Jump to content

Talk:African Americans/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

Please replace the heading "1.1 Slavery Era" with "1.1 Colonial Period" and at the corresponding section, "Slavery Era" with "Colonial Period." The resoning is that this section includes period of non-Slavery (indentured servitude) and partial freedom. Also, as an Era, Colonial Period is more accurate.

BGirlLibrarian (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the section encompassed the period from 1526 through 1865. I split it into two sections, "Colonial era" and "From the American Revolution to the Civil War". Let me know what you think. Thank you for the suggestion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The expression “African American” seen by Africans

I really find very strange that anyone hasn’t pointed out this issue yet.

Here in Africa, there are many people who don’t like the usage of “African American” by Americans. For them, “African American” means something that is simultaneously from Africa and America (the continent) or something that is simultaneously from Africa and United States. For them, black people in the United States are Americans first and black after. For them, the usage of the expression “African American” will only perpetuate the racist idea that “anything black is African” or “anything African is black”. Some of those people even find offensive that black Americans try to identify themseelves with people of Africa when black Americans have nothing to do (culturally) with Africa. Yes, the ancestors of black Americans were Africans, but present day black Americans are not.

Could anyone be so kind to develop this issue, please?

Ten Islands (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written based on what's been published in reliable sources, so if you can cite some reliable sources -- even opinion columns -- we may be able to add that viewpoint to the article. But it would likely be only one or two sentences, because one of the principles of Wikipedia relates to due and undue weight, the idea that we don't give undue attention to viewpoints expressed by a minority of sources. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

I am asking for an edit to delete one sentence of information from this article. Under Contemporary Issues, the second to last sentence in the second paragraph says "African American males are more likely to be killed by police" which is an inaccurate assessment of the source information, an article written by The Guardian(which happens to be highly biased and politically motivated). In this article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/ , it is shown that the number of police shooting deaths in 2015 of people who identify as white Americans was 732 while the number of African Americans killed was 381 which is about 50% less than whites. This data from the FBI, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 , shows that whites commit about 50% more crime than African Americans. So if whites are killed about 50% more often and commit about 50% more crime, then the conclusion reached here is that African Americans criminals are killed by police officers at almost the exact same rate as white criminals. This means that the statement "African American males are more likely to be killed by police" is simply not true. So I ask whoever is reading this to make the appropriate edit.

AaronsWikipedia (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: I read through the Washington Post article that you posted. Immediately after the line with the statistics you mention is the following.

"But as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.

According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers."

It would seem then, based on your own source, that the phrase you would like to be deleted is actually correct. This is how I read the article, but maybe I'm missing something so I'll leave this open for other editors to comment. Topher385 (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done agree with above rationale, the statement is "African American males are more likely to be killed by police" - this is, therefore, a probability, not an absolute number - if it said "more African American males are killed by police" that would be incorrect, and your logic would be right, but the sentence is clearly a statistical probability. - Arjayay (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African Americans. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African Americans. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Sexuality" section based on single 2012 survey?

The "Sexuality" section is based on a single source which discusses a 2012 survey. The original link is dead, but you can read the same article here. It seems that African Americans are mentioned only a single sentence ("According to the survey, which was conducted between June and September, 4.6 percent of African-Americans identify as LGBT, 4 percent of Hispanics, 4.3 percent of Asians and 3.2 percent of whites"). It seems obvious to me that a single mention in a single source that describes a single survey does not merit its own section. Further, there do not seem to be "Sexuality" sections in such similar articles as White Americans or Hispanic and Latino Americans. I do not understand what purpose this section serves, other than to highlight a factoid from that one survey. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay, was IRL most of the weekend. I'll say first off that the main article template which actually links to a section on Homophobia in the African American community, even though it ostensibly links to African-American culture and sexual orientation, is a no go, and I will remove it as soon as I post this. As to the survey, it seems like relevant information on the face of it. This may be a good place to request a third opinion. I've posted on WikiProject Ethnic groups, and WikiProject LGBT studies to see if anyone has a strong opinion one way or the other. TimothyJosephWood 12:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Resident non-citizens

