammatical sentence

In the section "Colonial era", the following sentence is difficult to parse:

"Although some did not have the money to buy their freedom that government measures on slavery allowed a high number of free blacks."

Someone might want to tweak this.

Thanks - 189.122.248.181 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Barack Obama, African-American?

Obama technically isn't an American descendant of slavery (ADOS). He is biracial and his black side comes from his Kenyan father. This means while he is the first black or colored president he is not the first African-American president. There has yet to be a president descended from American chattel slavery. DTHEBOSS (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

that's a private personal opinion. Encyclopedia Britannica says he was "44th president of the United States (2009–17) and the first African American to hold the office. " Likewise the "White House Historical Association" at https://www.whitehousehistory.org/bios/barack-obama also Encyclopedia of Political Communication also Ethnic Groups of the Americas: An Encyclopedia: and Encyclopedia of African-American culture and history etc etc Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

See also Q2 at Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a personal opinion but a fact that Obama is not a descendant of American chattel slavery, therefore, he is not African-American. Obama did not grow up in African-American culture and his folks are not from the South. This article states, "According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (≈95%).[13] Immigrants from some Caribbean, Central American and South American nations and their descendants may or may not also self-identify with the term.". Obama is the son of a Kenyan who would not identify as African-American. Obama is black but is not ethnically African-American. I will concede because that is what is widely believed and reported but it is not truly historically accurate.DTHEBOSS (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

the Census emphasizes "self identification." Obama self identifies as Af-Am. He joined the community in Chicago and it recognized his membership and leadership. Likewise the RS recognize it. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Obama is not an immigrant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Obama's father wasn't African American. He was Kenyan and as far as I can see he was never an American. President Obama is not an immigrant so the Census bureau data that immigrants do not generally self-identify as African American does not apply to him. He does self identify as an African American and that should be the end of it. Unless you can produce reliable sources that say Obama is not an African American there is nothing more to discuss here. ~ GB fan 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Rather than try to re-engineer inclusion criteria for this article, let's look to the article to provide it. The first sentence of this article reads as follows: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa." BHO seems to meet this criterion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

See Question 2 in the FAQ currently at the top of Talk:Barack Obama. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You can say that again! ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The two Wikipedia articles "African Americans" and "Barack Obama" contradict each other. The "African Americans" article says "The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States.". The "Barack Obama" article says "he was the first African American to be elected to the presidency." Both cannot be true. I think the second sentence of the "African Americans" article should be deleted. --Westwind273 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Westwind273 no it doesn't the definition of African Americans is this "are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa."

Also in the context of ethnicity, religion and sexuality of living persons we rely on what the person has said about himself, like if someone said he is woman we write that his sexuality is woman we don't dispute that. Self-published source is reliable in these cases.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It says "typically".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That is like saying the term "American" typically refers to white Americans, because a majority of Americans are white. I stand by my view; the second sentence of this article is highly inappropriate. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"the second sentence of this article is highly inappropriate" Why is it inappropriate? It reads "The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States." Please explain what is wrong with that. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Look at the Wikipedia article for "Americans". Do you see a sentence that says it typically refers to white Americans? --Westwind273 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest changing the term "typically" to "in most cases" because the term "typical" has various meanings and can be understood wrongly. It suggest that the African American who's descendent from enslaved Africans is the real African American and others are not actual African Americans. Plus the term that is used in the sources is "more often". When I replied to that comment I thought I am in Obama article and that Westwind273 wanted to change the ethnicity of Obama.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Only one of the sources says "most", the other states it matter-of-factly.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also point out that the sources used have a strong liberal bias. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Anything can be misread, but I don't think your suggestion is an improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And liberals are unlikely to know what is right and proper in this context? How is the question even a liberal/not liberal one? Don't bother answer that, it's not a topic for this talkpage anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

