Talk:List of African-American United States representatives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updated template and other major updates[edit]

The subdivision of the article List of African-American United States Representatives into four generations is drawn directly from the Black Americans in Congress website. The website is maintained by the Office of Historian, United States House of Representatives. There is a 1001 page companion book that has identical material with the website serving as an ongoing supplement that is regularly updated. The book and website contain extensive citations.

I will be gradually rewriting the Wikipedia article African Americans in the United States Congress to focus solely upon the African-American elected officials and the electorate that elected them. Also, I will be adding other material that is not mentioned in either the book or website.

Hopefully, this update and future additions will illuminate more information and insights that did not exist in the previous list and do not exist in the article page.

--Mitchumch (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, your template incorrectly linked party affiliations to "Democrat Party" rather than "Democratic Party" - --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Joseph, Delegate from New Mexico from 1885 to 1895[edit]

There is evidence that the mother of 19th Century New Mexico Delegate Antonio Joseph was a mulatta former slave (but was "passing" while living in New Mexico). See the information in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antonio_Joseph_(politician). If the evidence is deemed to be sufficient to make the assertion, should Antonio Joseph be added to the List of African-American United States Representatives? He wasn't considered an African American when he served in Congress, but if the goal is to list all African-American members of the U.S. House of Representatives, it would be odd to keep him off the list just because he kept his ancestry hidden.

(Of course, it is not my intention to put the cart before the horse, and a decision on whether to accept the evidence on the identity of Antonio Joseph's mother must come before any decision on his inclusion in this page.) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to post this proposed edit on the talk page first. I would like some time to research this. However, my initial thoughts are Wikipedia is not the proper venue for the question you are posing. There are several printed sources that examine African Americans in Congress during the time period Antonio Joseph (1846–1910) was alive and served in Congress (March 4, 1885-March 3, 1895).
  • Clay, William L. Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1991. Amistad Press, 1992. ISBN 1-56743-000-7
  • Freedman, Eric. African Americans in Congress: A Documentary History. CQ Press, 2007. ISBN 0-87289-385-5
  • Gill, LaVerne McCain. African American Women in Congress: Forming and Transforming History. Rutgers University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-8135-2353-2
  • Middleton, Stephen. Black Congressmen During Reconstruction: A Documentary Sourcebook. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002. ISBN 0-313-06512-8
Perhaps the most comprehensive and authoritative source is:
Website, regularly updated - Black Americans in Congress
Free book - H. Doc. 108-224 - Black Americans in Congress 1870 - 2007.
Since the Congressional Research Service maintains "Black Americans in Congress, 1870-2007," it would be better to contact them regarding Antonio Joseph's non-inclusion among African-American congressmen or Hispanic Americans in Congress. Contact Jennifer Manning at JMANNING@crs.loc.gov for the Congressional Research Service. I've contacted her regarding discrepancies present in federal publications. She was always prompt in her responses to me.
I know this is not the response you were seeking. But given the number of written works on this topic, the non inclusion of Antonio Joseph in those works, I am currently leaning towards Wikipedia:No original research for the proposed edit. But, I still want to more thoroughly examine the sources you've listed to better understand your position. Thanks again. Mitchumch (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I agree with you that Wikipedia is no place for original research, and I certainly don't have the time or inclination to research 19th century birth and baptismal records to try to confirm Antonio Joseph's ancestry. What I was thinking of doing was citing research carried out by others who have researched and written about the subject (i.e., New Mexico historian Malcolm Elbright and genealogical researcher Ceferino Ahuero-Baca) to point out that Antonio Joseph was African American. The fact that earlier treatises on early African-American Congressmen did not discuss Antonio Joseph does not mean that he was not African American: It is likely that the authors did not know that Joseph, who was "passing" for white, was the son of an African-American slave woman, and, even if the authors knew about his parentage, they may have decided, on philosophical or editorial grounds, to exclude Joseph because they believe that only those whom contemporaries knew were African American faced the hurdles that made their service in Congress such an interesting subject.
I would posit that an encyclopedia, particularly one edited by the public at large, should seek to avoid such viewpoint-based judgments, and include in an article listing African-American congressmen all persons of substantial black or African-American ancestry that served in Congress, irrespective of such person's relationship with his or her blackness. (I think that only those with "substantial" black or African-American ancestry should be included, given that the "one-drop rule" not only is nonsensical but would lead to persons such as Barack Obama's mother to be deemed African American because her 11-great grandfather was early 17th-century slave John Punch, making her 1/2048th (0.05%) black; alas, Ann Dunham was categorized as "African American" in a Wikipedia article on Americans with one African parent and one African-American parent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_African-American.)
We don't need former Congressman Bill Clay to tell us whether a person whose mother was an African-American slave in the U.S. South should be considered an African American, although, as I said at the outset, it is possible that the consensus reached is that Antonio Joseph was African American but that he should be relegated to a footnote in the article on African-American members of the U.S. House of Representatives given that he "passed" as white during his entire adult life. While it certainly would make this debate academic if Matthew Wasniewski were to add Antonio Joseph to his compendium on "Black Americans in Congress" (and if you have corresponded with Wasniewski in the past I would be much obliged if you sent him what Elbright and Ahuero-Baca wrote for his consideration).
So thank you once again for your response, and I welcome additional comments from you or from other editors interested in this subject, both on this talk page and on the one regarding Antonio Joseph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antonio_Joseph_(politician) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Espaillat[edit]

Adriano Espaillat has won the Democratic Party nomination for New York's 13th Congressional District (the Harlem-based district that has been represented by Charles Rangel since 1971 and, before that, by Adam Clayton Powell since 1945), and almost certainly will be elected in November in that safely Democratic seat. Espaillat is a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from the Dominican Republic, and clearly is a descendant, in large part, of African slaves (as is the case for many, perhaps most, Dominicans). Had Espaillat been born, with the same parentage, in Haiti instead of the Dominican Republic (both of which are on the island of Hispaniola), there would be no question that he would be considered an African American (as well as a Haitian American), and we would be getting ready to add him to the List of African-American United States Representatives come January 3. However, because Espaillat is indubitably Hispanic, some people would claim that such fact disqualifies him from being considered an African American, despite the fact that "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race, and that Hispanics can be of any race (including black). But others would say "he's an American, and he's of (non-trivial) Sub-Saharan African descent, so of course he's an African American."