The definition nor the references support calling non-Citizens African Americans. Eodcarl (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Look at footnote 5: "African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry."[1] (emphasis added) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
That website is not a trustworthy source. To believe that dubious site is to believe that a Kenyan international student in the US is an African-American. One clearly would not be in that circumstance. Get a valid source (which does not exist), or make the article precise, as I already did. Eodcarl (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) The cite ([5]) says "Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins..." Residents. Now I´m guessing, but I don´t think it refer to tourists, but people living there longer. And apparently, sometimes they can be referred to as AA. Those who don´t want to, don´t have to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The key word is Americans, which is defined only by citizenship, so it doesn't matter how long they reside. It might be news to a Kenyan citizen living in the US that he is an African American. Some might even be offended, but that is not necessary for the fact one has to actually be an American to be an African-American. Eodcarl (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Regardless, non-citizens are not Americans, whether they be African, British, Chinese, or whatever. They may be visitors, expatriates, resident aliens, foreign embassy staff or whatever. Hmains (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've removed the parenthetical because, despite what the source says about who African Americans are, the sentence as written was defining who Americans are, and that wasn't right. If necessary, we should rewrite the sentence to reflect what the sources say about who African Americans are.
Also note that footnote 4 doesn't say "citizen", it says "a person". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Thus cannot be African Americans. Eodcarl (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, in that case. Eodcarl (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I do like your recent rewrite, for what it's worth. Eodcarl (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/african-american By actual definition one does have to be an American to be an African American. Eodcarl (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The RS call them African Americans. The "citizenship" argument is OR and is false--it is not supported by the reliable sources such as Encyclopedia of African American History (2010) and Landmarks of African American History (2005). Note by the way that some counties--such as Great Britain, did not have ANY "citizens" in the 19th century (they were all "subjects.") There were no American citizens anywhere before 1776, but there were lots of African Americans as well as German Americans, Irish Americans etc. Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No person or persons black, white etc. should be called American if they are not a citizen. This is a falsehood and this should not even be a discussion. If you are not a citizen, you are not American, therefore it is impossible to call a resident (presumingly with a greencard) an American of any kind. I have yet to meet a credible source that stated otherwise. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Residents can be deported, while American citizens cannot. People that become American citizens pledge a loyality to the United States, while residents are not obliged to. I can't believe we are having a discussion about this right now. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The RS? The dictionary says it refers to actual Americans. It is only the political correct need to not use the term black or other terms that result in the tortured argument that slaves were African Americans. It is an intellectually lazy term on its face, but if we are forced to use it, we will not use it to describe people who are not Americans. Eodcarl (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term African American to describe non-Americans

I have been in multiple discussions on several articles that use the term African American to describe slaves who were never Americans as African American. I understand the inclination to avoid the term black or other language, but Dred Scott, Nat Turner, among others were not Africa Americans, so they should not be described as such. Precision is the most important thing. Eodcarl (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources call people like Dred Scott and Nat Turner "African Americans" For example, Landmarks of African American History (2005) by James Oliver Horton on Scott and Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory (2004) - Page xv by Kenneth S. Greenberg. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It is clear Dred Scott and others are part of the history of people called African Americans, but since Dred Scott was not an American he cannot be an African American. It doesn't matter that people have erroneously called him and other African Americans. The definition only applies to Americans. Eodcarl (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe the consensus is that people born within the borders of the United States are termed Americans even if not citizens (think of them as nationals if you prefer, it is a broader term than citizen) except in a few rare cases (e.g., children of foreign diplomats). To do otherwise is to mean most historic Native Americans aren't Native American and no one was American until the United States was created. If nothing else slaves were considered American property (as opposed to Jamaican slaves who were British property [Jamaica being a British colony]); note as property they weren't deportable and were effectively American as soon as they were sold to an American owner or put to work on American soil. The grey area would be what to call not yet naturalized immigrants or visitors. --Erp (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No, that is not the consensus, at least not for antebellum slaves. Today, according to law, yes. Even freed slaves were not necessarily American. This is just political correct nonsense, not fact. Eodcarl (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I see a fair number of sources supporting the use listed above. Have you some good sources stating otherwise? I must admit I would have considered Cotton Mather American. He is certainly considered an American writer. I would guess that none of those killed in the Boston Massacre were Americans either since the US hadn't declared independence then. I think your reasoning leads to more problems than it solves. Keep distinct the terms US citizen and American. The latter is broader. --Erp (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Eodcarl has failed to find any RS (reliable secondary sources) that support his personal POV. There are many studies of African Americans and they all include the slaves (who were not legal citizens). Take a look at the new National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington that just opened to wide acclaim. Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy your alternate reality that uses the fake term African American to refer even to people who were never Americans. I prefer accuracy and precision, neither of which have ever been important on Wikipedia. Enjoy your alternate reality supported by academic elitists who have never done anything. Eodcarl (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Eodcarl expresses his contempt for scholarship, for expertise and for historical research. Reliance on personal uniformed prejudices can flourish on Twitter, but please not here. Anyone who wants to ridicule Wikipedia and flout its established procedures is not being helpful in the editorial process. Rjensen (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Negroes" in the lead

As seen here (followup edit here), I reverted this edit by Rjensen because this matter was previously discussed and settled. As seen at Talk:African Americans/Archive 19#"Negro-American", a discussion which included me, DD2K (Dave Dial) and Soupforone, there was agreement to leave "negro" out of the lead because it's no longer a significant alternative term for a black person and runs afoul the WP:Offensive material guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In the terms of the WP:Offensive material guideline, I don't see how the omission of "negro" or "negroes" from the lead is detrimental to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

POV-pushing socks.

I would ask everyone who has this page on their watchlist to please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopVisionary. To me, it feels like these socks have been appearing at an increasing rate. Also, not every sockpuppet is as obvious as Illuminati89 was just now. WP:BEANS and all, but these socks most often push their POV in the form of drive-by tagging and adding negative statistics, and outside of this page there also seems to be an interest in hip hop musicians (Drake in particular). It's important to remember to WP:AGF, but just be wary when it comes to new accounts who match that description making suspicious edits to this article. Sro23 (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