We have atypical and typical ribs and both are ribs.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article "Ribs (food)" does not contain the word "typical". So why should this article have it? --Westwind273 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are you referencing "ribs"? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know it is just an example that came to my mind to illustrate the idea that being atypical "something" doesn't mean you aren't the "something".--SharabSalam (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable Afro-Caribbean Americans are typically referred to as African Americans in media and reliable sources. Three examples are Gwen Ifill, Yamiche Alcindor, and Al Roker. It is therefore wrong to say that African-American typically only applies to those descended from US slaves. --Westwind273 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's bad logic combined with a strawman. "typically refers to" is different from "typically only applies to". That's the strawman. A typically refers to B, therefore B does not typically refer to C. That's bad logic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. It is not bad logic. "Typically refers to" is an insulting insinuation that Afro-Caribbean Americans are somehow less valid African Americans because their ancestors did not go through slavery in the United States. That is what the racialists who wrote this article want to say. What would you say if the article "Americans" said it "typically refers to" white Americans? Would that be fine and dandy with you? I think not. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A few things...you're now saying something different from what I responded to, so you're not responding to what I said. Secondly, I have not made an opinion about whether it is right or wrong to say "typically refers to". I am saying that what is right or wrong is irrelevant; we go with what the sources say. And the new argument that you're making is based on strange inferences. Here is a more accurate comparison: People of the Caribbean are Americans. "Americans" typically refers to citizens of the United States. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Westwind273—you are saying "That is what the racialists who wrote this article want to say." I don't even know what "racialists" are but could you please refrain from attributing motives to editors? Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Refer to the Wikipedia article "Racialism". It is not a motivation, it is a belief, like Liberalism. I also don't see much point in pursuing this issue further, but I didn't want to be coy or mendacious about what I think is really going on here. There is an effort to endlessly divvy people up by race and background, and it is reflected in the second sentence of this article. --Westwind273 (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You say "There is an effort to endlessly divvy people up by race and background, and it is reflected in the second sentence of this article." The second sentence reads "The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States." In an article with a title like African Americans how does the second sentence "endlessly divvy people up by race and background"? Bus stop (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it divides up those of African ancestry into those whose ancestors were slaves in the United States, and those whose ancestors were not. It is a form of identity politics. --Westwind273 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that your objection is to the article African Americans. You are saying "it divides up those of African ancestry into those whose ancestors were slaves in the United States, and those whose ancestors were not". But the article African Americans distinguishes "those of African ancestry" from those not of African ancestry. Aren't you saying the article African Americans "is a form of identity politics"? Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Readers will want to know who people are talking about when they say "African Americans". The purpose of this article is to educate them. The fact is, "African Americans" typically refers to descendants of slaves in the United States. If there is any racialism going on, it's not being done by this article; we're just reporting what the sources say. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources typically say that notable Afro-Caribbean Americans are African-American. Check reliable source info on Gwen Ifill, Yamiche Alcindor, and Al Roker as examples. Here is the bottom line: The correctness of the second sentence of this article is controversial. Reliable sources are split. Thus the sentence has no business being in this article. It remains simply because Wikipedia editors have a strong political leaning. It is one of the many examples of liberal bias on Wikipedia. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

PBS Newshour anchor Yamiche Alcindor made the following statement during the July 1, 2019 broadcast: "I want to now talk about Senator Harris and these issues with her race. I have been talking to civil rights leaders and Democratic voters who are really saying these attacks and questioning whether or not she's black enough are simply racist. They're talking about, this is birtherism 2.0. Really, the distinction that they're trying to make is people that, of course, were kidnapped from the continent of Africa and wondering, when you got through the Middle Passage, did your boat land in Jamaica or land in the United States? It's very offensive to a lot of people in this country."

The second sentence of this article is offensive to a lot of people in America and around the world. --Westwind273 (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Westwind273—you say "The second sentence of this article is offensive to a lot of people in America and around the world." The second sentence reads "The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States." Why is that sentence offensive? Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If the article "Americans" said "The term typically refers to white Americans", do you think that would be offensive? You people just don't get it. How sad. You have no concept of what Yamiche Alcindor is talking about. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Why would the Americans article say "The term typically refers to white Americans"? This article, African Americans, is saying "The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States" because that is a largely true statement, whereas the statement that "The term typically refers to white Americans", if found in the Americans article, would be a largely untrue statement.

Furthermore the statement that "The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States" is not intended to be definitive. It is meant to suggest a scope for this article and it is also intended to describe in the most basic terms the usages of the term "African Americans". It is not going to go into great detail as it is one of the first sentences in the article. Let me ask you this—how would you rewrite that sentence? Or, how would you prefer to see that area of the lead rewritten? Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Westwind273, you haven't provided any sources which discuss the meaning of the term "African American".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The United States is 73% white. How can you possibly say that the sentence "Americans are largely white" is untrue? Are you using 'alternative facts'? This is becoming a ridiculous and circular argument. I think I have made all my points. Those who read this exchange in the future will know who is right. --Westwind273 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that?   Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If you mean the 73% thing, Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity agrees, right or wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Westwind273—you should propose concrete changes that you think should be made. You've suggested that a sentence be removed. Should it be replaced with a different sentence? Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

While Carribbean Americans may be referred to as African-Americans that is not politically correct. A Jamaican-American is a Jamaican-American not an African-American. Af-Am are their own unique ethnicity with their own unique culture and history. Again, Barack Obama is not an African-American, he is a black man from America but he is not a descendant of slavery and did not grow up in African-American culture at all. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTHEBOSS (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Does one have to "grow up in African-American culture" to be African-American? Barack Obama was certainly exposed to "African-American culture" and his appearance aligns with that of African-Americans. Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This conversation began with Barack Obama, and the argument that while Obama is African American, he doesn't meat the "typical" standard of the second sentence of the Wikipedia article. Does this mean Obama is not African American? While DTHEBOSS can believe whatever they want to on this question, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say he is, so Wikipedia says he is. Is the first Black president a typical African American, probably not, in many ways. Nothing that is atypical about Obama as an African American requires us to revise the African Americans article to better include him.

