Talk:African Americans/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Definition

The current definition of African-Americans stands as "citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States." And the source for this information is sourced to a study done by the Lewis Center in Albany. The page doesn't define African-Americans at all, much less as what the article describes them as. I suggest we quickly find a reliable source that actually has a clear definition of who an African-American is. I also question the definition in that it says "direct descendants of enslaved Africans", does that mean that if a black person native to Africa were to immigrate to the United States today, they wouldn't be considered an African-American? What would you call them?--174.49.24.190 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Now the citation is to a dictionary definition that directly contradict the text in wikipedia. I have therefore copyeditted the text to reflect what the source actually says

African Americans[3] (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa.[4] Most African Americans are of West African descent and are descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States.[5] However, some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations, or their descendants, may also self-identify with the term.[4]

Please note that it is NOT the function of wikipedia to DEFINE what a term means, but merely to recognize what it means from external sources.

Note also that the definition that excludes Barack Obama is being cited on [[1]] to support denying that he is African-American. rewinn (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaners

Are Afrikaner immigrants in the U.S. considered "African Americans" even if they are white? They should because they were born in Africa and during the last three centuries their ancestors lived in Africa while the ancestors of black Americans lived in the U.s.....--83.54.106.17 (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer is no. First, let me repeat that it is NOT the function of wikipedia to DEFINE what a term means, but merely to recognize what it means from external sources. Thus while there is some formal logic behind calling Afrikaners "African American", the authorities do not. See, for example, the US Census Bureau. [2] Part of the problem seems to be the name "African" is somewhat confusing, but that is true of "Caucasian" as well; the vast majority of Caucasians have nothing to do with that mountain range. rewinn (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Size of ancestry

AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN ANCESTRY It is not correct that "African American" is the third largest ancestry in the U.S. after German Americana and Irish Americans, because Germany and Ireland are nations while Africa is a Continent. The correct answer would be "Senegalese Americans" or "Sierra Leone Americans" or "Nigerian Americans"...Not "African Americans". That is ridiculous and even a 10 year old child knows that Africa is a Continent, not a nation. In fact, in North Africa most Africans are white Berbers, Arabs, Kopts and Greek, and in South Africa 9% of the population is white (Afrikaner and English basically).....--83.54.106.17 (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As above, it is NOT the function of wikipedia to DEFINE what a term means, but merely to recognize what it means from external sources. "African American" is a term in common use, even if it meets with your personal disapproval; see, for example, the US Census Bureau. [3] Basically, your argument confuses the term "ancestry" with "nationality"; you may well be correct about the latter but this article is about the former. rewinn (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To the person that is too cowardly to create a username, let me address your comments. First, this is not about nationality, this is about ancestry. Everybody knows Africa is a continent that's made up of 54 sovereign countries. If a person from Nigeria would become a U.S. citizen, the person is Nigerian-American. Same thing with Sierra Leonean-American, Senegalese-American, Ghanaian-American, Ethiopian-American, etc. However, that's not what this is about. This is about ancestry, not nationality. You're confusing the two words. Second, the continent of Africa did not have national borders when the Atlantic Slave Trade was occuring. Back then, people were separated by ethnicity (Yoruba, Fulani, Igbo, Ashanti, Fon, etc.). National borders were created in the late 1800s by the European powers due to the Scramble for Africa conference in Berlin, Germany. Third, what makes a person white or black? There are plenty of dark-skinned South Asians that are just as dark or darker than people of African descent and indigenous Africans and there are plenty of fair-skinned East Asians that share the same skin tone of indigenous Europeans or European descendants. Fourth, why the hell do you care about how someone identifies themself when it comes to ethnicity or race? It's none of your business. Take your stupidity and ignorance somewhere else. B-Machine (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues: Some changes and maybe adding it to others?

Also wanted to say that the Contemporary Issues portion was nicely written in my opinion and basically summed up the said Health section without the added controversial facts. I will say though that maybe the first sentence of the last paragraph which says:

"One of the most serious and long standing issues within African American communities is poverty."

Should be changed to say instead:

"One of the most serious and long standing issues within African American communities, as with most underprivileged races within a society, is poverty."

I say this because if I am not mistaken, African Americans weren't the first race struggling with poverty and low education. In North America alone for example, it was the Native Americans who've had similar struggles (if not more) before African slaves were even introduced into the country, and in China's history foreigners were forced to become more like themselves through assimilation, so imagine how these cultures were treated if they didn't comply.

Back on the topic, This portion (Contemporary issues) is also seen in Native american article. I am wondering, why not add this to every race? Or would I be asking to much? I strongly think it is a very interesting thing to note in these articles as it gives each race a neutral viewpoint on their current struggles as of now. This can be very informative on learning current issues dealt by majority races too - which the average person (who is of a different nationality) wouldn't normally think about, mind you. Any thoughts on this? (Gigafrost (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

Countries from which blacks came

The following table was removed from the immediately previous version of this subject:

    Origins and Percentages of Africans
    imported into British North America
    and Louisiana (1700–1820)

I think that this is valuable information and should be in the material here, if proper reference is given, and it should not have been removed. (Dumarest (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

Include Richard B Moore who was part of the Push to drop negro

Richard B. Moore is left out of the push to adopt African American vs. Negro. Please include him. I am an ip editor and cannot edit. [4] Also the article mentions Jackson as popularizing the term but forgets to mention Malcolm X "coining" the term. --41.177.100.196 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Article about African Americans and politics

I found:

• Walters, Ron. "Blacks and the Democratic Party: Voters Felt Devalued and Heard No Message, so Many of Them Stayed Home." The Nation. December 16, 2002. Volume 275, Issue 1, Page 18.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the definition of black races of Africa used by the US census?

Not a troll - actually curious. Does it include Bushman/San people and North African (groups often excluded from the black category in Africa)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious about another thing: which countries include racial queries in their census taking? I have the hunch they must be very few, possibly none other than the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.187.90 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

african american probably means those with ancestors from sub-saharan africa, so people from north africa would probably be called middle eastern.

It seems like wikipedias definition of race is social and not technical or scientific, coz from example there are a lot of mixed race africans on this page, obama is technically half European American. wikipeda des not state how many of your ancestors came from africa for you to be caled african american.

Also this does not include any White Africans who are also born/Naturalization americans.and by the way the uk also collect race data in their census.--86.6.234.40 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

incarceration

But an oft-cited statistic among those who point out the existence of racism today is that while blacks are 13% of the overall population, they are nearly 40% of the prison population. Surely, this would merit inclusion as a notable fact under demographics?--Louiedog (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz concerning edit reversion

Hi, perhaps you'd like to discuss in here? Firstly, you mention WP:RS but the sources provided are all reliable as per WP:RS. Secondly, which sources in particular do you have an issue with? Thirdly, which part of my edit specifically do you believe to be untrue or unsourced? Thanks! :) Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDFLAG and WP:BURDEN.

The first site, The WEYANOKE Association. What makes them a reliable source?

The second source is Steve Sailer. What qualifies him as an expert? The fact that he writes for racist websites?

The third source is a YouTube video from George Lopez's late night talk show. Really? That's a reliable source?