African Americans vs Black Americans

Is there a reason why both terms don't have their own pages? I only ask because there are two different pages for White Americans and European Americans and maybe we should also do the same to refer to native Black Americans from the U.S. and African Americans who migrate from Africa. I'm just curious and wanted to know if we should separate the two terms or if on the contrary, we should merge both the White Americans and European Americans pages into one. AquilaXIII (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Census, white Americans include people of Middle Eastern and North African descent, so I can see the point of having two articles. On the other hand, black Americans and African Americans are synonymous. See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Many Black Americans of Caribbean descent reject the term African Americans for themselves and do see a similar distinction as between White and European Americans, with all African Americans being also Black Americans but not all Black Americans being African Americans.81.65.169.250 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That's their prerogative, but on Wikipedia, what matters is whether reliable sources make that distinction and they generally don't. The U.S. Census has a single category, "Black or African American". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
MShabazz: Your U.S. Census example proves my point. The phrase states, as you say, "Black OR African American" (emphasis added) (It actually states "Black, African Am., or Negro," but that is besides the point). If Black American and African American were always the same, it is superfluous to have both "Black" and "African." Clearly, the U.S. Census wording recognizes that there can be a difference between Black and African Americans. For statistical purposes, it simply lumps the two categories together, but that does not mean that Black and African cannot have distinct meanings. You can also think about this way, look at the category "Guamanian or Chamorro." I think you would agree that Guamanians and Chamorros are distinct but are being lumped together for a statistical purpose.81.65.169.250 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

I would like the sentence " In 2008, Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected President of the United States." replaced by " In 2008, Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected President of the United States, going on to be re-elected in 2012." 128.62.54.171 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think that's necessary. He was the first AA president. We don't need to say he was also the second. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: I wouldn't put it that way either. I thought quite a bit about how to word the sentence in order to emphasise that he was a popular enough statesman to be re-elected. I think you should accept my edit because it adds context.
It´s an uncontroversial fact, but perhaps not interesting enough to put in this article. American presidents, if they live, gets a second term more often than not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It's interesting because it shows definitively that the election of an African American person wasn't a fluke. 128.62.54.171 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there an article on WP somewhere that says/hints/insinuates that it was a fluke? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm not sure why you think that is necessary for this edit request to be actioned. I don't think it's your intent but you're making it rather hard for non-autoconfirmed users to be bold. I'm abandoning this request for now. 128.62.54.171 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Blacks

I have some friends that are blacks that are deeply offended by the term African-Americans, saying that it makes them feel different from everyone else, also that they are not even African, and wonder why whites aren't called "European-Americans". Stuff like this should be noted in the article. - ZLEA (Talk,Contribs) 21:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

ZLEA, did you see this material? The article addresses preferences for "African American" or "Black American." Anything that you want to add to that section would need to be reliably sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to give my two cents on the subject. I see the section Flyer22 Reborn pointed out that "Africa serves as a geographic marker" for people of African descent as German-American etc. would for someone of that ancestry, for the lack of ability to trace one's ambiguous roots if descending from slavery (understandable) but when it comes down to individual biographies, I believe there are POV and OR concerns across the board. Why? Because based on perceived African features (such as color etc.), we deem it necessary to insinuate that one is an African American via categorization even if sources denoting that fact is absent. For example, for Americans with obvious European backgrounds, if their ancestry is unclear we cannot categorize their European ancestry (American people of German descent etc.), nor do we have a category "Caucasian (or White) American people". (Which also raises the question, why isn't there? There is a "Hispanic and Latino-American people‎" category). Nor do we categorized them as "American people of European descent" unless stated in source of its ambiguous form (parents were from "Europe"; such as many 18th century biographies). There is also the Caribbean American issue, who at times choose not to fully assimilate and would denote their geographic marker as the country they immigrated from and thus would prefer "black" American. Then there is Whoopi Goldberg who blatantly states openly that she is an American and "not" an African American [2] and yet the article that covers her completely ignore WP:BIO concerns and mentions that she is an African American multiple times over. The U.S. census is one thing but politics should not rain systematically across biographies of Americans who deny the hyphenated term, for the same reason we "choose" to not need a "Caucasian (or White) American people" category.
I believe categories such as "American people of XYZ descent" be it "African" are far more useful and neutral when talking about categorization. I think this might be a wider issue at hand (as "Hispanic and Latino American people" pose a similar problem than simply stating example "American people of [insert Latin American country here] descent", but what are your thoughts on this? Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"nor do we have a category "Caucasian (or White) American people". (Which also raises the question, why isn't there?"

We have articles about European Americans and White Americans, but not Caucasian Americans. The closest thing to Caucasian we have is Caucasian race, where the term is defined as obsolete. :First introduced in early racial science and anthropometry, the term denoted one of the three purported major races of humankind (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid). Many social scientists have argued that such analyses are rooted in sociopolitical and historical processes rather than in empirical observation."