So, the question is, what should we do on January 3? Should we wait to see whether Espaillat joins the Congressional Black Caucus? Of course, several African-American Representatives never joined the Congressional Black Caucus (to wit, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott and Will Hurd), so membership in the Caucus is not dispositive as to whether someone should be considered an African-American United States Representative. My vote is for adding Espaillat on January 3, but I wanted to hear from others to see what they think.

-- AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican: The Office of the Historian for Congress will make that determination and they maintain an up-to-date list of African Americans in Congress. Another argument is all humans are of African ancestry. We should let reliable sources that research African Americans in Congress to be the sole determinant for such arguments. To do otherwise is original research. Mitchumch (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Lisa Blunt Rochester, Anthony Brown, Val Demings, etc. included on the list of African-American Representatives? The Office of the Historian for Congress has not yet deemed them to be black, given that they do not appear on the list to which you linked. I thought that you said that it was "original research" to point out that an American of sub-Saharan African descent that has been sworn in as a United States Representative is an African-American United States Representative.
I don't mean to be snippy, particularly to you, who has done yeoman's work on this article and whose opinion I respect, but Adriano Espaillat is black every day and twice on Sunday, descends from African slaves on both sides, and is a naturalized American citizen, so I think that it is demeaning to Hispanics and African-Americans alike to refuse to consider Congressman Espaillat an African-American unless and until the "Office of the Historian for Congress" catalogues him as an African-American. (For the record, the Office of the Historian for Congress is the same entity that risibly deems Azorean-Americans Tony Coelho, Jim Costa, Devin Nunes and David Valadao (but not Richard Pombo) and Chamorros Ben Blaz, Robert Underwood and Gregorio Sablan to be "Hispanic-Americans" while excluding Americans of Spanish or Latino descent such as Congressmen Albert Estopinal, Charles Rangel, Charles Bouligny and several others, and I see no reason why it should be the sole judge of whether a U.S. Representative is an African-American.) I do not believe that acknowledging the obvious constitutes "original research."
But in case there are any lingering doubts about Congressman Espaillat ancestry, let's read what he has to say about his racial identification: "I am a Latino of African descent. It doesn't matter if you're from Cuba or the Dominican Republic or South Carolina or Alabama, the roots are the same and I hope we can build upon that,” he said, adding his first political mentor was an African American Baptist preacher and civil rights leader." [1]
My humble suggestion is that the article titled "List of African-American United States Representatives" list U.S. Representatives that meet the generally accepted definition of "African-American," as described by you in the first paragraph of the article (and with which my only quibble is that the phrase "at least partial" is too broad, since it would include someone who is, say, 1/256th black), and not limit itself to persons that the Office of the Historian for Congress deems to be an African American. Congressman Espaillat isn't someone "passing as white" or whose African ancestry is neither known nor apparent, and it should not be controversial that he be listed as an African-American U.S. Representative in an article devoted to African-American U.S. Representatives.
AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: I checked the linked I listed above. Use the filter on the left to select by U.S. state they represent. Every person sworn in yesterday are listed in the directory. I checked for Adriano Espaillat. He was not listed as an African-American Congress person that represents New York.
I understand your line of reasoning. But, your line of reasoning is not the determent for who is or is not included on this list. If it were, then this list would significantly overlap with List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress. Your line of reasoning is only WP:Original Research. By the way, Adriano Espaillat is listed in the up-to-date list of Hispanic Americans in Congress produced by the Office of the Historian for Congress. Mitchumch (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew that acknowledging that a person of not-insignificant sub-Saharan-African ancestry who is an American by birth of naturalization is an "African-American" meant that I was engaging in "original research." I'll keep that in mind from now on. "Hey, there's LeBron James's son. Let me ask the Office of the Historian for Congress whether he's African-American, because using my eyes or my brain would make me an 'original researcher.'"
I also am astounded at how discrimination against people simply because they speak Spanish is deemed acceptable by the black political class in America. A person whose ancestry includes African slaves and free whites in Guyana (Shirley Chisholm), Trinidad (Mervyn Dymally), Bermuda (G.K. Butterfield), Jamaica (Yvette Clarke, Colin Powell) or Haiti (Mia Love) is included as "African-American," yet a person whose ancestry includes African slaves and free whites in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Panama, Venezuela or Colombia is excluded from such list, *simply because they speak Spanish*. (Such discrimination is evident in the article to which I linked above, in which black Harlem politicos say that Harlem no longer will have an African-American Representative (sic) because a black Dominican is not "one of them.") But given that the Office of the Historian for Congress accepts (nay, celebrates) such cultural prejudice, you should modify the definition of "African American" in the first paragraph of the article to add "unless they speak Spanish, in which case they're either not black or not American, because to say otherwise would tick off the Harlem Democratic establishment," or simply say that the article is a list of people deemed by the Office of the Historian for Congress to be African-American Representatives, subject solely to the whims and caprices of whomever makes decisions in such Office. If we went by the perfectly reasonable definition of "African American" at the top of the article, then the list provided below is incomplete, so if the list can't be updated then the definition has to be made less reasonable and more biased.
By the way, the greatest African-American historian of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Arturo Schomburg, was Puerto Rican (born well prior to Puerto Rico becoming part of the United States, but a longtime U.S. resident and a naturalized U.S. citizen). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Alfonso_Schomburg It's sad that had he been elected to Congress he would have been excluded from the list of African-American Representatives because of the ignorant claim that "he's a Latino and he can't be both." (Curiously, there is no similar hand-wringing regarding persons who identify both as African Americans and Asian Americans, such as Congressman Robert C. Scott, Senator Kamala Harris or former Congressman Hansen Clarke.) I guess that Molefi Kete Asante, professor in the Department of African American Studies at Temple University, founder of Temple University's PhD program in African-American Studies, founding editor of the Journal of Black Studies, and president of the Molefi Kete Asante Institute for Afrocentric Studies should be laughed out of academia for having named an Afro-Latino, Arturo Schomburg, to his list of the 100 Greatest African Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_African_Americans