I'm curious why you think any of these sources is reliable per WP:IRS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Before replying directly to you post, allow me to just clarify some things. 1) Is your issue with my edit that you believe it to be untrue, or simply that you believe it to be poorly sourced? 2) Is it my entire addition that you have a problem with, or just parts of it? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article is the appropriate place to debate whether race is a social construct. If consensus is that this page is an appropriate place for it, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede. See WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you keep piling on sources, but they don't say what you think they say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So now you've changed your original reasoning from "Bad sources" to "I don't think X is appropriate". I see. Regardless, my addition is not at all a "debate whether race is a social construct", and the fact that you actually believe this I find quite frustrating. My addition is a highly important distinction that needs to immediately be made about the term "African American" (that the term "African American" is a very broad term which encapsulates anyone with even the slightest of native sub-Saharan African ancestry). Why do you disagree that this important? I certainly believe that such a distinction - being so fundamental - warrants a place in WP:LEDE. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My answer changed because you changed your question. As I wrote from the beginning, you need to read WP:REDFLAG. An addition that starts with "contrary to common belief" needs to be referenced with high-quality sources. None of the sources you used were reliable sources, let alone quality sources.

You may believe whatever you'd like about the lede, but it would help quite a bit if you would read WP:LEDE. The lede summarizes the article. It isn't the appropriate place to introduce novel theories. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"None of the sources you used were reliable sources, let alone quality sources." heh, clearly prominent google scholarly papers with hundreds of citations are reliable, you're just using this as an excuse to push forth an agenda. Will be making a formal request for assistance and a complaint :) Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article and it is inappropriate to introduce new material there. Some version of the material (if it can be based on reliable sources) MAY be appropriate to the section "Who is African American", but even if this is done it does not seem that this would merit a mention in the article lede. The POV that the term "is merely a social classification" ignores just how important that this particular "social classification" is in understanding American history. This importance is, and should be, the major focus of this article -- the fact that African Americans have a complex genetic make-up has had little if anything to do with the political, economic, and social history of African Americans. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that African Americans are composed of many different races and ancestries is an absolutely crucial and fundamental point, and needs to be immediately placed in the lead. It is currently missing from the article. This is simply not acceptable for WP, as such I will be pursuing higher action. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the first sentence of the article that clearly makes the point that African Americans "... have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa". Your point has already been made in this definition. Further details, if properly sourced, do not need to be in the lead. As far as your pursuit of "higher action", edits such as this [5] may not be the best idea in the world. Among the other editing aids you've been asked to check out, add Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The mention of "at least partial ancestry" does not make the point. It needs to be explicitly stated that "African Americans are composed of many different races and ancestries", as it is such a fundamental and crucial point to make regarding African-Americans. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's such a fundamental and crucial point, surely you won't have trouble finding high-quality sources that make the point that African American is a social classification. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read previous post more carefully in future. I said "It needs to be explicitly stated that "African Americans are composed of many different races and ancestries" no mention of social classification. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Can you explain why this is an "absolutely crucial and fundamental point"? The defining characteristic of African Americans is our sub-Saharan ancestry, not the fact that we have other ancestries as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me just make this clear. We have here an article about African Americans. I see no mention of the fact that Native Americans and White Europeans make up a huge percentage of the African American population. Do you disagree that this is an omission of a crucial point regarding African Americans - their genes themselves? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. Native Americans and white Europeans do not make up a "huge percentage" of the African-American population. Rather, genetic contributions from Native Americans and white Europeans are found in the genes of most African Americans. There is a world of difference between the two assertions.

In any event, you still have not answered my question. Why is it such an "absolutely crucial and fundamental point"? As I wrote, it's not a defining characteristic of African-American people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Current article states "Most African Americans are of West and Central African descent and are descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States." No mention of the large genetic contribution of Native Americans, White Europeans, or East Asians to the African American population. I feel this is highly racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be the silliest thing I've read on Wikipedia in a long time. I'll tell you what. When Italians mentions the genetic contributions of Africans to the Italian genome, we can argue about how racist it is that African Americans are defined by their sub-Saharan ancestry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Racism? whats that? you cant be racist. racism does not exist because race does not exist acording to the wikipedia page race. its a social construction. no african american have ever had any racism throughout history. not once. humans have been treating other people because they thought they were of a different race then humans. at least acording to the race pages implication. so either those sources are unreliable in the same way some sources here might be unreliable, or there is an agenda thats pushed and still pushed on this page. So, is there any agenda pushed here against some african americans. then again using malcom x in the portrait itself implies something about african americans as anti semetic. " In short the Zionist argument to justify Israel's present occupation of Arab Palestine has no intelligent or legal basis in history ... not even in their own religion. Where is their Messiah? –Malcolm X a.k.a. Al-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz, Sept. 17, 1964" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.198 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wha? --Blake Burba (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is hilarious.

Sources

• "Featured Ethnic Group: African Americans." Wake Forest University.
  • http://www.webcitation.org/67Dbt8tBo

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remove Health section for now. Until/If we are going to add it one every other race.

Sorry for a long read, but I need to address this in this manner, as it seems like it's starting to be ignored...

I agree with B-Machine, and have recently noticed that the last talk on the issue regarding the notion of the negative health facts on African Americans (AAs) has been addressed two months ago, but still I haven't seen any changes in regards to his/her request. I believe that what was said was very valid and I myself have looked on the other races to see if there was a Health section, but indeed there is still none. As this site is supposed to provide users with sound and valid information (though these facts may be true), it is still supposed to be a place where there can be absolutely NO GROUNDS for one race to see themselves as superior to another, or any differentiated groups for that manner. True, a lot of what is said on blacks verses whites can be sourced, but blowing up an article with this information only excludes the group with negative stigmas that only "rubs salt in the wound" of an already frowned-upon race.

Some examples taken from the article on Health as examples of generalizing blacks as more inferior to whites which will stir up controversy:

-African Americans continue to have lower life expectancies on average than whites in the United States. Even with rates adjusted for age, African Americans are 1.6 times more likely to die from one of the 10 leading causes of death in the United States than European Americans.

-At the same time, the life expectancy gap is affected by collectively lower access to quality medical care. With no system of universal health care, access to medical care in the U.S. generally is mediated by income level and employment status. As a result, African Americans, who have a disproportionate occurrence of poverty and unemployment as a group, are more often uninsured than non Hispanic whites or Asians. For a great many African Americans, healthcare delivery is limited, or nonexistent. And when they receive healthcare, they are more likely than others in the general population to receive substandard, even injurious medical care. African Americans have a higher prevalence of some chronic health conditions.

-African Americans are twice as likely to have diabetes as whites, and twice as likely to die from the disease.

-African American men are twice as likely to have diabetes induced end-stage kidney disease, and twice as likely to die of it than white men of the same age. African Americans are 1.7 times more likely to have a stroke and 60% more likely to die from it. Two reasons for poorer health are lack of routine preventative medical care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, and lack of a primary care physcian.

-While 1 in 6 Americans (16.2 percent) between the ages of 14 and 49 is infected with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), the infection rate is more than three times higher among blacks (39.2 percent) than whites (12.3 percent). The most affected group is black women, with a prevalence rate of 48 percent.

-African Americans are the American ethnic group most affected by HIV and AIDS, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Black men are six times more likely to have HIV than white men and black women are nearly 18 times more likely to have HIV than white women.

-It has been estimated that "184,991 adult and adolescent HIV infections [were] diagnosed during 2001–2005" (1). More than 51 percent occurred among blacks than any other race. Between the ages of 25–44 years 62 percent were African Americans.