We have Category:American people of European descent and Category:White Americans. Dimadick (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch, regarding this edit you made, what is erroneous about having that link? Civil rights does redirect to the Civil and political rights article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Within the sentence "With the rise of 1960s civil rights movement, there was a dramatic increase in names of various origins." the term "civil rights movement" in this instance refers to the social movement civil rights movement, not the concept of civil and political rights or "civil rights". Also, this article is about "African Americans", so the social movement is being referenced. Since the term "civil rights movement" is wikilinked twice before this sentence I didn't wikilink it again so as not to create another duplicate link. I hope this doesn't sound too confusing. Mitchumch (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Mitchumch, I figured that was your issue. I still don't see the problem with linking that article since it is the general article for civil rights and should mention the movement we are referring to, but I'm not arguing that you should re-add the link. On a side note: The title of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) article really needs to be moved to "Civil Rights Movement," but I see that this has been discussed on that article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: As for the article title change, place the article on your watchlist. The next time a discussion occurs, you can register your position. Mitchumch (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2017

may you please put this cite down under related ethnic group The Kingdom of Koya (Liberia)[s://micronations.wiki/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_Koya_(Liberia) The Kingdom of Koya (Liberia)] this is african americans closest related ethnic group the current monarch is a african american hip hop artist https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/youngwhite1 please study the micronation site first king fondren bai ll stage name is young white 64.183.42.90 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.. Please also be aware that you need to cite independent, reliable secondary sources to support any proposed changes. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the Emmett Till article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on African Americans. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017

In the article it states that African Americans are "African Americans of 73.2–80.9% West African, 18–24% European, and 0.8–0.9% Native American genetic heritage, with large variation between individuals". This is not true for most African Americans. Some African Americans have less than 73.2% African DNA and some have more European and Native American DNA. There are different percentages of DNA for African Americans why is one specific percentage being used? I think this should be changed and all the different African American DNA percentages should be listed like below.

  • According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.
  • According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.
  • According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.
  • According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.
  • According to AfricanDNA, in which I am a partner with Family Tree DNA, the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

souce:http://www.theroot.com/exactly-how-black-is-black-america-1790895185


}} Sarahann26125 (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Sarahann's sentiment and think the statement in the lead at present gives a false sense of precision. It says "On average, African Americans are of", gives ranges for each genetic source, and then says "with large variation", leaving the reader to guess how many people actually fall into this range or whether it could be a misleading mean falling in the middle of a bipolar distribution. Furthermore a survey of 5000 "23andme" users is a good start but obviously far from perfect as a source for authoritative knowledge about African Americans as a whole. These stats should go down to the Genetics section and get presented with some more explanation.
Also, this wording omits African Americans with Asian ancestry.
That being said, I'm not sure what's the better wording to use in the lead. I think we can't fit in all these statistics at the top of the article. Maybe someone else will feel inspired... good morning, groupuscule (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I have moved these studies into the genetics section, with a little more explanation there. In their place in the lead is a very generic statement on the same topic. The lead now reads (with two unchanged surrounding sentences for context):

Most African Americans are of West and Central African descent and are descendants of enslaved peoples within the boundaries of the present United States.[11][12] Many African Americans have some European and Native American ancestry as well. According to US Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American.

Further improvement is still warranted, both in the genetics section and in the lead. groupuscule (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