In conclusion, it's a shame when Wikipedia, instead of serving as a tool for spreading knowledge, is used merely as an organ for regurgitating the biases of a government institution with a peculiar agenda and of a political class that is afraid of immigrants. We can do better.
@AuH2ORepublican: Please see Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Please find WP:Reliable Sources that explicitly states that person A is an African-American Congress person. Or a reliable source that compiles a list of individuals as African-American Congress persons. Those are the only acceptable sources that will be entertained. Mitchumch (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be acceptable to find two WP:Reliable Sources, one that explicitly states that person A is an African American and a second that explicitly states that person A is a U.S. Representative? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."
Simply put, no. Mitchumch (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is totally crazy to me. You're wielding guidelines around as if WP:SENSE doesn't also exist. Espaillat identifies as black. Period. I know you perceive that you WP:OWN this page but Espaillat belong on it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: Rachel Dolezal also identifies as black. I fully addressed this issue. Mitchumch (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a totally ridiculous comparison. You cannot seriously be saying Espaillat is faking like Rachel Dolezal? This is a wild leap you're making to keep the page adhering to your own personal opinions of who is black enough for inclusion. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican:
Mitchumch isn't saying that Adriano Espaillat is insufficiently black, nor that he isn't an American. He's saying that the "Office of the Historian for Congress" did not include him on his list of African-American members of Congress, so for anyone to acknowledge, based on reliable sources, that Espaillat is (i) of substantial sub-Saharan African descent (and a descendant of African slaves, mind you), (ii) a naturalized U.S. citizen (and thus an American) and (iii) a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and hence that Espaillat is an African-American United States Representative is for such person to engage in "original research." Only the "Office of the Historian for Congress" can determine whether someone is an African-American Representative, because ... well, that part isn't very clear to me.
It seems to me that the Office of the Historian for Congress basically will categorize as African American those persons who have been invited to the Congressional Black Caucus, which is an official congressional caucus and thus has congressional imprimatur, except for African Americans who served prior to the creation of the CBC, of course; and the CBC won't let Adriano Espaillat join because a majority of its members are upset that he dared challenge CBC founding member Charles Rangel in a primary and later defeated Rangel's (black Anglo) preferred successor. The members of the CBC know full well that Espaillat is black--he clearly has more African ancestry than did his House predecessors Charles Rangel and Adam Clayton Powell, and, ironically given the CBC's stance, is the first member of Congress from Harlem to have Afro-textured hair--but politics trumps racial solidarity, and urban CBC members don't want these Spanish-speaking interlopers horning in on their gig. Had Range's Puerto Rican father not abandoned his family when Charles was a young boy and thus Charles had been fluent in Spanish, and had the Congressional Black Caucus been in existence (and supported Adam Clayton Powell despite his corruption allegations) back in 1970, perhaps the CBC similarly would have excluded that "Latino interloper" Rangel who defeated Powell on the strength of Hispanic votes. Ah, the vicissitudes of history.
In addition, the fact that the Office of the Historian for Congress has shown profound ignorance in compiling its supposed list of Hispanic and Latino members of Congress (including Azorean-Americans and Chamorros, who are neither Hispanic nor Latino, yet excluding quite a few persons of substantial Spanish descent) should give one pause before designating that office as the end-all, be-all of African-Americanness. I do not believe that the Office of the Historian for Congress is a particularly reliable source for these matters, much less the *only* source that should be accepted. Why shouldn't the opinion of the African American Registry--which describes Espaillat as an Afro Latino American (much like Congressman Mervyn Dymally was Afro-Trinidadian)--count for something? http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/afro-latino-adriano-espaillat-born
That being said, Mitchumch won't budge regarding the inclusion of a person whom the "Office of the Historian for Congress" has not added to its list, and I'm not interested in starting an editing war, much less against someone with whom I disagree strongly on this particular instance but who otherwise is as serious and fair an editor as I've encountered on Wikipedia. So, if we're voting, I strongly support the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat in the article devoted to African-American United States Representatives, but I'm not going to add him to the article unless there is a consensus that he should be added. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere:, @Mitchumch:
@AuH2ORepublican: You will have to provide the source for the assertion the CBC controls the list hosted by Congress. I've never seen that. Also, I've listed other WP:Reliable sources for the list in the "Further reading" and "External links" section. Simply put, provide a reliable source that states "African-American congressperson". I'm following Wikipedia site policy. Anything else is WP:Original research and Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Mitchumch (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch:, here's an article from the Atlanta Black Star stating that Adriano Espaillat is a black American member of Congress. http://atlantablackstar.com/2017/02/08/friend-foe-congressional-black-caucus-torn-whether-admit-first-afro-latino-ranks/ And here's an opinion piece in the Washingtonian explaining that Espaillat is both black and Latino, as is Charles Rangel, and is both an African-American Representative and a Latino Representative (as was Rangel). https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/02/10/the-black-caucus-should-accept-this-dominican-congressman/ What I can't produce is Espaillat's name on the Office of the Historian of Congress's list of African-American members of Congress. Nor will Espaillat's name appear on all of those pre-2016 sources that you cite, since he doesn't have access to a time machine. (By the way, the link to the on-line edition of the 2007 book on African-American members of Congress by Matthew Wasniewski (the current Historian of the U.S. House of Representatives--talk about an echo chamber) has gone dead, and the link to the supposed Wikipedia article on the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives sends one to the Wikipedia article on a New Zealand public entity.) There is a world of information outside of the sources that you cite, only one of which has been updated since 2016. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: I think I fixed the dead links and incorrect wikilinks. Thanks for the heads up.
Opinion pieces are not a reliable source. In the Atlanta Black Star article, where does it say Espaillat is a "black American member of Congress"? Please provide a quote.
@Mitchumch: The Atlanta Black Star article doesn't provide a sentence that literally reads "Espaillat is a black American member of Congress," because people don't write like that. The article does state, though, that Espaillat is black (and identifies as such), that he is a naturalized American (it provides that he's a former illegal alien, so he thus wasn't a U.S. citizen at birth) and that he was elected to Congress. My youngest daughter is in second grade, and she is expected to have achieved sufficient reading comprehension to be able to understand that the author is saying that Espaillat is a black American member of Congress. The sourcing rules that prohibit original research should not be interpreted to ask us to pretend that we don't possess reading comprehension.