Also totally unnecessary and distasteful to put in a Health section

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

I'm not saying that this information is not true. Though these may be facts, I am simply trying to say that if we are to blast this race in their shortcomings concerning health, then we should also blast the negatives with EVERY OTHER race on this site. Otherwise you must remove the section completely. There's a place and time for everything, and this isn't it. It's like visiting a friend who will soon die of cancer. Even though you are FULLY AWARE that this person doesn't have much longer to live, would you be cruel enough to spend a large chunk of your time with that person stating facts on how people get cancer, how many years people with his condition are expected to live, etc? Not everyone will think of this section as "just facts" and it will give racist individuals another tool to use against them in claiming themselves as superior. Even though it may not apply as offensive to some, it will to others. This is why it should be either removed or added to every other race.

(Gigafrost (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

It seems to be a cool way to reinforce every negative stereotype. But we could do it for Jews (but you cant), you could do it for every ethnic group. Isolate everything which cast them in negative light and put it in an article. I means "Black on Black crime" I think most Whites in America are killed by other Whites. Is that then called White one White crime. It is questionable facts in a strange context. if anything it should have some balance, but it is all bad news. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As what was said before, I believe that the fact that it was displayed the way it was was honestly very poor. In all seriousness, due to the fact that Asians, Whites, Jews, Germans, heck even Irish and the Native Americans are described and recognized in neutrality, I feel that there is simply no need to add fuel to the fire by adding a stigma focused on one race in general. It just makes us [wikipedia] look very bad. (Gigafrost (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

@Gigafrost I hear that and personally agree the only issue is to get something taken out of wiki we have to have a argument in-line with wiki policies. And like a court case you know stigma, adding fueling, making wiki look bad will not hold up- another editor can say "Wikipedia is not a censor on facts". Therefore I am trying to argue the only thing that will NPOV and notability. We know it you will never see it with certain groups. I have taken out the black on black thing. I have also tagged it to say it is slanted by using stats to create a POV. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong Agree. I have implemented the change. The entire "Health Issues" section is excessive long and badly organized. While Health Issues Among African Americans is an interesting topic, it's not worth more than 3 paragraphs in African Americans. Also the section as it existed was a hodgepodge of racial disparities in health problems, addressing less than half of the issue. e.g. efforts to remediate known problems are a significant part of any fair discussion of issues. If there is a felt need for such a section, it should start small and be at most 3 paragraphs, linking to a full article if more detail is needed. rewinn (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong Agree. It is borderline racism. the kind stat abuse the Far right would use. and it reminds us of the danger of stats in a vacuum. best eg "black on black crime is 90% of the fatality of Black males"- And what about white males- what kills them if not other white males? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stronly Agree Guys, this is exactly what I was talking about two months ago. I'm glad somebody stepped up and removed the section. Nothing abbout it was encyclopedic. If a health section is necessary, even though it really isn't because other ethnic group articles don't have a health section, it should be three paragraphs long at the maximum and talk about solutions rather than stats that most likely could be bias against blacks. B-Machine (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stronly Agree Just wanted to say thanks to Halaqah and Rewinn for the prompt changes and B-Machine and the others for their hawk-eye observance and starting discussion on this topic in the first place. Whether or not this Health section will stay out of the article is another story. Hopefully this will be the end of that.

"Also totally unnecessary and distasteful to put in a Health section"

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

"Even though it may not apply as offensive to some, it will to others."

I disagree. If the section is reinserted, and if it does mention that blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites, and if it cites various reasons, then this particular reason should be included, as these statistics are highly notable.

Claiming that this information is "offensive" and "distasteful" is your opinion. But wikipedia is not supposed to exclude information just because someone finds it "offensive" or "distasteful."

To say that it is "totally unnecessary" to include this information is also an opinion. The truth is that of all the reasons why the black life expectancy is lower than the white one, this is one of the biggest. When so many blacks die at such a young age, it has a huge impact on the average lifespan. To not include this information would be to deny readers important information about why life expectancy is so much lower for blacks than for whites.

6ty4e (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not that some found it offensive. And no one is saying the stats are false. It's just that if you're going to do this to this article, do it to other articles. One ethnic group should not be singled out when it comes to statistics while others don't get the same treatment. B-Machine (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Race-related health issues should not be completely removed from Wikipedia just because they might offend some people. Nor should their inclusion be dependent on whether similar info is included in "every other article on other races". If the info is correct, then it's relevant, perhaps more medically than racially, but it should still be available. You're not gonna go and censor medical text books, so why censor WP? However, perhaps a solution lies in creating a separate article that is specifically about race-related issues for all races. Then any and all facts and statistics about various diseases and pathologies can be listed there, whether they are endemic of blacks, whites, asians, arabs, aboriginals, etc, etc...

The same could be said for crime statistics. That info should be available. But again, instead of listing stats specific to a race in an article about that race, perhaps a single, separate article about crime statistics, with sub-sections based on race, regions, social class, etc, etc, could be an alternative solution. (IMHO) - thewolfchild 08:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is African-American?

The Wikipedia articles on human migration all state that homo sapiens originated in Africa. Therefore, are not all Americans "African-Americans"? This is serious contradiction between Wikipedia articles. In spite of what the US government says, all Americans are African-Americans. The article should reflect this reality. Wikipedia is about truth, not about what certain governments say. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As above, let me repeat that it is NOT the function of wikipedia to DEFINE what a term means, but merely to recognize what it means from external sources, even if they are governments. Thus while there is some formal logic behind calling all Americans "African American", no authority does so and Wikipedia is not about conducting original research. Whether or not Americans did or did not come from Africa is completely irrelevant; after all, the vast majority of Caucasians have nothing to do with that mountain range. rewinn (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case the U.S. definition of "Caucasian" differs from the European one, which does have to do with the mountain range. But your point is good, rewinn. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Contra Principia Negantem Non Est Disputandum"

Some of the debate here is clearly getting out of control, with the discussion far too often descending into ridiculous circular logic, juvenile insults, personal attacks and edit-warring. Some people here (I don't want to single any of you particular warriors out) are taking their cause too far. The term African American is one that applies to tens of millions of people (or more). As much as it is a currently and widely accepted term, it will not be accepted by every single person who may fall within that group (to one degree or another). To argue that it is offensive when inadvertantly applied to either Black Americans who don't consider themselves of African descent or, to Africans who happen to be in America, but aren't American, is silly. It's silly because the term itself it not pejorative. Through political correctness, we've already seen terms like 'the N-word', negro, negroid, dark, coloured, brown and black come and go. African American is what we have until the next one comes along.

Also, some people here need to realize the article is about African Americans. African. American. Not Arfican-Native-American-White-European-Martian-East-Asians-who-may-or-may-not-be-American-citizens-or-tourists-or-other... The article is quite clearly about American citizens who are of African (sub-saharan) descent. Just because it doesn't include details of every strand of DNA that may be present from dozens of other races and ethnicities, doesn't make this article, or it's creators and contributors, "racist".

Some people here seem to think that not making prominent mention of other races, who may or may not make up a minor, partial percentage of African American geneology, is some kind of morally outrageous, racist insult to entire, multiple, ethnic communities. Yet, other that this single person, there just doesn't seem to any huge outcry from multitudes of offended people that one might expect based on these exhausting protestations. So, really, how much of an issue is this?