@Groupuscule: Thank you for moving it to the genetic section. I would like to note a small issue to the change. In the beginning of the article it stated that "Many African Americans have some European and Native American ancestry as well" but, in the Genetic section it stated that "According to a genome-wide study by Bryc et al. (2009), the overall ancestry of African Americans was formed through historic admixture between West/Central Africans (more frequently females) and Europeans (more frequently males)." The first sentence contradicts the second one and vice versa. I suggest that the sentence in the beginning of the article be changed form "Many African Americans have some European and Native American ancestry as well" to "African Americans have European and Native American ancestry as well". I noticed that in the genetic section it states that "African Americans are a multiracial people" so, you can also change the sentence in the beginning to "African Americans have sub-Saharan African, European, and Native American ancestry".
Since all the statistics can't be fitted into the article, as you mentioned, you can probably take the original sentence "African Americans have 73.2–80.9% West
African, 18–24% European, and 0.8–0.9% Native American genetic heritage, with large variation between individuals" and change it to "African Americans have 65–80%
sub-Saharan(West/Central), 19–29% European, and 0.6–2% Native American genetic heritage, with large variation between individuals". With this change, the correct statistics will be included into the article.
Thanks a lot for your help.Sarahann26125 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the dispute between Kinfoll1993 and Underbelly, seen here and here, I noticed that Groupuscule chose "many" and Kinfoll1993 chose "the vast majority." But the previous lead didn't use a qualifier. I know that there may be some African Americans who don't have Native American DNA, but are there any sources showing that some Africans American do not have European DNA? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
If there are any sources stating that some African Americans do not have European DNA, then they are in the minority. Most sources on the DNA of African Americans show a relatively high percentage of European DNA, including the root article that Underbelly cited from. Geneticists have virtually universally agreed at this point that there are very few Black Americans with no European American ancestry, although there are some such as Oprah Winfrey, who has Native American ancestry and no European DNA. Ultimately, the qualifier of majority or vast majority is accurate for European ancestry, but I can see that Native American ancestry is somewhat minuscule.
Also, I noticed that the root article that was agreed upon to cite in the genetics section mentions this additional genetics range, which was omitted from this page: "Spencer Wells, director of National Geographic's Genographic Project, explained to me that the African Americans they've tested range from 53 percent to 95 percent sub-Saharan African, 3 percent to 46 percent European and zero percent to 3 percent Native American. So, should we include this source as well? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Kinfoll1993, my point was that I have always seen such studies show that African Americans have European DNA and that the wording of "many" and "the vast majority" indicates that some don't have any. So I asked: What sources show that some don't have any? Why should we use "many" and "the vast majority" if no sources support that some don't have any? Unless, of course, we are using the qualifiers for Native American ancestry. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about your question. I mean, if it's not a statistic that is generally supported, I would state no...per WP:Due weight. We shouldn't include every statistic, but rather the most common. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. Well, in regards to Native American ancestry, there seem to be some sources showing that many African Americans simply don't have it, including the root article and this one, http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5 which says that "With a lower threshold of 1% Native American ancestry, we estimate that about 22% of African Americans carry some Native American ancestry". So, a qualifier seems needed for Native American ancestry at least, since it is not as prevalent as the West/Central African or European DNA in Black Americans. Perhaps we could say, "African Americans are of West/Central African and European descent, and some also have Native American ancestry", or something to that effect? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I am loath to make a blanket statement about the ancestry of African Americans—beyond the involvement of Africa which applies by definition—without strong evidence. Genetic testing is neither perfect nor ubiquitous; nor have I seen the published literature address the question of whether some African Americans have all-African ancestry. (Consider that Africa and Europe have never been separate islands with no interchange, and that DNA of African ancestors might be flagged as European, and vice versa. At the risk of getting too in-depth: the genome analyzers themselves may have to make some arbitrary decisions to distinguish African from European DNA. Consider also that people seeking genetic testing are not a random sample!) As I'm sure people here know quite well, mean European ancestry does not prove anything about the extent of European ancestry. (Mean with standard deviation might get us closer.) More sources could be found; or perhaps there is something very strong in the existing sources; but in general I urge caution. Thus the statement which I described at the time as "generic" was, I think, accurate and verifiable. I'm not sure the same can be said for these alternatives. Optimistically, groupuscule (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Genetics sources may not be perfect, but geneticists generally can distinguish African DNA from European DNA. We have a myriad of genetics sources which all point to African Americans having European and African DNA; this is a general statement which isn't really arguable. If we can make any blanket statement, it would be to say that Black people in America typically have African and European DNA or ancestry. There is slight margin of error in DNA testing, but the overall accuracy of these sources is undeniable. Also, although the sources may not be a random sample, they are a substantial mixture of samples from separate groups of African Americans. It's not as if the same group was tested over and over by different geneticists or DNA testing companies; the group tested by 23andMe is not the same group tested by Ancestry.com or by National Geographic, etc. So whether it's a random sample or not doesn't matter. These are all varying companies / geneticists using different sample populations, yet coming to the same conclusion in regards to African / European admixture. The question is really "how much" at this point, not "if". I understand the concern though, and the standard deviation is hard to acquire given the question of "how much" DNA this group has, and given that most sources here either state the mean or the standard deviation, but not the standard deviation with the mean. For example, the sources with Henry Louis Gates and Mark D. Shriver state the extent of what percentage of African Americans have what percentage of DNA, and is probably closest to combining the mean with standard deviation, but is vague in terms of describing exact percentages (using words such as "at least" in regards to the percentage of DNA).
The question of whether some African Americans have all-African DNA was addressed in the root article which samples five different genetics sources: "First of all, simply glancing at these statistics reveals that virtually none of the African Americans tested by these DNA companies is inferred to be 100 percent sub-Saharan African, although each company has analyzed Africans and African immigrants who did test 100 percent sub-Saharan in origin." So, it seems that almost no African Americans (not including African immigrants) are of 100% African heritage. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Groupuscule, you stated you have not "seen the published literature address the question of whether some African Americans have all-African ancestry." That's the issue. I'm not sure that we should use a qualifier in this case when the literature seems to indicate that all African Americans have European DNA. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The percentage values should be changed as they are false. Many tests show that some African Americans have less than 70% sub-Saharan DNA, more European and Native DNA. Some African Americans have higher Native American DNA like Snoop Dogg who has 23%. This is also another reason it should be changed as well because the percent values on the page boxes every African American in the same category. The percent values for sub-Saharan DNA should range between 65%-79%,the European 19%-30%, and the Native American 0.6%-12.5%. Sarahann26125 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to change the percentage values under the genetics section, I'm not against it. However, the percentages you listed are less accurate. Why should the European range be between 19-30% when we clearly have some studies which say that European DNA for African Americans is lower than 19%, like the PLOS genetics study? I've seen European ranges somewhat lower than 19% (the lowest I've seen is about 14%) along with ranges as high as 30%. I've also seen Sub-Saharan DNA ranges that are in the low 80th%. The Snoop Dogg DNA test was done on the Lopez Tonight talk show, and the validity of the tests on his program was questioned by numerous geneticists, especially the Native American component. The Native American DNA in African Americans is at the highest I've seen about 3%, and most geneticists put it at anywhere from 0.5-2%. Virtually every study on African Americans shows a low percentage of Amerindian DNA; and a high percentage of European and sub-Saharan DNA. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, I want to add that the current percentage values aren't false; the sources from which they are derived have been published in peer-reviewed, highly acclaimed sources like the American Journal of Human Genetics, PLOS Genetics, and Science Magazine. Some discussions have took place on this talk page along with other pages about what kind of sources we should use in these studies. We've talked about adding references from Ancestry.com and other similar data in the past. Although I personally don't have a problem with those sources and I'm not dismissing their validity, it was concluded that a strict policy should be put into place that accepted peer-reviewed material only and not those from commercial testing companies (unless of course these commercial companies were published in these peer-reviewed sources). So another question arises: Why include the sources from the root article, since we have more up to date sources from these peer-reviewed journals. As we can't include every study, we should only include those considered the most reliable. Also, I don't see any studies listing average Native American ancestry as high as 12.5%; sources from Ancestry.com and virtually every other source (commerical or not) included. The Mark D. Shriver source lists that only 5% of African Americans are 12.5% Native American; the book source shows the vast majority are far less than 12.5% on average and further states that Native American ancestry is relatively low in comparison to the substantial European and African ancestry. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's put the percentages of african, european and native ancestry back in the openeing paragraph. "some european and native american ancestry" is too vague and not accurate as african americans have far more european than native ancestry. its misleading. put all the sources percentages together eg 65-80 percent african, 18-25 percent european and 0.5-5 percent native. its important its at the top of the article because thats where most people read the article. (Underbelly 50).