Of course, the fact that the Atlanta Black Star deems Espaillat to be black (the fact that he's an American and a member of Congress is incontrovertible, even if there isn't a sentence somewhere that says exactly that in those words) may not be deemed sufficient to include him in the article, since other sources claim that Espaillat is *not* black, albeit simply because the authors have a prejudice that compels them to view "Hispanic" as a racial category that is mutually exclusive from true racial categories such as black and white. So I think that the issue here is whether the sources that claim that Espaillat is not black should be given more weight to those that assert that Espaillat is black, but we can't engage in that analysis if you only are willing to entertain sources that present information the way that the Office of the Historian of Congress presents it. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: Espaillat is quoted in the Atlanta Black Star as saying, ""I am a Latino of African descent. It doesn’t matter if you’re from Cuba or the Dominican Republic or South Carolina or Alabama, the roots are the same and I hope we can build upon that," he told the New York Daily News."
Charles Rangel is quoted in the Atlanta Black Star as saying, ""The fact that a Latino in this time wants to be identified as a Black member of Congress, I have no reason to believe he is not sincere," he added, while also acknowledging the underlying politics involved. "The CBC membership is probably weighing his sincerity of joining the CBC as an Afro-Latino. He may be politically positioning himself to make it difficult for an African-American to challenge him," Collazo said, arguing that lawmakers join certain caucuses to benefit their constituencies."
You said "Atlanta Black Star article doesn't provide a sentence that literally reads "Espaillat is a black American member of Congress," because people don't write like that. Yes, they do write like that as demonstrated above. They have for every person on this list.
The real issue here is ignoring WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:Original research. Mitchumch (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch: With all due respect, you should re-read the Atlanta Black Star article. First of all, Charles Rangel is not quoted at all in the article. It is Rafael Collazo (a local political analyst) who made that statement about Espaillat being Latino (which is incontrovertible) and wanting to join the CBC (which also is incontrovertible). And you didn't pick up on the fact that the author of the article (David Love) asserted that "[t]he evidence points to an embrace of his Black identity," with "his" referring to Espaillat. Simply put, the author indicates that Espaillat has "Black identity," since otherwise Espaillat wouldn't be able to "embrace" "his" "Black identity." The author then quotes Espaillat as asserting "I am a Latino of African descent. It doesn’t matter if you’re from Cuba or the Dominican Republic or South Carolina or Alabama, the roots are the same and I hope we can build upon that." The fact that the CBC doesn't want to "build upon that" does not make Espaillat any less black, nor magically convert his sub-Saharan African slave ancestors into Spaniards. (Espaillat does have some European ancestry, of course, but probably less than that of your average African-American member of Congress.)
By the way, in the article, Mr. Collazo also explains, for those bigots who believe that speaking Spanish automatically eliminates a person's black ancestry and history of slavery, that there is great "racial intersectionality" between blacks and Latinos in New York, particularly in NY-13, home of the Schomburg Center (named in honor of Arturo Schomburg, the greatest African-American historian of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who happened to be Puerto Rican). The author of the article also quotes Mr. Collazo as having noted that "the Latino population in the U.S. has come a long way and has become more aware of its intersectionality," directly quotes him as saying that “[t]his does speak to a greater awareness in the diaspora around Blackness. I think Obama’s tenure facilitated that process. It instilled pride among Blacks and Afro-Latinos around the world,” and further quotes Mr. Collazo as stating that the fact that the Trump Administration does not celebrate black issues would not "tamp down Blackness in Latin America."
The U.S. Census has a definition of "black" and/or "African American" and/or "Negro" (the 2010 Census still kept that term as an option because some older African Americans still identify with such term), which is pretty close to the one that you have provided in this article. I have provided evidence, from reliable sources, that Adriano Espaillat meets such definition. Those same articles acknowledge that he is an American citizen and a member of Congress, which are the other criteria for inclusion in this article. This article is not entitled "List of Persons Listed as African-American United States Representatives by the Office of the Historian for Congress," yet you have taken the editorial position that it does. For all the great work you have done to make Wikipedia a source of reliable information for people around the world, you inadvertently have fallen captive to the racial politics of the CBC when you rely solely upon the Office of the Historian for Congress as a source for post-2007 black members of Congress. I think that it's great that you take such pride of ownership in this article, but in this particular instance, my humble opinion is that you are doing a disservice to readers of Wikipedia. When a young black Latino goes to the article, and sees that Adriano Espaillat isn't there, how will he feel? As I've said before, I leave it up to you, because I know that Adriano Espaillat is an African American and is a member of Congress and don't need a Wikipedia article to tell me that, but I would be remiss if I didn't express my views to you, the person who has taken on the task of keeping this article up to date. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: I did incorrectly attribute a quote from Rafael Collazo to Charles Rangel. AuH2ORepublican, I am repeating myself for this particular person and discussion. I do not think I can add any new substance to this discussion than what I thus far stated after your first post about Adriano Espaillat on July 7, 2016. Mitchumch (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Atlanta Black Star site may or may not be a WP:Reliable source. A better source would be Caygle, Heather (February 3, 2017). "Black Caucus Chafes at Latino Who Wants to Join". Politico. Retrieved 15 March 2017.
For Charles Rangel, please see Eligon, John (May 22, 2012). "Even When His Latino Roots Might Help Politically, Rangel Keeps Them Buried". New York Times. Probably explains Rangel's absence on the Hispanic Americans in Congress roster. Mitchumch (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't going to happen here. There is a clear deviation on what the facts are behind a smokescreen of wiki guidelines/policies. What is needed is greater input from other editors. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: Please present the WP:Reliable sources that state Adriano Espaillat is an "African-American congressperson". Every person listed in this article has a reliable source that states they are an "African-American congressperson". Mitchumch (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not beating this dead horse with you. To get to the bottom of this, do you two want a WP:3O or WP:DRN? I ordinarly wouldn't think a DRN would be needed for something like this, but the entrenchment of views dividing the issue and the greater community input might be better to break the logjam. @AuH2ORepublican: Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: Feel free to proceed as you wish. Mitchumch (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight E. Evans[edit]