Perhaps some people here should simply consider writing their own article about the multi-racial make-up of some groups of Black people who may or may not be American and may or may not be of African descent. Then they can high-light the contributions of Native Americans, East Asians and White Europeans as much as they like. They can then list their article in the See Also section of the African American page. That really seems to be the only solution (that I can think of, other than leaving the whole thing alone) as there simply is no consensus for prominent inclusion in this article. (IMHO) - thewolfchild 23:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement. I think that the existing content regarding how the US government defines the term is probably of much more significance than the African Americans' percentage of genetic heritage from any group. Also, if this material were to be included in the lead, it would almost certainly create problems regarding the lack of mention of the specific percentage of genetic background African Americans have from the various African peoples. I personally think that information would probably be more useful and deserve more attention than their percentage of non-African blood. I myself, unfortunately, have no evidence, and have never seen any evidence, of information on that subject. That being the case, it is probably better to indicate the US government "position," the recent genetic studies, and any other such information relevant to this subject in the lower section. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be more emphasis on the multi-racial ancestry of African Americans

Discussion on this topic is found in many other Wikipedia pages related to this topic, but curiously not the actual article itself.

e.g. see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Multiracial_American#African_Americans specifically the 2nd paragraph and the next section on Admixture

"A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.[43]

Based on Mark Shriver's research, historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms: 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[64]"

etc

I find this highly racist - the complete neglection of other race's contributions to the African American population is simply sickening, as if they are somehow worse less than the African contributions. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Genome Biology paper does appear to be a reliable source -- however please keep your edit summaries civil. I noticed this edit on the recent changes page and it looked like a major red flag. "Sources are reliable, any removal of this without discussion will be taken as a racist attack and as such I will pursue higher action" is quite aggressive, especially considering WP:BRD and since the sources in your original edit could fairly be said to not be WP:RS. a13ean (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is one issue -- whether the material belongs in the article lede is another. I have moved your most recent edit to a more appropriate part of the article -- no consensus was reached to change the article lede. The next area of discussion should be how we elaborate on the sentence that has been added -- specifically how much do we add to this article on the reasons why there was race mixing, why it was legally prohibited for so long, and why even small amounts of African blood led to the classification of the individual as black.

It is extremely POV to introduce a statistic to the article and then fail to explain its significance. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep.. there needs to be a full section dedicated to the racial admixture of African Americans, explaining how a significant amount of African American ancestry (~30% is the statistic I read) comes from East Asian/Native American/European people. It's outrageous and is racism that the 2nd paragraph discusses ONLY the African ancestry of the group, and not the other ancestries. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A section purely on the statistics would be POV. It would indeed be outrageous to provide the statistics without also including the reason for these statistics. Do you agree or disagree on this point? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A reason? There is a lot in the article about African American's sub-Saharan ancestry. There is NOTHING in the article about African American's East Asian/Native American/European ancestry. This is racism. Why do you wish to include details of their race X ancestry, but not of their race A/B/C ancestry? Are we on the same wavelength, here? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A major reason why there is so much European blood in African Americans is the rape of slaves in the antebellum years. The main reason why individuals with more white ancestors than black were treated as black was because of the racist view that a little black blood "contaminated" the entire individual. I take it that you want to keep this information out of the article. Why is this?

As far as your alleged crusade against racism, despite your forum shopping absolutely nobody agrees with you.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI that I will be applying for some form of protection status for this article. I see deep and obvious racism here, with East Asian/Native American/European ancestry being sectioned to a dark corner and African ancestry being put in the spotlight. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for whatever you like, but that doesn't mean you are going to receive it. I've been watching the current back and forth and it's become blatantly obvious your sole goal is to push your own POV, with no interest in consensus or OR/Synth guidelines. The fact is, the defining characteristic of being an African-American is being of sub-Saharan ancestry. The other genetic markers that happen through time are of little, if any, importance. And your insistence of adding them to the lede while crying 'racism' is not going to fly here. Dave Dial (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to add my two cents. Leaf Green Warrior, you obviously don't know what racism is. If you did, you wouldn't be using the word so liberally here. Second, any admixture that has occured in the past is just that - in the past. Is it historic? Sure, but what does that have to do with the contributions AAs made to the U.S. and the world? Nothing. I agree with everybody else that has commented on why you're wrong, but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. B-Machine (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr of the above posts: "only black-african ancestry matters, asian/european/native american ancesry doesn't". So whilst Asian/European/Native American ancestry plays a large role in the make up of African Americans (there are estimates of over 30% of African American Ancestry being non-African), they aren't mentioned once in the WP article. This is racism - no one ancestry matters more than the other, and you cannot simply neglect any mention of East Asian/European/Native American ancestry because that's racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to show how a content dispute relates to racism in anyway. You have failed to show why the material is of such importance that it should be in the article lede. Absent these demonstrations on your part and your inability to get anybody (let alone a consensus) to agree with you, you are simply engaging in edit warring. You have rejected a compromise offer to include a relevant section WITHIN the body of the article such as was done with White American -- it seems to be your way or the highway. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the 2nd paragraph of the lead is about the ancestry of African Americans. It focusses ONLY on African ancestry, none of the other ancestry. This is racist. Fix it. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"tl;dr, I am right and you are wrong, you racists." That's your attitude in a nutshell really. I can assure you your crusade on Wikipedia will be very short indeed if you keep this up. I suggest you limit your efforts to this talk page and avoid further cries of racism, as that's getting real old, real quick.--Atlan (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Above post offered nothing in the way of furthering the discussion, thus discarded. Please avoid using ad-hominem and instead try to explain your opinion using reasons and evidence. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"thus discarded"? What sort of authority or power is it that you think you wield to make such pronouncements? How is it that you think others will take the "advice" you offer when it is clearly advice that you yourself blatantly ignore? --Blake Burba (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr of the above posts: "only black-african ancestry matters, asian/european/native american ancesry doesn't". So whilst Asian/European/Native American ancestry plays a large role in the make up of African Americans (there are estimates of over 30% of African American Ancestry being non-African), they aren't mentioned once in the WP article. This is racism - no one ancestry matters more than the other, and you cannot simply neglect any mention of East Asian/European/Native American ancestry because that's racist. DO NOT SPAM THIS SECTION - DO NOT DISCUSS IRRELEVANT THINGS/AD HOMINEM ATTACKS - IF YOU WISH TO REPLY THEN DO SO WITH AN ON-TOPIC, RELEVANT EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU BELIEVE THE OTHER ANCESTRIES OF AFRICAN AMERICANS LESS NOTEWORTHY THAN AFRICAN ANCESTRIES. Just thought I'd make that clear, the spam in here is getting ridiculous. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The consensus version of the paragraph in question reads:

African Americans make up the single largest racial minority in the United States. Most African Americans are of West and Central African descent and are descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States. However, some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations, or their descendants, may be identified or self-identify with the term.

How exactly is it racist to refrain from adding to this paragraph a genetic analysis that is of limited significance to the entire subject? Can you show any articles on Americans that emphasize the genetic makeup of the subjects in the article lede? Why do you want to single out the African American article for disparate treatment?