I agree with the other two users that we don't put percentages at the top. You know we've already come to a consensus on that about a month ago; the discussion now is about the ranges listed under the genetics section. If we were to put all the source percentages together it still wouldn't come out to the averages you just listed. Look, the PLOS study that you referenced a year ago here http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1006059&version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click says that African Americans are on average 16.7 percent European. So you're actually contradicting the study that you brought to this page by starting the European percentage at 18%. Even at 5%, the Native American ancestry is still too high to be valid. Also, the lead of the article is supposed to summarize the points of the other sections which compose the article; so of course it would be more "vague". Looking back on it, listing ranges in the lead was a poor idea to begin with. If we want to discern between lower levels of Native American and higher levels of European ancestry, we can do so (without edit warring mind you); but that doesn't mean that we should put the ranges at the top. This isn't about recognition or who gets to see whose edit---that seems to be the major issue that you're concerned about instead of improving the page. The ranges are better suited for the genetics section. We must ensure these ranges are accurate. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was using the percentages as an example. I said eg... Well I agree lets do that, Put lower degree of native american ancestry. (Underbelly 50) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underbelly 50 (talk • contribs)

Ok, but typically when using e.g., the examples used are supposed to be an accurate (and not random) reflection of the previous statement(s), or examples are illustrated as models upon which a solution is based. The examples listed are therefore supposed to be congruous to the prior statement. I just want to corroborate that we have accurate ranges here. Before we differentiate btw the varying amounts of European and Native American ancestry, we should ensure we have a consensus from the users involved under the genetics section concerning the appropriate ranges reflective of the source material. We need to wrap this discussion up soon with all the issues resolved. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Since the ranges differ, we need to stick to what the majority of sources usually report on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Combining the three ranges we have from Katarzyna Bryc et al and Soheil Baharian et al will give us 73.2-82.1% West African ancestry, 16.7%-24% European ancestry, and 0.8-1.2% Native American ancestry. The majority of peer-reviewed sources are within these ranges. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Underbelly's perfect logic is at work again: "saying some european and native ancestry doesnt give an accurate description. especially as this is in the introduction section. many people will not scroll all the way down to genetics section. 18–24% European, and 0.8–0.9% native". This rambling, nonsensical, incoherent, fragmented nightmare of a sentence is exactly one of copious reasons as to why Underbelly shouldn't be involved in these edits. He constantly edit wars, he's been recently warned about it on here if you check the talk page revision history, and on his own user page. He's been warned about it on this page last year, yet continued to do so anyway. I don't edit on Wikipedia much anymore because it can be exasperating (nor do I have much time), but Underbelly's incessant impatience and disregard for working with other users is ridiculous. We've already all agreed that "18-24% European, and 0.8-0.9% native" (the current ranges) should be superseded by more accurate ranges, so why is he referencing the rejected ranges randomly at the end of his second sentence? Also, a simple solution to his complaint that "saying some european and native ancestry doesn't give an accurate description" is simply to do what was done under the "Admixture section": place (see genetics) at the end of the sentence in the lead to direct people to the exact percentages (that way they don't have to "scroll all the way down to the genetics section"). In the lead, we could also just place one citation that contains all of the references on the genetics section, so that one could easily see the varying levels of European/Native American etc. ancestry once they click on the attached links. We already discussed that the lead should be more vague than the sections it summarizes. Flyer22 Reborn, I am requesting that if willing, you or another editor make the necessary edits on this matter when a consensus is established, so that no ludicrous edit wars occur in the future and that we can resolve this in as fair a manner as possible. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Underbelly needs to stops adding contested additions and edit warring. Such repeated behavior may be reported at WP:AN or WP:ANI. We can work on a consensus for how to present this information in the lead, if there are valid issues with the current consensus. For example, you suggested the following wording above: "African Americans are of West/Central African and European descent, and some also have Native American ancestry."
You stated, "I don't edit on Wikipedia much anymore because it can be exasperating (nor do I have much time)." That sounds like me -- what I've stated on the top my user page/talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Flyer22 Reborn. I hadn't edited in almost a year until I returned briefly in May to do some occasional, limited editing. I think we should go with the statement "African Americans are of West/Central African and European descent, and some also have Native American ancestry" for the lead. I would also like to know if you agree with the ranges I've proposed (73.2-82.1% West African ancestry, 16.7%-24% European ancestry, and 0.8-1.2% Native American ancestry) for the genetics section that I think encompass most sources, or if you suggest something else? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem, Kinfoll1993. I don't oppose your "African Americans are of West/Central African and European descent, and some also have Native American ancestry" proposal. As for the ranges, as long as they are the most common, I guess. I just want to make sure we are careful on that matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Flyer, we'll move forward with the changes in the lead then with consensus established. Regarding the genetic ranges, they seem to be the most common as of the last 7 years (excluding most of the commercial testing companies such as the majority of sources from the root article which have not been in peer reviewed sources). Since the ranges seem to be a more delicate matter, if you find any problem with them in the future or if some new sources are published which are outside of these proposed ranges, we can further discuss a way to replace them with any (new) and/or more common sources. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Blacks are no Ethicity