Nevertheless, the growing presence of foreign-born Black immigrants is a significant feature of African American life and deserves coverage here. We just need to make it clear and succinct in the lead, and leave details to the body of the article. I was going to comment on the original sentence, but it has already been changed so I will dive into the article instead.--Carwil (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Barack Obama is multiracial, but didn't support that enough. Watch Patrick Winston on YouTube. We can extract statistical usage of words and semantics from videos. We are not our biology only, especially in politics. Barack Obama isn't the greatest figure of multiracial rights. He supports the old black/white idea, but without being a racist; he's not totally negative towards biraciality. Most people don't accept the fact that there aren't only black and white stances, opinions have weight also. Barack Obama focused more on his black component. That is a fact because other biracials exist and what we say can be statistically analyzed. Barack Obama was supposedly a modernist, but actually he was conservative and not honest towards the value of multiracialism. The French State is philosophically aracial at the constitutional level, not because it denies the science of genetics, but because it doesn't confuse genetics with politics. It's not enough to accept the separate other. You have to love, marry and cherish the non-other. Racialism is to support the separation of races, and racism is to cause harm to other races. Racialism is the breeding ground of racism.

Metaphysical worldviewis the common hypernym of religion and atheism; you erroneously claim that religion is the hypernym of itself, and that any personal belief on metaphysics is necessarily religion or religious (religion requires anti-physics during cosmogony (watch Before the Big Bang 4 on YouTube and all the other episodes) and during the lifespan of the universe; except for deism) // some use faith as a metaphysical worldview hypernym, but it's a problematic noun because it has a religious sense/meaning/definition ==

1. religion isn't the hypernym of itself (religion), and not all personal beliefs of metaphysical or worldview nature are religious or religions (if you're dyslexic and you cannot select a non biased hypernym like metaphysical worldview or the problematic faith, ask for some other to do it)
2. all African Americans are of equal value; your erroneus biased pseudo-hypernym "religion" generates many non-somethings/non-... Even if we had selected metaphysical worldview as the hypernym, still the metaphysically indifferent would remain non-es. A correctly selected hypernym produces less non-es. An atheist is a non- according to the pseudo-hypernym religion, but certainly not a non- in respect of the hypernym metaphysical worldview.

You are faithist = religious racist. You claim that we should respect the African Americans in respect of the Whites, but we shouldn't respect their beliefs on equal ground!

All African Americans are of equal value! If the non-religious have a big ratio, they should be presented in correct order per population size. No personal opinion is superior! So, we present first the biggest number! Your biased brain is confused, because you claim that the utter hypernym is religion, and the large number of irreligious are problematic non-es, which don't fit the title, and should be mentioned at the end. You are a personocrat at the cosmological level. You claim that personhood is self-causal, precosmic and cosmogonous, even though personhood is not a simple (philosophy) because it is constituted of more fundamental components like memories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:6100:5060:7BCA:BC9B:7A53 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I simply came here to elevate the same issue. The page is contradictory stating "The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (≈95%).[13]," yet going on shortly thereafter to list Obama as an African American. Justindya (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not to say Obama is an African immigrant, but he is the child of an African immigrant and a white woman. African American as an ethnic identifier generally points to people who are 1) descendants of American chattel slavery 2) unable to pinpoint their family's African origins due to the cultural maelstrom that was the middle passage. Justindya (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not contradictory. Obama self-identifies as African American. Maybe he's part of a minority of descendants of African immigrants who identify as African American. Fun fact, his mother is a descendant of African slaves. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

African Americans are not an ethnic group

The Ancestors of African Americans were Slaves who belonged to many different Ethnic Groups from West and Western Central Africa.--92.211.155.37 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Concur. ...but statistically this is how the Americans do it..... that said its explained in the article--Moxy 🍁 15:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

But ethnicities are not static. I would think the different cultures of African slaves evolved into an new ethnic group of African Americans. I'd have to look for a source though. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Best read over American ancestry.--Moxy 🍁 03:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That article isn't about Americans as an ethic group; it's basically about racist whites seeing themselves as real Americans. There must be better examples discussing cosmopolitan ethnic groups.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Majority of African Americans are racially mixed being a mixture of Sub-Saharan African with either Native American, or European ancestry sometimes all three with a large variation among the population. The population of those that are not racially mixed mostly have recent ancestors whether grandparents or parents that have migrated over to the United States. Therefore in actuality they are an ethnic group.Mcelite (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

[2].--Moxy 🍁 16:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What are you trying to show/argue?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

Ciao Fellow Wikipedian Ediors: Perhaps when time permits you might consider amending the section entitled Culture - Music to include an additional paragraph (at the end of the Music subsection) with the following text:

In the realm of classical music, several African-Americans have also made contributions. Included among them was the symphonic orchestra conductor Henry Lewis, who served as music director of the United States Army's Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra in support of America's cultural diplomacy initiatives throughout Europe in the post World War II era. Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia. 104.207.219.150 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)PS