As far as spamming goes, how many times are YOU going to resort to ad hominem attacks and the endless charges of racism as your only argument. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your mature and civil reply - it's refreshing to see. Anyway, back on the main subject. Tom, as you can see in your quote, there is discussion about the descendants of African Americans. There is nothing wrong with this. The racism comes from the fact that the only ancestry mentioned is African ancestry, when in fact other groups make up a large % of ancestry too. Put it this way. Imagine a hypothetical "Group X". The ancestry of Group X is composed of people from A, B, C, and D. In the WP article about "Group X", in the lead, there is a discussion of ancestry of Group X. However, the article only mentions "A" as ancestry, completely ignoring B, C and D, as if they are somehow of less worth than A. This is why it's racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The focus of this article is the African ancestry of a certain group of Americans. That those Americans also have European or other ancestry seems to me of secondary importance to this article. Therefore, worthy of mention (I think everyone will agree on that) but not in the lead. There is nothing "racist" about this reasoning.--Atlan (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See my suggestion below and let me know if this is a possibility. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Atlan. Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

For reasons stated and opposed by only one person, the disputed material does not belong in the article lede. I offer the following as proposed text for a subsection under the section The term "African American". The references, with the exception of the Davis one which I added, all come from another article.

Admixture See also: Miscegenation § United_States, Multiracial American, and One-drop rule Historically, "race mixing" between black and white people was taboo in the United States. So-called anti-miscegenation laws, barring blacks and whites from marrying or having sex, were established in colonial America as early as 1691. The taboo among American whites surrounding white-black relations can be seen as a historical consequence of the oppression and racial segregation of African-Americans.Historian David Brion Davis notes the racial mixing that occurred during slavery was frequently attributed by the planter class to the "lower-class white males" but Davis concludes that "there is abundant evidence that many slaveowners, sons of slaveowners, and overseers took black mistresses or in effect raped the wives and daughters of slave families." Racially mixed marriages have become increasingly accepted in the United States since the Civil Rights movement and up to the present day. Approval in national opinion polls have risen from 36% in 1978, to 48% in 1991, 65% in 2002, 77% in 2007. Scientific analysis indicates that current African Americans inherit about 14-17.7% of their ancestry from Europeans.

I think you mean "the disputed material does not belong in the article lede". Otherwise your suggestion looks fine to me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, although I also like the Gates quote. a13ean (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, it says nothing about Native american/asian/other mix. Should it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, sorry -- I missed that bit. I think a sentence or two added to this would be appropriate. a13ean (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a paragraph in the Miscegenation article that describes interracial marriages with the Chinese. The article Black Indians in the United States has info that might be of use. Perhaps the Gates quote and two or three sentences could be added in a paragraph that goes between the two I had proposed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This looks like an addition that is both necessary, and good. I agree with the other 2 comments above though - the Gates quote? And anything about Native American/Asians? Additionally, even with this addition, the second paragraph in the lead would still be entirely 100% focused on African ancestry, which is virtually the whole point of why I had a problem initially. Not at all am I saying that there should be an indepth genetic analysis or anything of the sort, but if the African ancestry is mentioned (as it obviously should be), then I think other ancestry should very briefly be mentioned also. What about a small sentence that says something like "<snip>...entify with the term.[3] Alongside the predominantly African ancestry, African Americans on the whole have experienced high amounts of admixture <with a link to your section added in subtly>." Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but African ancestry is what this article is about, the admixture of other ancestry is not. It is pertinent, yes, but not for the lead, which should do no more than introduce and summarize the article as a whole. It's simply a matter of due weight.--Atlan (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. The major issues of the African American experience are summarized in the lede by the following single sentence: Between those landmarks there have been events and issues, both resolved and ongoing, including slavery, racism, Reconstruction, development of the African-American community, participation in the great military conflicts of the United States, racial segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement. Any one of these subjects is of much more significance than the small matter of the African American genetic makeup -- any of these issues could justifiably be expanded upon in the lede before we would get to admixture. Admixture, rather than having anything to do with African origins, is a part of slavery, racism, and the natural co-mingling that occurs everywhere where racially diverse populations share a common geographical area. Also, if we become bound and determined to expand the lede, the most logical addition would be to include a 4th paragraph summarizing the Contemporary Issues section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, here is my chain of thought. 1. In the lead, there SHOULD be information about ancestry (as this is a very important topic concerning any group). 2. There IS information, in the lead, about ancestry, which is a good thing. 3. However, the existing information about ancestry only concerns one ancestral group. There is virtually an entire paragraph - in the lede - dedicated to "African ancestry" ONLY, and I simply think that a small and concise, but informative addition such as "Alongside the predominantly African ancestry, African Americans on the whole have experienced high amounts of admixture <link to your section added in subtly>.". 2 reasons for this. The first is that this is obviously a very important point which (I believe) should be in the lede (WP:WEIGHT) - it immediately asserts the fact that AAs are generally a mixed-race group. Secondly, it is for fairness reasons to the other groups 3 main groups that make up AA ancestry - to neglect all of them, but one, I don't believe is racially fair. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be undue to mention it in the lede, as it is of relatively minor importance to most of the content in the article. I think the proposed location is fine. a13ean (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green Warrior, you seem to ignore that the defining characteristic of African Americans is our sub-Saharan ancestry. The fact that we have other ancestors as well is, frankly, irrelevant to a short summary of the topic (which is what the lede is).

By the way, when are you going to correct the racism at Italians? (or should that be RACISM?) There is no mention at all of the contribution of Africans to the Italian genome. I'm sure I can count on you to correct this urgent problem at once, edit warring if necessary to get the information into the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Malik, although I am not myself African-American. The characteristic that defines African Americans is their being of African descent. While it is true that their genetic makeup may include other-than-African background, that is at best irrelevant to their being African Americans. Also, unfortunately, the statistic is itself basically a statistic regarding African Americans as a whole, and cannot be seen as being necessarily indicative of any individual African Americans. Putting such information, which almost certainly is inaccurate for the majority of individual African Americans, as most statistics are, would itself very likely be misleading and seen as prejudicial and possibly provocative. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Malik and John Carter. The words "who have at least partial ancestry" in the first sentence states clearly enough (for the lede) that african americans can have any ancestry whatsoever, as long as they fulfil the africa/america bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My opinion regarding this hasn't changed, but clearly if I'm outnumbered on the matter then there's nothing more I can do on the matter (apart from formal resolution, which I won't do). Malik - if you believe there is something wrong with Italians then I suggest you head over there, produce some evidence to back your thoughts up, and open up a section in the talk page :)

On a side note, we should be careful of B-Machine's most recent edit (editing out the "at least partial ancestry" to simply say "African Americans are people with ancestry from Africa", as this implies pure ancestry, which most definitely is both factually incorrect and racist (similar to someone saying, for example, "Tiger woods is purely Asian!") Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't beat around the bush. This Leaf Green Warrior person is a foolish troll. As Malik Shabazz mentioned, there is a significant amount of African contributions to the genome of Italian people. Will you go after those that dismiss that and say they're "racist"? This person sounds like one of those folks who want to deblacken Afro-American people and culture. Sounds like you're the racist, LGW. B-Machine (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Might have been a poor choice of words on the part of User:Leaf Green Warrior in saying that B-Machine's words were racist. A more politic phrasing might have been that they could 'appear racist' or be 'taken as racist by some', but we should be careful about how we characterize other editors and their words, especially when throwing around very inflammatory terms. -- Avanu (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a couple of suggestions from above and added a paragraph to my original proposal.