Dwight E. Evans needs to be added. He was elected as a Congressman from Pennsylvania's Second Congressional District in November 2016 and was sworn in that same month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasalleexplorer (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasalleexplorer: Please double check list. You appear to have overlooked his name. Mitchumch (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of African-American United States Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary content[edit]

JimmyJoe87 Why do you think the content you removed is unnecessary? Adam Clayton Powell Jr.'s exclusion and reelection are very pertinent details of his tenure. Julian Dixon was reelected to the 107th Congress, but that information is not visible in the "Congress" column. Therefore, it is necessary to make it part of his tenure through the "Notes" section. Mitchumch (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

AuH2ORepublican I have a question about two notes. The first being William J. Jefferson. Part of his note states, "First African-American Democrat to be defeated for reelection by a Republican." The second being Steven Horsford. Part of his note states, "first African-American Democrat to be defeated for reelection by a white Republican." Are you aware of any sources that substantiate these claims? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources for the fact that William Jefferson is a black Democrat, and that he was defeated in 2008 by a non-white Republican (Joseph Cao is a Vietnamese-American Republican). There also are many sources for the fact that Steven Horsford is a black Democrat, and that he was defeated in 2014 by a white Republican (Cresent Hardy is a white Republican). That these were the first times that such events occurred in the House of Representatives is evident by looking at the list of African-American U.S. Representatives and their electoral history, which shows that no black Democrat incumbent Representative lost to a Republican before 2008 and that no black Democrat incumbent Representative lost to a white Republican before 2014. Those are facts.
Alas, I don’t know if anyone has combined all of those facts in a sentence before, so feel free to strike them from the article, lest someone accuse us of daring to say that 2 + 2 = 4. Deleting such facts won’t make them any less true, any more than refusing to include Adriano Espaillat in an article that purports to list all African-American U.S. Representatives makes him any less black, any less American or any less a congressman from New York. It does, however, make this article less worthwhile to read and less educational. But, hey, it’s your article, so do as you wish. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."
I'll remove those statements as they are both clear violations of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch, as I’ve stated before, I believe that you are using the general prohibition on original research to ban facts that don’t fit your worldview. Reading the examples of things barred by the SYNTH policy, and things whose deletion constitutes an abuse of the SYNTH policy, I believe that your overzealousness in banning any statement that has never been published just-so is an abuse of the SYNTH policy. Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not The policy makes clear that when gauging whether an edit constitutes original research one should not require “that a secondary student should be able to evaluate whether the cited sources suffice to verify a particular assertion.” By taking a position that it is “original research” to read an article stating that Espaillat is of substantial black African descent (and identifies as black) and an American in conjunction with a second article stating that Espaillat is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and thus concluding that Espaillat is an African-American member of Congress, you are imposing a standard of early elementary school on what constitutes verification of a statement. The end result is that you have imposed a policy that Afro-Latino Americans are not “real African-Americans” (a clear violation of NPV) and that only the Historian of the Congress can determine whether a member of Congress is black (which he is loath to do when the group purporting to represent black members of Congress—the Congressional Black Caucus—refuses to accept Espaillat’s application to the CBC due to the CBC being miffed that Espaillat challenged CBC founding member Charles Rangel in a primary and, more generally, due to the CBC being wary of Afro-Latino Anericans horning in on the political turf of non-Hispanic African-Americans). Your policy buries verifiable facts instead of presenting them in context. Given that Espaillat meets the definition of African-American congressman that you set forth in the first paragraph of the introductory section of the article, the NPV solution would be to include Espaillat on the list but add an asterisk alerting readers that the CBC has denied his application. Why not do that intead of declaring that a person with substantial descent from sub-Saharan African slaves, and who publicly embraces his identity as an African American, can’t be deemed to be an African American if he grew up speaking Spanish?
And regarding your deletion, under the guise of the SYNTH policy, of facts regarding the defeat by Republicans of William Jefferson and Steven Horford, this is another example of assuming that a Kindergartener should be able to understand the logic behind the verification. The article itself provides a (purportedly exhaustive) list of African American Representatives, and has sourced information on how they left office. Going through the list and finding that Jefferson and Horsford are the only Democratic African-American Representatives to have been defeated for reelection by a Republican is no more “original research” or “synthesis” than, say, counting the number of African-American U.S. Senators and providing the number that were appointed to office and the number that were elected to office. 1 + 1 = 2 is neither original nor an exercise of the associative property of addition (a property that, anyhow, one learns by second or third grade). I think that it would be eminently fair for you to question the notability of such information, and I am prepared to argue that the fact that it took until 2008 for a black Democrat congressman to be defeated by a Republican, and that the racial aspect of Horsford’s 2014 defeat also is notable (although I will admit that the latter’s notability is less obvious). But the facts that I had set forth in those footnotes are both correct and easily verifiable using acceptable sources, and it is silly to delete them by crying “SYNTH!” merely because no one that I have found in my three-minute research has written a sentence precisely noting such facts.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to become a researcher or a scholar, and while it is flattering that you consider it “original research” when I simply view information holistically, I am not breaking new ground when I say that a black person in Congress is a black congressman or when I count to the number 2. I think that you are using SYNTH in a way that is unmerited (and against which the Wikipedia policies warn), and that you should reconsider your deletions. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your arguments in previous discussions. If you feel this strongly about it, then I would suggest you contest the issue at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. My response will remain the same. Mitchumch (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilhan Omar[edit]

Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia which is, you know, in Africa. Is there any specific reason we're not including her, or what? I didn't want to add her if there's a specific reason we're not including her. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Ilhan Omar originally from Somalia (which is in sub-Saharan Africa), her father is Somali (a black ethnicity) and her mother Benadiri (a multiracial ethnicity with a large black component). She is a black African and a naturalized U.S. citizen, so she clearly meets the definition set forth in the article's introductory section: "The U.S. Census Bureau defines African Americans as citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.[2] The term is generally used for Americans with at least partial ancestry in any of the original peoples of sub-Saharan Africa." So I think that she should be included among the Representatives-elect in the article." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MAINEiac4434, I didn't know there was a discussion surrounding Ilhan Omar. The reason she was not listed is because I could not find reliable sources stating she is African American. If you can find WP:Reliable sources stating that she is African American, then she can remain on the list. If not, then her entry will need to be removed. This list is based solely upon reliable sources. Mitchumch (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was born in Somalia. She is literally an African who is an American. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Voice of America describing her as the "first African refugee in Congress. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MAINEiac4434 I understand your argument and your position. Please be aware that the definition of an African American in reliable sources is fluid and not logical or consistent. I understand that this is puzzling. I learned this fact from experience.
If you are not able to find reliable sources that state she is African American, then there is a reason for that. She received alot of news coverage as the first Somali American and first Muslim congresswoman. I could not find any news coverage stating she is African American. Everybody on this list is in reliable sources as an African American, with no exceptions. Mitchumch (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is The Washington Post a reliable source? This article describes Omar as an *African American* elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from a white-majority district (as well as seven other African Americans also elected in white-majority CDs): https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/19/this-november-eight-mostly-white-districts-elected-black-members-of-congress-thats-a-breakthrough/ AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AuH2ORepublican That looks good. I'll add that reference. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment, can you provide a source that Somali is a black ethnicity? What does that even mean?
The census isn't a proper source because it doesn't explain who the "black racial groups" are, nor does 1 nation get to describe the race/ethnicity of another. Somalis are the Somali ethnicity. Having said all this; I'm fine with having her included because African-American is a vague umbrella term that doesn't imply anymore than having roots from the African continent, just be aware that even North Africans are also "African-American".
Now if your definition of African-American implies that it's an ethnicity or ethnic label then only those who trace their roots to the transatlantic slave trade should be called African American because Somali is its own ethnicity.2602:302:D1DE:9B90:74BC:1353:A8BD:CCA (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If only descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade qualified as African American, then, for example, Barack Obama would not be deemed an African American. But that is not how the term "African American" is used in the United States, either colloquially or officially. I think that what is required is substantial ancestry from the native inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa, which certainly includes Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and other populations from the Horn of Africa that, while having admixture with non-African ethnic groups through the years, are still substantially sub-Saharan African. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major edits[edit]

AAMerri12 Why did you remove the "Congress" column? Mitchumch (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is forever expanding, we need to try and make it more compact. I have looked at related articles, for example, Women in the United States House of Representatives or List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress and I've noticed that they use the exact same format as in Party, Portrait, Name, State (Where they served), Term start, Term end and the reason why they left Congress. However, the only difference between all of these articles and this article is the Congress column, which takes up a lot of room and isn't very beneficial or necessary. That is why I think we should remove it. Keep everything else the same, but to save space in the article we should take that section out. AAMerri12 (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AAMerri12 There is no imperative to compact the article. Wikipedia is not paper.
The two related articles have elements in their wikitables that are not present in this wikitable. The List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress has a "Hispanic or Latino ancestry" column and both list articles have their "Notes" column with text visible within the columns. There is no imperative to make this article look exactly like those two articles.
I'm assuming you meant to say "is [not] very beneficial or necessary". Each Representative is a member of a specific Congress. In other words, they were part of a specific body of Representatives designated by the Congress they served in. That is why each Congress is assigned a number. That detail is very pertinent to each member. Mitchumch (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say there is no imperative, but that is merely your opinion, I on the other hand disagree with you.
The table about their ancestry is there so we know which part of the world, they or their ancestors were originally from. We don't have one in this article because it isn't the same thing.
If we look at the other related articles, about any other minorities, whether it be about Women, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, LGBT, Arab/Middle Eastern or Native American none of them have a column for which congress they served in, because it is not necessary or relevant. "That is why each Congress is assigned a number. That detail is very pertinent to each member." why is that relevant to this article? AAMerri12 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea there is an imperative to compact this article is a personal opinion. You haven't provided proof that there is an imperative.
I understand why the ancestry column is there. I pointed it out as an example as a column unique to that article.
There is no Wikipedia mandate that this article appear exactly like those articles. Each Representative are members of a specific Congress. That detail is pertinent for the same reason the "Took office" and "Left office" columns are pertinent. Those three columns inform the reader about when each member served and during which Congress. Each Congress has a specific history associated with it. It is redundant to this article that those other articles don't have the "Congress" column. Mitchumch (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you haven't provided enough proof as to why that column needs to be there, when similar and related articles do not have it included.
Exactly, the ancestry column is important in the Hispanic/Latino, Asian and Middle Eastern/Arab articles, as is the tribe column in Native American or sexual orientation in the LGBT article, however the Congress column is not.
The column is not pertinent in any way. The term columns are necessary because readers like to know when the politicians were elected, when they left office and why they left. I have seen no editors writing about which congress they served in, nor have I seen people attempting to add a congress column to related articles, since it is not important or relevant. Each congress may have history associated with it, but that's why politicians have individuals articles written about themselves, so you can find out more them, furthermore just because someone served in that particular congress doesn't mean they had any impact etc AAMerri12 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch I have reverted my edits and re-added the Congress column. AAMerri12 (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Updates[edit]

I tried to make the necessary updates now that the 116th Congress has commenced, but was making a major mess of things (the columns and margins were not cooperating) and did not submit my edits (apart from updates to the introductory paragraphs, which did go through without a hitch). As far as I can tell, the only pending items are:

1. Adding service in the 116th Congress (2019-2021) to returning members; and

2. Updating Congressman Horsford original entry so that it includes his service in the 116th Congress, and deleting his superfluous second entry.

I would appreciate it if someone more tech-savvy than me would submit such updates.