Sources

Hello! Your proposed addition is well sourced (we only need two or three references, not eight) but I am not sure it would be appropriate for the way this article is written. It looks as if this is treated as an overall or survey article on the huge subject of African-Americans, without naming many individuals. There is a main article at African-American music, where there already are several paragraphs about the Black influence on classical music. That page is not protected, you could edit it yourself. I suggest you add a sentence about him there; he is clearly an important influence. And maybe something about Henry Lewis also. But just a single sentence and one or two references. I see there are some other important names in classical music that are missing from that section of the Music article - groundbreakers such as Marian Anderson and Paul Robeson for instance. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted recently added lead image

Jack Hadley gives a tour of the Jack Hadley Black History Museum in Georgia

Regarding this edit by Kolya Butternut, I reverted. Yes, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES made it so that "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members." But it's clear from reading the discussions (one which I was involved in) that a similar problem would result in having a single image as the lead image of this article or, for example, the White Americans article. It's even more of a problem because a single image can in no one way be representative of a topic like this. And MOS:LEADIMAGE is about selecting a representative lead image. While I have entertained having a lead image at the Man and Woman articles, although I disagree with having lead images at those articles (unless a composite) and I disagreed with the processes at Talk:Man/sandbox and Talk:Woman/sandbox, the discussions that resulted in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES were primarily about "race"/ethnicity, not about gender. It was the "race"/ethnicity articles that were primarily the concern. And we do not need a return to that concern by adding a single image on these "race"/ethnicity articles, as though they can at all be representative of the topic. MOS:LEADIMAGE states, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." This is certainly one of those cases. If Kolya Butternut insists on adding a lead image to this article, after what I stated with this comment, I will ping every active editor that was involved in the discussions that resulted in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES for their thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As one of those editors, I agree with keeping this particular article leadimage-less. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, these are all thoughts you already expressed before I added the image, so of course I would still want the image I added. I feel like a gallery gives people the impression that all different people within the subject are meant to be represented, so editors will continuously swap out photographs as we have seen. I feel that a single image does not give the impression of representing all people, but simply represents an example of a person or persons. The lead image of apple does not represent all apple varieties; it is simply an example which illustrates the subject, while a gallery of different cultivars may lead to different editors feeling like if all of these other apple varieties are included then their favorite apple should be included too. I think the only difference is contentiousness. I think we should consider the hypothetical that the lead apple image became just as contentious as the lead image here. If we decided to have no image for apple simply because of contentiousness, that is similar to censorship. An encyclopedia would have an image of African Americans, or White Americans, or a man and woman for their articles. We shouldn't avoid images simply due to contentiousness. Where does that end? "No easy representation of the topic" does not mean no non-contentious representation of a topic.

You have not provided a policy-based reason for removing the photo. If you believe the editors who were involved in the discussions that resulted in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES would want to include single photographs of groups of people in the guideline then please follow through and ping them so we will know. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Since WP:s policies in general doesn't care if this article has a lead image or not, WP:CONSENSUS is what we got. So, editors, is having this as leadimage an improvement? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not express these thoughts about this topic (this particular topic) to you before you added the image. The fact that you felt you knew what I would state, and the fact that you knew that adding a lead image for this topic would likely be contentious beyond my view, shows that you should have brought the matter to the talk page first. Like I told you before, WP:BOLD has a WP:CAREFUL section for a reason. For the reasons I stated above, a single lead image should not be used for the lead of this article. You stating that I have not provided a policy-based reason for removing the photo? MOS:LEADIMAGE is the guideline (not the policy) to follow, and I cited it above, and it very well supports my removal. You cannot compare this matter to the Apple article, where a representative image of an apple is a red apple because red apple imagery is used significantly more than any other color of apple. The exact type of apple needn't be a factor; all one needed to do there was select an image of a red apple as the lead image, and they did. You stated, "We shouldn't avoid images simply due to contentiousness." I argued similarly about using a composite as the lead image, and we see how that turned out. And using a composite is much better than using a single image to represent African Americans. And you can talk about the lead image not being meant to represent African Americans all you want to, but, again, MOS:LEADIMAGE is about selecting a representative image. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:Offensive material disagrees with you that "we shouldn't avoid images simply due to contentiousness." I'm not saying that those guidelines apply in this case; they don't. I'm simply making you aware of them. Using a single lead image for "race"/ethnicity articles or the Man and Woman articles is about more than contentiousness. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you on something so unbelievably clear as MOS:LEADIMAGE stating, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." There is nothing at all easy about trying to represent this topic with a single image of African Americans. Your image, for example, is of dark-skinned African Americans, but African Americans exist in different shades. It matters not that society's first thought of an African American is likely to be of a dark-skinned person. We also know that because of society's "white as the default" bias, their first thought of a human being is likely to be of a white person. Additionally, your image is more so about children than about adults, and is primarily of boys than of girls.