The black Americans whose Ancestors were Slaves are an Amalgam of many different Ethnities from Western African and Western Central African countries and Angola. The Slaves were originally a very heterogenous Group.--95.113.225.46 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

Add want to add the Kingdom of Koya as a related ethnic group because it is the Kingdom of Sierra Leon crio and Americo Liberians 204.102.74.248 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Subject matter experts are requested to peruse Definitions of whiteness in the United States#African_Americans, which requires expansion and (like the rest of the article) needs to be checked for accuracy and neutrality. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A gap in the terminology

The Terminology section says that "negro" was not used after the mid-1960s and "African American" was not used before 1988. What was used in between? I think the answer is "black" but this should be stated explicitly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be reading things that the article doesn't say. Both of those assertions are untrue, and neither appears in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on African Americans. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on African Americans. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem with statement in lead

"According to US Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (~95%)."
This is a bit misleading because it very quickly strays from the primary topic. It's not immediately clear that the report in question (which used data from 1980, 1990, and 2000) was only about foreign-born first generation African immigrants. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What would be an example of an African immigrant who is not foreign-born first generation? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this statement in the introduction is very problematic. As an immediate example, the study that this sentence links to (via footnote) talks specifically about black immigrants being over-represented in the African-American population of elite colleges. This naturally assumes two things: (1) These kids of immigrants are checking "African-American" when they apply to these colleges, and (2) These colleges are considering these kids as African-American when reporting their ethnicity statistics. So how can you use this study to claim that the children of black immigrants don't consider themselves African-American? --Westwind273 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Hi James343e, I think you are misunderstanding WP:BRD. If your edit is reverted, the onus is on you, and not the editors reverting you, to get consensus for the change before reinstating it. Sro23 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sro23. But look at this: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." Source: WP:BRD.

Also: "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit." Source: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

The onus is on you since you are the one who fully (not partially) reverted it without giving a reason.

I mean, I do not consider the "not consensus in the talk page" a genuine "reason", since a lot of editions are made on Wikipedia everyday without any kind of discussion in the talk page. In other words, to discuss in the talk page is not always a necessary condition to make editions. If you want to revert my edition, please be specific on why do you consider it wrong the sentence "enslaved sub-Saharan Africans". What is wrong with my edition? Any reason? James343e (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a necessary condition when the edit is contested. If your edit was obviously uncontroversial, then you wouldn't need to start a discussion on the talk page, but clearly more than one person disagrees with your change. Please don't edit war until consensus is reached. Sro23 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that edit war must be avoided. Of course! But look a this: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." Source: WP:BRD. You still didn't give me a reason! Please be specific on the reason why do you consider it unvalid the sentence "enslaved sub-Saharan Africans". Any reason of why is my edition contested? Please don't go back to the linear argument: "it is contested because your edit has been contested." James343e (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Lack of consensus is actually a perfectly valid reason for reverting. Start a Requests for comment if you like. Sro23 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Circular_reasoning). This fallacy occurs when the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Why is my edition reverted? Because there is lack of consensus. Why is there lack of consensus? Because there is lack of consensus.
You still didn't give me a reason of why my edition "enslaved sub-Saharan Africans" is contested, hence reverted. James343e (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Because I see no source verifying the claim that exclusively sub-Saharan Africans were the ones enslaved. Again, I think you're misunderstanding the point of WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted, and now we discuss. Sro23 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
"Because I see no source verifying the claim that exclusively sub-Saharan Africans were the ones enslaved." OK, I now understand your objection. Thank you so much for your explanation Sro23.
Well, the first objection is that we need a reliable reference indicating that slaves were sub-Saharan Africans only.
Does anyone else have any other objection? Any other reason why you are against "enslaved sub-Saharan Africans"? Souphrone? MShabazz? James343e (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Please read WP:No original research, one of Wikipedia's core content policies. You keep trying to change the first few sentences of this article, but they have four sources between them. Do any of the sources specifically mention "sub-Saharan Africa"? If not, you need to cite sources of your own—you can't add it to the sentences if the sources that support what's already there don't include it. So long as you keep adding original research, I will keep removing it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the slaves were taken from around Mauritania in the Maghreb, which is a trans-saharan area [3]. Soupforone (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry late reply. I was a bit stressed last month. Thank you so much for all your responses.

Hello Sro23, how are you? Well, I was looking on the internet and I couldn't find any reference indicating that slaves in the US were traded from North Africa.