Thank you. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:African-American gospel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generations[edit]

Currently, the article lists four generations of African-American members of the House: 

   1 First generation of African-American House members, 1870–1887 (15 members)
   2 Second generation of African-American House members, 1889–1901 (5 members)
   3 Third generation of African-American House members, 1929–1970 (12 members)
   4 Fourth generation of African-American House members, 1971–present (115 members)

I get that the first two generations represent Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction, but I don't get what the rationale is for the dating of the third and fourth generations--although I was able to figure out where they come from (https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Black-Americans-in-Congress/). Does anyone else think this timeline seems awkward and unbalanced? SunCrow (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. It also might be helpful for there to be a short explanation of what these "generations" are and how they're determined, and WHY there is a gap between 1901 and 1929. Carlo (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mitchumch just restored these, I'll say that the previous method was better since we don't have reliable sources actually grouping members by "generations", especially not with the aforementioned 3rd/4th split. With three small sections and one huge section this doesn't really make sense. We could combine everything into one big sortable table, or do pre- and post-Voting Rights Act members or something, but the 1970 divider is arbitrary/OR. Reywas92Talk 04:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 The reliable source is from Congress itself, https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Black-Americans-in-Congress/. The previous method had no reliable source to justify it or I didn't see the reliable source mentioned. Mitchumch (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm thanks! This need to be explained in the lead or at the top of each section then. Reywas92Talk 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 I agree completely. I think the points raised above were good points, but I've been away for awhile and will need time to write that summary. Mitchumch (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make a suggestion, given that the House Clerk's article described the period from 1971 to the present as "the modern era," and since only in the Bible is a period of 50 years called "a generation," maybe the heading for members from 1971 to the present could be changed to "Modern Era (1971 to present) instead of keeping it as the confusing "Fourth Generation." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AuH2ORepublican I'm not invested in the term "generation", but I only want to retain the four periods of time. I'm open to suggestions. How about:
1 Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction era, 1870–1887
2 Post-Reconstruction, Populist, and Jim Crow era, 1887–1929
3 Jim Crow and Civil Rights era, 1929–1970
4 Modern era, 1971–present
Mitchumch (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchumch, I think those are adequate names for the eras described in each of the House Clerk's articles. I've never liked the term "Redemption" to describe what followed Reconstruction, and "Post-Reconstruction" is as good a descriptor as any. But given that Post-Reconstruction and Jim Crow took place during more than one of the Clerk's articles, how about using the following captions?

1 Reconstruction and Early Post-Reconstruction era, 1870–1887
2 Late Post-Reconstruction, Populist, and Early Jim Crow era, 1887–1929
3 Late Jim Crow and Civil Rights era, 1929–1970
4 Modern era, 1971–present

AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AuH2ORepublican Done, with minor capitalization change. Mitchumch (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Notes in the main tables.[edit]

I don't understand why the "Notes" column has internal links rather than having the text about their departure from office as text directly in the tables. Since the info is (to my mind at least) more interesting and notable than the dry data of the date of departure, I think it would make more sense and be more readable to include such as text. peatswift (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text of a typical Note in the article: "Elected to fill vacancy caused by the resignation of Earl Chudoff in 1958. Lost office during renomination. First African American to serve in Congress from Pennsylvania." That's a lot of text to be adding to the Notes column. By including a footnote in the column and all of that information in the footnote's text, the table remains compact, readable and scrollable. If you want to read the Note about any of the members, just click on the footnote and you're there. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The national origin and/or ethnicity of United States Representatives of African-American/Black racial category should be mentioned when possible.[edit]

The national origin and/or ethnicity of United States Representatives of African-American/Black racial category should be mentioned when possible. This is because other lists of people of color in the United States Congress does the same exact thing and this format should be implemented across the several pages of similar topics. For example the Wikipedia article for the List of Arab and Middle Eastern Americans in the United States Congress and List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress does the same thing for Arab, Middle Eastern, North African, and West Asian decent and people of Hispanic and Latino decent respectively in which their national heritage origin and/or ethnicity is mentioned. I know that not all African-Americans know their constituent ethnicity or national origin but the ones that do and have it mentioned in their respective Wikipedia articles should have theirs's stated - that's why some are mentioned while I had not finished finding the others yet, I was letting other editors finish the rest if or when they find it - @AuH2ORepublican: -. . ItsLife1 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in those articles, we've traditionally only mentioned the heritage relevant to that article, e.g. List of Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in the United States Congress mentions Marilyn Strickland as being Korean but doesn't mention her African American heritage, nor does List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress for Ritchie Torres. Likewise were this included here, we would not include the mixed Latino backgrounds. Since Neguse and Omar may be the only ones on the list with specific African background rather than the indeterminate origin of most Black Americans, I see no need for a whole column for this. Moreover, Neguse and Omar's national heritage is already mentioned in the footnote. I think these need to be moved into the table rather than shoved to the bottom of the page so they can better highlight these relevant facts. Reywas92Talk 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsLife1: If you read the edit history of this article and its sister article for Senators, as well as prior Talk page discussions in both articles, you will find that references to a black Representative's immigrant family origin often leads to claims that, while the person in question is black, that he or she isn't *really* "African American" because his ancestors weren't slaves in the United States. Adding a column that will include information only regarding African-American Representatives whose black ancestors emigrated to the United States after the abolition of slavery--unfortunately, there is verifiable genealogical information going back to Africa for very few American slaves--would only serve to revive POV claims that Congressman X isn't really African American because his family came from Barbados or (with no sense of irony) directly from Africa in the 20th century. I don't think that it would add value to the article to create a pseudo "caste system" dividing persons whose black ancestors were brought to America in chains from those whose black ancestors emigrated voluntarily--Jesse Jackson, Jr., Tim Scott and Eva Clayton do not have a better claim to be called "African American" than do Shirley Chisholm, Barack Obama or Kamala Harris. So I think that it would be immaterial to add an "ancestry" or "ethnicity" column to this article or to its Senate counterpart. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eras[edit]

I created the decade distinctions because a similar thing is done at Women in the United States House of Representatives. The "modern era" table has become too big to navigate comfortably. Not sure why it was reverted. Kingofthedead (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion under "Generations" above, which provides the reliable source (the Office of the Historian of the United States Congress) that is cited to divide the article into four sections. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Congress[edit]

I was looking at this article in comparison to it's neighbours such as List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress, Women in the United States House of Representatives and List of Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in the United States Congress for example and realised that this article was a lot bigger than them due to having far more column categories such as Congress & a separate one for notes and references.