I never stated or implied that "the editors who were involved in the discussions that resulted in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES would want to include single photographs of groups of people." The composite images were, after all, constructed as a single image showcasing a group of people. I'm pinging these editors to see if any of them would be for or against what you are suggesting. I'll ping them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images for a centralized discussion per WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You expressed thoughts against a single lead image at Woman which I disagreed with, but also stated that you would not object, just as you did not object to a single lead image at Girl. If MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES was meant to exclude a single, non-composite lead image it would have stated that in the close discussion. Your thoughts expressed there do not apply here.

I am expressing that guidelines do not support your removal.

Regarding my comparison to the lead image of Apple, you stated that "The exact type of apple needn't be a factor". That ignores the analogy. In the hypothetical situation where the lead Apple image became contentious, editors may agree that the representative image of an apple is a red apple, but they would disagree on which variety was most representative. The current lead image of Apple is a red and green Honeycrisp, but editors may feel that a Red Delicious, a McIntosh, or a Baldwin is best.

As I stated, my image is not meant to represent all African Americans, it represents an example. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To expand on the apple analogy, if "a representative image of an apple is a red apple" because it is the most common imagery, by that logic does it mean we would use an image of a brown person? You said it doesn't matter which specific type of apple as long as it's red, does that mean it doesn't matter which specific "race" as long as they're brown? Does it matter if the apple is pure red, or a combination of red, green or yellow or a non-named mix? Would it matter if their race is monoracial or multiracial? The same concerns could theoretically come up with the apple image; we just haven't encountered them because we haven't encountered extreme apple enthusiasts. Our decision should be based on a consistent rationale. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No one stated that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES was meant to exclude a single image. What I have stated is that, for topics like these, the same issues that come with a composite image or similar apply to a single image of one person or a group of people, except worse. And I've noted why above. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on that. I've taken the matter to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images so that the same editors and additional editors can discuss what is best for articles like these in the absence of a composite. If that means starting another RfC there; so be it. Your "[my] thoughts expressed there do not apply here" commentary makes no sense since you stated, "Flyer, these are all thoughts you already expressed before I added the image, so of course I would still want the image I added." You can express that the "guidelines do not support [my] removal" all you want to, but MOS:LEADIMAGE stating that "lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic" is clear. I noted above, "There is nothing at all easy about trying to represent this topic with a single image of African Americans." And at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, Future Perfect at Sunrise echoed this, stating, "Why is there a need for a lead image at all? Large and heterogeneous groups of people are not a topic that lends itself easily to illustration. If it doesn't, then why try to illustrate it?" I'm pretty sure that most editors will feel the same when it comes to articles like these.

I do object to a single image on the Woman, Girl, Man and Boy articles, especially certain aspects of the processes you engaged in at the woman and man sandboxes; I simply meant that I'm not going to get involved in vocally objecting to whatever woman or man images were selected from those processes since it would mean more debating for me.

I ignored no analogy. You stated, "In the hypothetical situation where the lead Apple image became contentious, editors may agree that the representative image of an apple is a red apple, but they would disagree on which variety was most representative." I already stated, "The exact type of apple needn't be a factor; all one needed to do there was select an image of a red apple as the lead image, and they did." I highly doubt that there will ever be any such "but editors may feel that a Red Delicious, a McIntosh, or a Baldwin is best" debate at the Apple article.

I am not interested in what you meant by selecting a lead image; I am interested in what MOS:LEADIMAGE states.

Editors often go with the most common imagery because it is more so representative. I'm not addressing your "brown" logic, which I knew you would bring up. It's why I stated, "We also know that because of society's 'white as the default' bias, their first thought of a human being is likely to be of a white person." Despite this bias, I don't see you jumping to use an image of a white person at the Man and Woman articles. People are different than fruit and vegetables, of course. There are very different social issues that come with "race"/ethnicity and gender. That is why there is no such rule for fruit and vegetables or other inanimate objects. Trying to compare the two is very flawed.

RfC below, because, like I stated, I'm not going to sit here and keeping debating with you. If most editors feel that we should have a lead image for this topic, then we can move on to selecting a lead image for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Should this article have a lead image?

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 this article have a lead image? One view is that we shouldn't use a lead image because no lead image can adequately represent this topic, and MOS:LEADIMAGE addresses this type of thing. Another view is that a single lead image does not give the impression of representing all people, but simply represents an example of a person or persons. For backstory on this matter, see the Talk:African Americans#Reverted recently added lead image section on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Close RfC as premature. Dozens of editors have just been pinged to a discussion begun yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images which asks "Should we not have a lead image" "for articles about ethnic groups"? In addition, the lead image I added to African Americans has already been reverted, out of three editors in the discussion I am the only one who supports a lead image, and I have only made two (long) comments. This is unnecessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