Admixture See also: Miscegenation § United_States, Multiracial American, and One-drop rule Historically, "race mixing" between black and white people was taboo in the United States. So-called anti-miscegenation laws, barring blacks and whites from marrying or having sex, were established in colonial America as early as 1691. The taboo among American whites surrounding white-black relations can be seen as a historical consequence of the oppression and racial segregation of African-Americans.Historian David Brion Davis notes the racial mixing that occurred during slavery was frequently attributed by the planter class to the "lower-class white males" but Davis concludes that "there is abundant evidence that many slaveowners, sons of slaveowners, and overseers took black mistresses or in effect raped the wives and daughters of slave families." Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote in 2009, "African Americans ... are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so." For example, after the Emancipation Proclamation Chinese American men married African American women in high proportions to their total marriage numbers due to few Chinese American women being in the United States. African slaves and their descendants have also had a history of cultural exchange and intermarriage with Native Americans although they did not necessarily retain social, cultural or linguistic ties to Native peoples. There are also increasing intermarriages and offspring between non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics of any race, especially between Puerto Ricans and African Americans (American-born blacks). Racially mixed marriages have become increasingly accepted in the United States since the Civil Rights movement and up to the present day. Approval in national opinion polls have risen from 36% in 1978, to 48% in 1991, 65% in 2002, 77% in 2007. Scientific analysis indicates that current African Americans inherit about 14-17.7% of their ancestry from Europeans.

Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

PS For some reason, the footnotes for the 2nd paragraph which I copied directly from other articles, did not show. To correct that I had to remove the reflist from my original proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there was no further discussion I went ahead and added the material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Explain why admixture is so important to mention in the article and explain why Henry Louis Gates is the end-all-be-all expert on this. B-Machine (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody objected to any of the language and at least six people expressed approval of adding an "Admixture" section. The material was added to the article because it represented a very clear consensus. You obviously were aware of this discussion since you participated w/o actually commenting on the proposal itself. The only controversy has been whether to add material to the article lead and the consensus is an overwhelming "no". If you want to try to create a new consensus, make your case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith

This article should mention the Baha'i Faith. 67.175.103.146 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly: Why should it? Secondly: Why are are you going around Wikipedia writing this on other talk pages? (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.175.103.146) Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to the term "African American"

I would like to add a subsection under the section "The term 'African American'" containing dissenting views against the use of the term "African American", as many black people are opposed to the use of this term. I don't feel qualified enough to write it though, and I don't have citations, so I am posting it here in the hopes that it will generate discussion that will improve the article.

There are two potential problems with the term "African American". The first is the use of the word "African", and the second is the use of the word "American".

First, the term African American is applied to all black Americans, regardless of their nation of origin. Many people from countries like Haïti, for example, are opposed to being called "African". While it is true that their ancestors were from Africa, they more closely associate themselves with Haïti than Africa. There are cases of dark-skinned people from all over the world whose relationship with Africa is much less clear, such as Australian Aborigines, who may be mistakenly called "African American". At the root of all of these issues is the use of skin colour and ethnicity to determine one's cultural and geographic heritage. This generally does not happen for other groups; Caucasians are not immediately called "European American", for example. There is also the issue of Caucasians who have lived in Africa for many generations; should they be called "African American"? And finally, all human beings can trace their ancestry to Africa at some point, making the distinction confusing.

Secondly, the use of the term "African American" as an identifier of ethnicity causes Americans to use the term to describe black people who aren't American at all. Black tourists and guest workers are often called "African American", to their bewilderment. The term is also used liberally by Americans on the Internet to refer to ethnicity, which causes great confusion. The term "African American" has even been applied to Africans living in Africa.

The biggest issue that many people have with the term "African American" is that the label is generally applied externally, and often incorrectly, as a label of ethnicity. Other groups, such as "Irish American" or "Chinese American" require people to self-identify as belonging to those groups. It would be considered offensive to apply the terms without first learning the history of that person's genealogy. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the term "African American", the push to use this term as a more politically correct synonym for the term "black" is seen as misguided by many black Americans. 99.241.132.241 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss the subject, by all means it should be added to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I as a black man, agree whole heartedly with this statement, as would many, many more. I too would like this to be added. thanks. P.S. what kind of source would be credible on an issue like this? I would like to know, so I could possibly make suggestions? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.104.252 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

One would think that most of these arguments would not necessitate the need for sources. Does one need a source to describe the color gray to be a mixture of black and white? One should not have to cite the fact that whites that come from africa would be African-American, and that blacks that come from Haiti would not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.104.252 (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:Identifying reliable sources for information about what sources are considered "reliable" for Wikipedia purposes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Along with the suggestion above by Malik, I would also state that your assumptions aren't correct. Whites from Africa would most definitely not be classified as African American(after migrating to the US), they would either be classified as simply "White" or Euro Africans. Blacks from Haiti could be classified as simply "Black", "Haitian" or African American. Depending on what each individual wanted to be classified as and/or a reliable source classification. Dave Dial (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "African American" clearly does not refer to people of Super Saharan (Morocco, Libya, Algeria etc.) descent, though this regions are fully part of Africa. These people have indeed their own denomination (Arab American) So perhaps the term "African American" should be changed to "Sub-Saharan American" to avoid any confusion. --Tavernsenses (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with Arab American

In the lede of the Arab American article, it is stated: "Over 1/4 of all Arab Americans claimed two ancestries, having not only Arab ancestry but also non-Arab." This is a very similar comparison to African American. African Americans are an even more mixed group than Arab Americans, yet there is no mention of the mixture in the lede of African Americans, I suspect due to racism. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole discussion is best summarised with a neutral example. Broad "Group X" is composed of peoples A, B, C, D. You belong to "Group X" if you have at least partial A in you. However, Group X on the whole has large amounts of, for example, C, in it, and thus should definitely be mentioned in the lede of the article (as it's done with Arab American). However, this is not done in the African American article, I suspect due to racism (i.e. people trying to propagate a false illusion that "African Americans" are purely African, which is completely untrue and is highly racist). Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

OMIGAWD!! RACISM! It's everywhere!! Wikipedia is lost! It's floundering in a sea of prejudice! The dark days of elitism are upon us! Minorities everywhere are being subjugated and diminshed! Think of the children! Oh, won't you think of the children...?! OK, seriously, will you give it a rest already? You're whole Chicken Little routine is really starting to wearing thin. It's also contrary to WP: Don't Annoy Other Users - thewolfchild 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to unhatting the discussion. I believe it is off topic because it immediately goes into a discussion of how Wikipedia editors are racist. 3 distinct references, prompting the other editor to respond off topic as well. Please focus on issues, not editors, and assume the best and work toward a civil collaboration. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

" it immediately goes into a discussion of how Wikipedia editors are racist" no it doesn't. It's a comparison between the articles Arab American and African American. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I note this exact quote in the early comment made by LGF: "...I suspect due to racism". I find it impossible for any reasonable party to say that a comment which, in its text, goes from making comparisons of articles and then alleging racism does not, as Avanu suggested, go off topic by going into a discussion of how wikipedia editors are racist. The evidence of the comment clearly supports Avanu's position, not LGF's. It in no way helps other editors to be able to assume good faith of oneself by making clearly inflammatory comments and then, two hours later, deny those comments when they are plain for anyone to see in that same section of the talk page. I urge everyone here to read WP:TPG, WP:AGF, and other conduct guidelines, so that discussions about allegations of racism are not required here again. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• no mention of the mixture in the lede of African Americans, I suspect due to racism
• this is not done in the African American article, I suspect due to racism
• people trying to propagate a false illusion that "African Americans" are purely African, which is completely untrue and is highly racist