Since we know they are African American do we need a reference column or can references be put into notes and change it to Notes/References if needs be or deleted altogether as they take up a third of the page? I was also wondering if we could create a new table as to why they left office as currently the reasons are buried in notes.

Also do we need a Congress category as it is taking up a lot of space and other similar articles do not seem to have it, I mean Charles Rangel's section is ginormous, and could congressional districts be put into one box, similar to Women in Congress, so that space is preserved as this article will only get bigger and more cumbersome?.

Other similar articles follow this pattern: |- !Portrait !Name
(lifespan) !Party !District !Term start !Term end !Reason(s) for leaving

So I was wondering if a format similar to this might be implemented?

@AuH2ORepublican you've done work on this article, I was wondering what you think? Nnnou2 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has included such information for years, and I do not think that it should be removed. There is no rule that all similar articles should be identical. I am but one editor, but I would vote against the removal of such information. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. What about my idea to add why they left congress column though. Surely it shouldn't be hidden away in a notes section when it's an extremely important reason as being defeated or losing renomination are things that other editors should be able to see clearly! Maybe we could swap references to reason for leaving, since references take up 33% of page or just add a new column entirely. Nnnou2 (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those notes include, in the footnote, more than just the reason for leaving (and have for years), so included the text in the column and not a footnote would make the table unbearably long. I understand that you do not consider the congresses in which black representatives served to be important enough to merit such a wide column, but others do, and have supported such column for a long time. If you wish to change that, you should offer an RfD, but, personally, I am not likely to vote in favor of such change. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried unbanishing the notes from the footnotes, and because the images or Congresses are consistently longer than the text, I do not at all see it as "unbearably long". I think the Congresses are good to include, though they could be consolidated without needing separate spans for each district for those redistricted, or simplifying the "Thru" to be within cells rather than taking up its own. The reference can also be moved to the notes column rather than taking up its own column. Should be able to do the latter pretty easily with AWB. Reywas92Talk 01:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "unbanishing" I call ruining how the article looks, and has looked for many years. I know that you did it just to see how it would look, and that you are aware that you would need to obtain a consensus to make such change permanent (which is why you described your edit as "testing"), but you should make it clearer that you are seeking comments from editors regarding your proposal. We know your preference, and I think that you know my view about making entries five times as long as they were before by moving the footnotes' text into the Notes column proper, so you should find out what other editors think. This article has had some very active editors through the years, and you should ping them to gauge their views. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this "ruins" the article. In the prior version each row ends in two columns that are empty except for refs/footnotes that send you to the bottom of the page for relevant info. In my suggestion [2] or [3] (further adjustments may be needed) each row ends with one column of information relevant to the representative, which is generally shorter than the image or Congresses so it does not lengthen the page and which saves the reader from having to jump back and forth between the table and footnotes. Footnotes are great when they're sporadic details, but not so much when nearly every entry has one and it's most of the article's prose content. Pinging other contributors @Mitchumch: @Americus55: @Corkythehornetfan: @Therequiembellishere: @Woko Sapien: @Kingofthedead: @RayneVanDunem: for thoughts. Reywas92Talk 05:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think a column for why they left should be included in the main section as each election year articles are written about why people left congress, what was the reason etc so it's important for readers to be able to see it in the main section without having to scroll around trying to find it, plus as it will be sortable the reader can see how many left for a particular reason. Newspaper articles don't say "Jesse Jackson Jr, who served from the 104th to 112th congress" they say "Jesse Jackson Jr who resigned from congress after being jailed for fraud". I agree with @Reywas92 that the column for reference should be merged into notes as it's not important enough to merit it's own column, though certain info should still be in note form such as "First African American to serve in Congress from Ohio" or "Served as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus in..." as that's what neighbouring articles do. Nnnou2 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've long thought this stranglehold has been down to AuH2ORepublican's claimed ownership of the article and didn't bother to have the energy to argue against it. I support revisions to make the formatting closer to those used by all other similar articles, particularly the removal of Congresses served in when we have dates. I find the comment, "I understand that you do not consider the congresses in which black representatives served to be important enough to merit such a wide column, but others do, and have supported such column for a long time." to be particularly questionable and tinges on bad faith in tone. Admittedly far from a close watcher of every edit that happens on this page, but I really doubt anyone but Goldwater Republican cares about it and, like me, just haven't bothered to contest it knowing that they're just going to revert it again. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite confused about that. Read the edits and the Talk discussion on this article and see if you still think that (i) I have anything to do with the information about Congresses or the use of footnotes to denote how they left office, much less anything that connotes "ownership" of this article (if I purported to "own" this article, I would have added Adriano Espaillat years ago. The only presentation changes on which I have been active here involve having a separate table for members elect to as to avoid WP:CRYSTAL vioations when members-elect are incorrectly presented as sitting members of the House. I also contributed to the renaming of the "generations" to which the members are divided, but had nothing to with the adoption or preservation of such divisions. So give your opinion on the article and cut out the silly accusations. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have, thanks. Bye. "I support revisions to make the formatting closer to those used by all other similar articles, particularly the removal of Congresses served in when we have dates." Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be possible to put the Congresses underneath the dates: Took office: March 4, 1929 (br) 71st Congress, Left office January 3, 1935 (br) 73rd Congress. The years of each Congress are particularly unnecessary. The former's not as easy to do with AWB though. Reywas92Talk 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually in favor of making Wikipedia less cluttered. So if this makes the article cleaner and less unruly, by all means give it a shot.--Woko Sapien (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are people in favour of the congress section being removed in order to make the article less cluttered? It seems to be the case but I wanted to see what the consensus was before it was removed?? Nnnou2 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I vote against such removal of content. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_African-American_United_States_representatives&oldid=1208199387"