See my reply below in the #Discussion section below, where the above "Close RfC as premature" text should be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No. To reiterate what I stated above, MOS:LEADIMAGE says, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." There is nothing at all easy about trying to represent this topic with a single image. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES was created because it's difficult and contentious to try to represent a large group of people with a composite image or similar. The same issues that come with a composite image or similar apply to a single image of one person or a group of people, except worse, because instead of the lead image showcasing a variety of different types of people within that group, a single lead image would only be showing one person or would otherwise be limited (such as a group of people who all look similar or very similar). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn—you are posing this RfC in a non-neutral form. You are saying in the initiating statements of this RfC that "One view is that we shouldn't use a lead image because no lead image can adequately represent this topic". Then you go on to say that "Another view is that a single lead image does not give the impression of representing all people, but simply represents an example of a person or persons." Both of those sentences are arguments against having a lead image, which uncoincidentally is the view you take, evidenced by your "No" vote. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A non-neutral form? No. The argument that you call "against having a lead image" is the argument that was given for having a lead image, as anyone can see by the initial discussion above. And you've echoed the same "the implication is not that an image represents an ethnicity but rather that it is an example of a member of an ethnicity" sentiment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You write "Should this article have a lead image? One view is that we shouldn't use a lead image because no lead image can adequately represent this topic, and MOS:LEADIMAGE addresses this type of thing. Another view is that a single lead image does not give the impression of representing all people, but simply represents an example of a person or persons." Your "One view" and your "Another view" are both views that oppose the inclusion of a lead image. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You have it backwards. What are you talking about? The view that "a single lead image does not give the impression of representing all people, but simply represents an example of a person or persons" is an argument that was used for having a lead image. That argument was specifically used to counter my argument that "we shouldn't use a lead image because no lead image can adequately represent this topic, and MOS:LEADIMAGE addresses this type of thing." You are using the same "a single lead image does not give the impression of representing all people" argument. So, again, what are you talking about? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC) To those of us saying that a single lead image cannot be representative, there is the "but it's not trying to be representative" argument. Yes, I've argued that MOS:LEADIMAGE is about trying to select a representative image. That's because it is about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Can't a question be posed for an RfC without the presentation of a summation of what are felt to be the applicable arguments pertaining to the answering of that question? Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Giving a brief backstory or a brief summation of the views, so that editors know why a matter is being debated, is important. That's what I do in every RfC I start, and those RfCs usually go well. This one is also moving along just fine. We can see that the summation hasn't stopped people from voting "yes." More people have voted "no" or similar thus far, but that's understandable per what I and those others have argued about having a lead image for this type of article. This RfC might close as "no consensus." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you should be trying to express other editor's arguments. This RfC should simply be asking "Should this article have a lead image?" Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Attempting? There was no attempt. I presented exactly what the counterargument is. You are wrong to state that I should not have. As seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All, your opinion that the RfC should just ask "Should this article have a lead image?" is wrong. A simple question with no backstory or summation is not how RfCs are usually done. For obvious reasons. How many RfCs have you started? It seems not many. WP:RFCBRIEF states, in part, "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp. If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it." There was nothing non-neutral about my summation of this issue. One might argue that you wanting the matter to be vague for those coming to this RfC is highly questionable. I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. You are arguing over nothing, and are turning this Survey section into an additional Discussion section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There should not be a "backstory or summation" in the presentation of the RfC because it is your "backstory or summation". You are a participant in this RfC, are you not? You are weighing in on one particular side of the question that you are raising. If you have a "backstory or summation" that you wish to apprise everyone of, you have ample opportunity to do so in the "Survey" section, where everyone else gets to frame the discussion in their preferred way.

This is mumbo-jumbo: "One view is that we shouldn't use a lead image because no lead image can adequately represent this topic, and MOS:LEADIMAGE addresses this type of thing. Another view is that a single lead image does not give the impression of representing all people, but simply represents an example of a person or persons." If that is the way you, the initiator of this RfC wishes to frame the debate, you have ample opportunity to tell everyone about in your first post in the "Survey" section of the RfC. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong, per what I stated above. But just to repeat one more time: "I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. You are arguing over nothing." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