In all three cases, you imply that some editing was done by editors who were acting with racism or were racist. You do not give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the sources they had were not the best, perhaps they didn't know better, or perhaps you simply have a different opinion. The implication is that either deliberate or unintentional racism was driving these edits. You have presented no evidence of this, but you still made the open claims. I believe that you understand it is an insulting thing, and I would hope you can see that tossing it around without any presentation of evidence to show the motivations of the editors is careless and thoughtless. Please consider your future edits more carefully. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly a fine line between WP:CIVILITY and suspecting racist motives behind edits. Just because there is WP:CIVILITY doesn't mean that you can never discuss racist motives on Wikipedia. I suspect racist motives to be behind this editing. I have explained my point clearly, and so far nobody has addressed the point whatsoever. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"The whole discussion is best summarised with a neutral example. Broad "Group X" is composed of peoples A, B, C, D. You belong to "Group X" if you have at least partial A in you. However, Group X on the whole has large amounts of, for example, C, in it, and thus should definitely be mentioned in the lede of the article (as it's done with Arab American). However, this is not done in the African American article, I suspect due to racism (i.e. people trying to propagate a false illusion that "African Americans" are purely African, which is completely untrue and is highly racist). Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)" Here's an idea - instead of talking about irrelevant things, how about actually having a civil, intelligent discussion and trying to refute what I said above, instead of just talking around it? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We do not take the content of one article as necessarily being indicative of the content of other articles. Possibly because you have so far as I can tell yourself so far failed to provide significant reliable sources which give the matter so much weight that there is good cause to believe it meets weight requirements for inclusion in the lead. So, far, you have not seemed to address that point whatsoever. Would it possible for you to provide the required sources before repeating clearly inflammatory comments? If you could yourself drop the repeaed allegations of racism, that would be a very helpful way of helping bring about the civil, intelligent discussion you claim to seek. John Carter (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:OSE is irrelevant to this comparison, as it is valid. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many reasons for bad edits, but I don't go saying "I think the reason this article is such a mess is because its being written by a bunch of intolerant bastards." Its just not the right approach. For example, you might have said "African Americans tend to be a more genetically diverse group than any other, but there is no mention of this in our lede. This might be due imprecise cultural identity that surrounds the use of the term 'African American', and I think we need to work on fixing this." -- Avanu (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Intolerance and racism exist on Wikipedia, and it always will. It's up to people like me to strive for racial neutrality, such as this case (giving all ancestries an equal weighting as opposed to giving only African ancestry any mention). Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Strive and strive more. That is an admirable thing. But understand that you are here to edit the content and there is a framework of civility. You don't win hearts and minds by accusing those who may feel innocent. You can win hearts and minds by making good arguments and showing people how their edits may be perceived. It is one thing to explain how an edit makes you feel, and it is quite another to declare what someone else has in their heart, which you cannot really know or see. -- Avanu (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"You can win hearts and minds by making good arguments and showing people how their edits may be perceived." except I did this, to no avail. They simply do not understand how it's racist to focus on 1 ancestry and ignore all others. Put it this way - imagine I edited this article and removed ALL mention of Africa/African ancestry. Racist, no? Guess what - it's a two way street - yet it's acceptable for other ancestries?. As I've said many times - this article is a big racist slap in the face to those millions of Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians who have contributed themselves the African American group and are being completely neglected by it. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have listened to Frank W. Sweet give many lectures on racialism, and it seems that the definition of "African American" is somewhat genetics and somewhat a personal choice. The color line in the United States is different than other places in the Americas and different than other places in the world. I think as long as you can avoid making this into personal attacks on editors who are just trying to edit, things will work out fine. -- Avanu (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, clearly after the length of this discussion, this is going nowhere. I'll let you guys keep this (in my opinion) racist page without further argument, perhaps I'll go for formal dispute resolution later on. At any rate, is the proposal above going to be implemented? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We are not debating content at the moment, we are discussing editor interaction. I would suggest that we begin fresh with a new section. -- Avanu (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to start over. We have a concrete proposal above that (1) proposes that the lede not be changed and (2) proposes language for a subsection within the body of the article. Other than Leaf, there is total consensus for this proposal (at least six in that section and numerous others elsewhere who have rejected Leaf's only argument) and the only work needed is to determine how a third paragraph discussing how mixing involving other than Europeans will be handled. You were right to collapse this section.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. See my previous post re. the proposal "This looks like an addition that is both necessary, and good." Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Before we go any further, can I point out a major difference between this article and Arab American? It is in the very text quoted by User:Leaf Green Warrior: "Over 1/4 of all Arab Americans claimed two ancestries, having not only Arab ancestry but also non-Arab."

The point of the statement is that Arab Americans identify themselves with more than one ancestry. When Leaf Green Warrior can provide reliable sources that show a significant portion of African Americans identify themselves as multiracial, that's when this discussion will become relevant. Until then, I think it can be ignored. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

African American can be a self-chosen identification. The color line in the US is just a unique animal. People 'pass' for white or other things and depending on their personal viewpoint, may take it as an issue of pride or regret if they cannot self-identify as one thing or another. Generally, the historical perception is that if you pass as white and write 'white' on your documents, you'll be treated differently than if you say 'black'. You can have a high percentage of sub-Sarahan African admixture and look white, or have almost none and look 'black'. Culturally, you might feel African American, but not appear to be. So the question is more complicated than it might seem. -- Avanu (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a good discussion of this issue at Multiracial American#African Americans. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green Warrior; I see what you're trying to accomplish here (I in no way agree with you point of view, but you do have a right to it). What I, like others here, take issue with is the way you go about arguing your point of view. Your constant, constant accusations of racsim are insulting and inflammatory, certainly distracting and unltimately serve to undermine your own goal. You claim that "...this article is a big racist slap in the face to those millions of Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians...", yet not one person has stepped forward from any of these groups and complained. Of all your claims of racism, not one other person has stepped forward and supported you. Haven't you noticed that? At the same time, several editors here have (patiently) tried to help you, yet you just keep arguing. Have you condidered anything any of them might have said and considered an alternative that might actually find consensus? There is a proposal that you apparently agree with, have you done anything about it? Have you considered my proposal? (which could be done additionally) "...consider writing their own article about the multi-racial make-up of some groups of Black people who may or may not be American and may or may not be of African descent. Then they can high-light the contributions of Native Americans, East Asians and White Europeans as much as they like. They can then list their article in the See Also section of the African American page." IF you feel this issue is so important and in need of more prominent representation on WP, than why not create an article on it? It would probably be easier than all the effort you are wasting here. If you did it properly, I think it would go a long way to garnering some recognition and even respect for your point of view. As it is right now, you're just spinning your wheels... - thewolfchild 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, this is another attempt by some to deblacken African-American people and culture. First of all, why the hell should we honor the white slaveowners who raped their female African slaves? Second, American Indians also had Africans as slaves. Should we honor them, too? Third, why would they claim black people as their own? The overwhelming majority of us AAs find stuff like what you're doing, LGW, offensive. This Leaf Green Warrior person is very ahistorical when it comes to slavery in the United States as if everybody was holding hands singing Kumbaya. Crazy. B-Machine (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, LGW, you still don't know what racism is. If you did, you would not be using that word here. B-Machine (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So many things are just wrong with this post, I wouldn't even know where to begin. The most obvious thing is "attempt to deblacken". What? That heavily implies that you think being black African is a superior status (racist). Additionally, your "why should we honor the white slaveowners" line (racist) betrays your obvious pro-black, anti-everyone else agenda. Imagine for Brazilian People, someone deleted all of the information about them being mixed with black africans, and claimed "you're trying to dewhiten Brazilians! I hate black people!". I knew this article reeked of racism, and you've just cemented that fact with evidence. Well done. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Its regrettable that we're still at this point, Leaf; its going to lead to a problem. BUT, I'm going weigh in on the article content and address the point behind your comments.