All that is needed is a simple question. "Should this article have a lead image?" Your arguments and your understandings of everyone else's arguments belong in the "Survey" section. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not necessarily but probably no. It's possible someone finds something surprisingly good like at Human, but the above suggestion is not it IMO, no image (one can see the "Part of a series on..." as the image of course) is dull, but better. To make a WP:OSE argument, it fits the pattern of Asian Americans, Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans, Pacific Islands Americans, Multiracial Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans... Native Americans in the United States is a little different. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• No As already mentioned a major discussion has already taken place. The majority of people identified or self identified as African American are either bi or multiracial and their image could also go into articles like Native Americans. There were also arguments years ago about who can represent and who couldn't it became very none WP:Neutrality and that issue didn't just occur here. So that's what lead to the decision.Mcelite (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Mcelite, could you point me in the direction of that discussion?  I only found discussions in the archives about galleries of famous people, which seems totally different.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't remember which discussion board it occurred on because it was so long ago I know it didn't happen here because this was something discussed for all the races or ethnic groups related to the United States to my knowledge. I'm sorry I kind of suck at backtracking that well but definitely remember the discussion because a few editors were aggressive and their bias certainly came out and that lead to the decision so there wouldn't an issue again. For example, Halle Berry she's biracial and we can say a few editors would keep saying well no she's black, but the fact of the matter is that if we were to show diversity in let's say English Americans she would be a representation b/c her mom is white but of course that upset people. That's the arguments that went on. Matter of fact we continuously keep flipping on protection for her page b/c random ppl keep trying to edit out that her mother is white etc. it's stupid. But yeah sorry I couldn't give more help on exactly where the talk happened that effected all of the articles.Mcelite (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. We should have a lead image. I think this was a good lead image. The argument that no image can adequately represent an ethnicity is misguided. The implication is not that an image represents an ethnicity but rather that it is an example of a member of an ethnicity. The subject in the photo with the caption "Jack Hadley gives a tour of the Jack Hadley Black History Museum in Georgia" is black pride. This is something other than merely a physical or visual representation of characteristics common to an ethnic identity. The expressions on the faces make this an especially qualifying image for the lead because they convey the group cohesiveness that creates an ethnicity in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• No we don't have lead images in almost all of ethnic groups articles. I don't think the image is needed and I don't think this image is a representative image of this article.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"I don't think this image is a representative image of this article." I believe it is representative of this article. The African Americans article is not simply about people of a particular appearance. The image is especially appropriate because it is a photograph of "a tour of the Jack Hadley Black History Museum in Georgia". The photograph is illustrative of the cohesiveness that establishes the group in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neither. Images should continue to be considered; we should neither firmly decide to have a lead image nor to exclude one. As I stated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, I have a hard time understanding the rationale behind excluding a single lead image for an article like this but not others. For the reasons described here, should we also not have an image for Woman, Human body, Breast, Nursing, and Professor, if there is no single representative person for these subjects? How is that different than the lead images for Apple, House, Table? Similar to what User:Snow Rise stated there, just because an area is subject to edit-warring doesn't mean it is best to exclude lead images. It does make sense to me, however, to choose a style which excludes galleries representing groups of people. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Can we for example put the photo of Trump in the lead of white people article? Or can we put any person in the lead of white people article? I think the answer is no and I don't think this is any different.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

But if I am asking "why is this apples and oranges?" you haven't answered the question. No, I do not believe Trump would be appropriate because generally I think famous people should be excluded from such lead images. I don't think a photo of an individual would be a good idea for White people, but a group photo may work. Perhaps a photo of a group of people to show diversity among white people exists (without attempting to show all diversity). Or a photo of something like a historical photo of Irish Americans; there is a misconception that Irish Americans were at one time considered non-white, which can be discussed in that article). Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes we should consider adding an image to the lead. (Note: I found this discussion via Talk:Woman.) Lead images educate and engage readers. The Encyclopedia of African-American Heritage, the Encyclopedia of African American History, The African-American Heritage Cookbook: Traditional Recipes and Fond Remembrances From Alabama's Renowned Tuskegee Institute, the Encyclopedia of the Underground Railroad, The Kentucky African American Encyclopedia, Unseen: Unpublished Black History from the New York Times Photo Archives, and 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About African American History all managed to pick imagery for their covers, so what's stopping us? WanderingWanda (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• No one image of person in no way represents a whole group of people Alvera Frederic.--Moxy 🍁 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes This is an encyclopedia, a place where people come to find information in the form of written word and pictures of examples. Absolutely we should have pictures, anything that helps an article describe what it is being talked about. This is the World Wide Web, we're using it because we can place hyper links, pictures, videos, and other information in a multi-media format not available in a printed form. Frackin' use it! If you leave information out, for any reason, you are doing a disservice to our readers who come here seeking knowledge. StarHOG (Talk) 15:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

StarHOG, no one said we shouldn't have pictures in this article. The question is whether we should have a lead image. See why people are arguing for "no lead image" above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article has several pictures. It does not necessarily need a MOS:LEADIMAGE, but if you have suggestions, you can post them. The advantage of not having one is that it saves on the time and conflict discussing it. It is not a perfect scheme, but has some merit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

My concern with this RFC is that it prevents any lead images from being considered.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if this RFC closes as no, which seems far from certain, consensus can change. But it would probably take a successful I-have-found-an-effing-brilliant-image RFC to change it. Or a WP:BOLD edit that strikes everybody as stunningly brilliant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If this RfC is closed with no consensus, I think the next step would be for supporters of putting an image in the lead to pick what they think is the best candidate. Then, a new RfC could be opened that asks whether the lead should have the chosen image or no image. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No objection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I propose File:AfricanAmericans2.jpg

Famous African Americans

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StarHOG (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Formatted slightly for clarification and added {{unsigned}} template. --T*U (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

StarHOG: Absolutely not per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. --T*U (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, T*U! Didn't know about that one. StarHOG (Talk) 13:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Mu. In order to answer "yes", I would have to assume that there exists an illustration that is relevant and representative for the group. I rather doubt that such an image can be found, but I will not rule it completely out by answering "no". Therefore I have to use the Zen non-answer mu, thereby unasking the question. --T*U (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor, did you see my comment in this survey about the lead image for Apple?  I don't see how an image of an apple is different.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, presumably, being/adding an (appropriate) image in the lead of the article can be helpful, and factually can give a better related visualization for the readers of the article; particularly by paying heed that it is a sort of encyclopedia; In the meanwhile, another significant point is that: there needs to be sufficient attention in finding/pasting the best related photo, to portray the most precise form of the article name, too. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes — Both closures of RfC1 and RfC 2 were rather confusing and open to debate. In any case, I do not see any issue in adding a lead image or collage of images (my preferred option) like we used to have back in the day. The argument for no images is rather strange. We are failing to remember that this is an ethnic group, not a nationality. First, who says that: a well thought out picture cannot represent a group of people? Try putting a picture of a jet black skinned African like myself as the lead image on our white people article and tell me if that makes sense, or a pale white person on the black people article. It is as if we are assuming the reader is not intelligent. Images add substance to the article, but the reader does not usually come to Wikipedia just to look at images. WP:COMMONSENSE needs to apply here. We are also failing to remember that, this is an encyclopedia, and we should give the reader all the available resources including utilising our sister projects - not sensor topics. We cannot be so overzealous about policy that we fail to apply common sense. Otherwise we might as well close the whole project down and go home (figuratively).Tamsier (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• No Per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. This is just round 23,000 of this issue. No collage or single image can depict the wide range of people who self-identify as African-American. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Montanabw—I don't think our primary aim is to "depict the wide range of people who self-identify as African-American." That is a reference to mere physical appearance. We are trying to depict shared identity. Therefore this image is particularly appropriate. It is an image that actually depicts the topic of this article. That is because the people in it are reflecting on the very identity that this article is about—African Americans. Yes, the people in it look like African Americans. But that is not the primary point. The primary point is that they are reflecting on and contemplating the identity that is the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

"Close RfC as premature" piece moved here from the initial area:

Nothing premature about it. Hardly anyone has weighed in at the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, and I'm sure that if more do weigh in there, most there will have the opinion that no new rule needs to be created. And beyond a rule, they are likely to feel that nothing new needs to be added to the guideline about lead images because of these kinds of disputes when MOS:LEADIMAGE already says, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." We discussed enough above for an RfC. I've made my case for why no lead image is best. You argued what you did, and seemed to be content to keep arguing. I am not content to keep arguing. There is no rule that says that I must argue with you a little more before I can start an RfC. And I'm not going to endlessly argue with you about starting this RfC either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC) And you should not have placed your "Close RfC as premature" piece here at the top. This little detour should go in the Survey or Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If you do not want to respond to me in the above discussion then do not respond. An RfC is not necessary to end a discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If you state something that I feel shouldn't go unchallanged, I'm going to reply. This RfC isn't to "end a discussion." It's to get other opinions on this matter. And it's good to pull in non-involved editors, which is what an RfC does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Do not interfere with my comments.  I believe this RfC is improper, so perhaps I should just close it.  In addition to my other reasons, your description is not neutral and you described my argument for me which I do not appreciate.

You started this RfC because you didn't want me to have the last word, regardless of how inconsequential my words were to restoring the image.  You felt that we had both made our arguments and that there was nothing more necessary to add. If you left the discussion without responding to me then you would have gotten what you wanted: no image, no arguing.  Beginning this RfC just looks like a tantrum. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

Moving our discussion to the appropriate place instead of keeping it up at the top, where it would grow if I continued to reply because of your need to always get the last word, is not interfering with your comments. Moving comments to a more appropriate area has been done in countless RfCs. You unnecessarily moving the piece back is just more of you being difficult and arguing to argue. And I described your argument for you? Those are literally your words. It is literally your reply to me after I objected to you adding a lead image because no lead image can adequately represent this topic, and MOS:LEADIMAGE addresses this type of thing. And tantrum? Your objection to this RfC just looks like a tantrum. There was no way you were going to move on. You never do. And you expected me to leave your "the rules don't support you" nonsense unchallenged when the rule (MOS:LEADIMAGE) does support me? You expected me to leave your response there unchallenged for some misguided person to believe in your words and come along and agree and support a lead image being added? I'm not entertaining your nonsense anymore. This RfC won't be closing until a closer comes along and does so after an appropriate length of time. Deal with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mcelite, just to clarify, I don't think we should make a decision to have an image or not have an image here. I think we should leave the option open; that's part of the reason I object to this RfC. But I think that having an image of a non-celebrity who looks like Halle Berry in a group photo for the English Americans article would be educational, just as having an image of someone who looks like Mariah Carey would be in an image here. Many people don't know that African Americans are on average around 25% European American. I think most of the conflict comes from having galleries of famous people, or any galleries. Non-contrived group photos of people who are African American may or may not be supported by a consensus of editors.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think people who come here will have the same questions that have come up in these discussions.  The article itself can explain that "You can be biracial and black"[3], but a lead image could immediately communicate what that diversity can actually look like, and I think it deserves more discussion with examples.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2019 (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.