Like it or not, being dark skinned IS a crucial part of the African American cultural identity. Notice, I said 'part'. What I mean is, even though you don't have to be dark skinned to self-identify or be identified as African American, that trait is a part of the culture. If you ever seen Coming to America, there's a scene where the family of the dislikable boyfriend is gathered and they all have the Jheri Curl hairstyle, and when they stand up from the couch, it is stained with their greasy hair product. This is a joke that might not be recognized by white audiences, because generally Anglo hair is not the same. This is another example of something that is part of the African American culture. Some people use the term 'oreo' to scornfully describe fellow African Americans who don't act 'black' enough. However, all that said, being 'black' isn't what defines a person as African American. No one would dispute Carlton Banks' status as an African American, because he looks black. If you look white, you have to prove you're a part of the cultural community, but being black, you don't get a choice. In the United States, that automatically defines what people classify you as. BUT, whether you look black or act white, or look white and act 'black', in many ways African American is a cultural identity rather than just racial identity. But the two are without question linked together, and most likely always will be. -- Avanu (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"in many ways African American is a cultural identity rather than just racial identity" Wrong. An African American is a person with at least partial African ancestry. Nothing to do with culture. For example, Tiger Woods is an Asian American, an African American, a Native American and a Dutch American. No matter what his culture, he is this. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green, while you are entitled to believe that African American is ONLY a racial standard, in fact, many reliable sources are of the opinion that it is also a culture, as I tried to describe above. Also, I find it funny to see YOU say that its only racial, considering the word you keep tossing about. The presence of the sub-Sarahan DNA admixture is generally the racial standard, but the fluidity of determining who is what race shows that it is ALSO a culture, it is not merely about where your ancestry lies in your DNA, but your culture as well. -- Avanu (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is genetically African, it just varies how far back you to have to go. Nobody Ent 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, your accusations are becoming funny. I never implied or typed that blacks are superior. As for my other point, why should white slaveowners be honored with the brutality they enacted on blacks? Clearly, you're out of your league here and you know nothing. I suggest you pack it up because you're not accomplishing anything. And you still don't know what racism is. B-Machine (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Need to tread cautiously here. I realize that you have some legitimate complaints about Leaf, but comments like "you know nothing" are heading closer to incivility. Let's stay positive and focused on the article, not each other. If you feel that a complaint needs to be raised, talk to the user on their Talk page or visit the Admin's Noticeboard for such incidents (WP:ANI). -- Avanu (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The term "African American" clearly does not refer to people of Super Saharan (Morocco, Libya, Algeria etc.) descent, though this regions are fully part of Africa. These people have indeed their own denomination (Arab American) So perhaps the term "African American" should be changed to "Sub-Saharan American" to avoid any confusion. --Tavernsenses (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2012

Just an observation, there is no controversial section of this page. Where the bias and more sadistic acts of african american history would be put.

99.104.185.17 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are for proposing highly specific changes, not making general comments on an article. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous

The whole episode of adding an admixture section and adding "partial ancestry" in the lead paragraph is ridiculous. What does that have to do with the cultural contributions AAs made and AA history other than slavery? Nothing. I say get rid of the admixture section and the "partial ancestry" words in the lead paragraph. Go to back where it was. B-Machine (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the current version is pretty decent. I think the "at least partial" makes sense in the lede since just "ancestry" by itself is unclear. The admixture section, while poorly named imho, seems to do a pretty decent job of representing the diversity of african americans, although there is some material that could probably be moved into the miscegenation - united states article. This article is about a whole lot more than just cultural contributions. a13ean (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see why it should be added. I don't see people clamoring for an admixture section at the white American article. You think every white person in the U.S. is of 100% European descent? Why are some people so hellbent on adding an admixture section to this article? I have my ideas, but I won't share them because I could get blocked. I say it should be removed and never brought back along with the "partial ancestry" bit in the first paragraph. B-Machine (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already there: White American#Admixture. Some people who consider themselves white are have non-european ancestors. Some people who consider themselves black and/or african american have non-african ancestors. What does this mean? Pretty much nothing. a13ean (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I still say they should be removed. B-Machine (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a lot of activity here, you could start a WP:RFC to start and see what other editors think. a13ean (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The ancestry and ethnic make-up, of ANY group, is important. African-Americans are a very highly mixed-race group, and it is clear to everyone else that this obviously needs to be mentioned in the article, just like any other mixed-race group such as Mestizo. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you're wrong about AAs being highly mixed especially AAs don't really engage in interracial screwing. Second, you clearly have an agenda of trying to deblacken AA culture and history. Let me tell you something, jazz is black music, rock and roll is black music, hip-hop, blues, R & B, it's all black. No, some admixture from centuries ago don't belong here and I will make it a priority to have it removed. B-Machine (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you don't have consensus to eliminate the language concerning partial ancestry. Nobody agrees with you. I have restored the language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

IN COMBINATION According to the U.S. Census only 12.8% of Americans are Afroamerican. 13.6% adds "Afroamerican in combination", something which is excluded in the White American section of Wikipedia. Why?--79.156.196.252 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST OF 4 JULY 2012 : Add Gates' DNA PERCENTAGES to the "admixture" section

As it stands it just sounds like speculation when in fact there have been ample DNA studies. The contribution of Chinese Americans and Native Americans to the gene pool have been so negligable that I am surprised it is even mentioned here

EDIT REQUEST

RECOMMEND AFTER

"Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote in 2009, "African Americans ... are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so." [

ADD

Henry Louis Gates summarizes recent genetic studies on African Americans as follows:

   58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);
   19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);
   1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and
   5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[3]

^ Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past, New York: Crown Publishing, 2009, pp.20-21.

You can qualify it with "

Due largely in part to rape of African American woman slaves in the antebellum era"

or leave it out, it doesn't matter. But the numbers SHOULD definitely be there. Numbers are important not just pure speculation and "Chinese blah blah blah" although that had less than 1 percent effect on the AA gene pool. Gates also summarize the Native American DNA but it was not very significant (although still traceable) the overwhelming impact on the AA gene pool after they were forced into the US was EUROPEAN due to rape and explotiation of slaves common throughout the New World (case in point brazil)

This is rather important, thanks. If you refuse please explain why as this is rather easily verifiable :) I know it makes white people feel bad but as an African immigrant the EYES DON'T LIE. and happily with DNA, we don't NEED EYES.

(as any african immigrant to the united states, such as myself, can see, african americans are definitely a "new people") It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is nothing to be proud of. It just is what it is. Keysbusyggh (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is also a good data http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221212823.htm

"The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry."

""We were also able to show that there is little genetic differentiation among African-Americans in the African portion of their ancestry, reflecting the fact that most African-Americans have ancestry from several regions of western Africa. The greatest variation among African-Americans is in their proportion of European ancestry, which has important implications for the design of personalized medical treatments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysbusyggh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)