Hi Soupforone . Thank you for the interesting reference! As you well know, the U.S Census defines North Africa as Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. Mauritania would not be there. More importantly, Mauritania is part of Sub-Saharan Africa: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa https://books.google.es/books?id=8DEpoST71d0C&pg=PA193&dq=mauritania+is+part+of+sub-saharan+africa&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjer93n7NfZAhXCvxQKHduDBk84FBDoAQgyMAI#v=onepage&q=mauritania%20is%20part%20of%20sub-saharan%20africa&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by James343e (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Malik Shabazz. Well, in the 7th reference of the article it is explicity said that "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States". So I do not think I am doing original research if I write the same as the source :). I think it is clear that the term African American refers to individuals who are descendants of Black African slaves, rather than Berber or Arab hypothetical slaves.

That's why I want to put the term black or sub-saharan African, to be more specific and avoid confusion. African American refers to blacks reather than Arabs or Berbers, and the term "enslaved Africans" can be ambigous.

I will put the same as the original source: "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States"

What do you think? Do you agree? Feel free to change it if you disagree. James343e (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the url apparently indicates. However, Mauritania is geographically trans-Saharan, but much of its inhabitants are of Berber origin (Moors) like a few kilometers to the north. Soupforone (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not true

The text says "in the 17th century... to English colonies". This is about slaves. Elizabeth and Francis Drake were involved in the slave trade in the 16th century. So were Towerson and Lock. The implication that English slavery only started in the 17th century is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.170 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, John Hawkins was in the slave trade in the 16th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.170 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Francis Drake and John Hawkins were second cousins.
Of course, there were few English colonies in America in the 16th century.
The colony in Roanoke might have had few or no African slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.170 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We have a List of colonists at Roanoke, with all 120 known colonists. None of them seems to have been a slave. And the Roanoke Colony was a failed colony. The first successful English colony was the Colony of Virginia. It was established in 1607, 4 years following the death of Elizabeth I of England. According to our article on Jamestown, Virginia (the first European settlement in the area), the first wave of settlers included "German, Polish, and Slovak craftsmen", but no Africans. The first "20 African slaves arrived in Jamestown in 1619". Dimadick (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
You are quite right. Still, the false impression is given that Elizabeth and the like were not slavers, when they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.170 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

173.87.227.216 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME BROUGHT IN 1619 AS INDENTURED SERVANTS OH PLEASE YOU PEOPLE LOVE TRYING TO ERASE YOUR SHAMEFUL HISTORY THAT WAS CHATTEL SLAVERY BLACKS DID NOT COME INTO THIS COUNTRY AS INDENTURED SERVANTS YOU PEOPLE NEED TO CHANGE THIS LIE BLACKS WERE BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY BY FORCE LIARS

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 00:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
An article I read once said something like "...technically not slaves, but indentured servants. A distinction that possibly escaped them". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A more precise definition

The first sentence of this article is wrong, in that all Americans have ancestry in sub-Saharan African, since all humans originally came from Africa. In fact, the term "African American" is used to distinguish those Americans whose ancestors left sub-Saharan African in the 16th century or later. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. James343e (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Context matters. Recent African origin of modern humans is a different topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
But we're not simply talking about the original migration of the human species. Due to trans-saharan trade and the Moorish conquests of Spain and Sicily, there is a lot of sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Europeans that dates back to the 5th century AD or earlier. In fact, it is likely that almost all southern Europeans, and at least one-third of northern Europeans have some sub-Saharan ancestry within the last 2,000 years. Most people fail to recognize the exponential breadth of ancestry when going back 1,000 years or more. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
For something like that to have any chance to be mentioned in this article, you would need reliable sources that discuss this later ancestry in connection to african-americans. If it's something scholarship hasn't bothered with, neither will WP. If you have such sources, WP:BE BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
And BTW, the (current) first sentence is not wrong, it is one sentence of several. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll do you one better. There is already a Wikipedia article that explains this: "African Admixture in Europe". Specifically: 'A 2011 study by Moorjani et al. found that almost all southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% Sub-Saharan ancestry (3.2% in Portugal, 2.9% in Sardinia, 2.7% in southern Italy, 2.4% in Spain and 1.1% in northern Italy) with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, "consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations".' --Westwind273 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I've mentioned Recent African origin of modern humans on this talk page before, but we can't say that all Americans are African American. We need to follow the sources with WP:Due weight. What wording are you proposing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the article should start off something like this: African Americans are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial recent ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa. It generally refers to Americans whose total or partial ancestry left sub-Saharan Africa in the 16th century or later. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources in the Wikipedia article African Admixture in Europe. Do you want me to list them all? --Westwind273 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ideally those that discuss how African Admixture in Europe affect who is/isn't African American, to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we want to avoid WP:RULE-PARALYSIS. If someone reads the article "African Admixture in Europe" and then reads this article, wouldn't they be confused? Are Americans whose ancestry comes from southern Italy African-American or not? --Westwind273 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not rule paralysis, it's going by sources and common sense. The admixture in Europe has nothing to do with the ethnic group described in this article. And the article describes every aspect of the term, via reliable sources. We don't need to get bogged down in some DNA driven search for percentages of African genomes. Dave Dial (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the admixture in Europe is not included in the ethnic group "African-American" as the term is commonly used. What I am saying that this article should state that clearly. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Page description NOT including Obama

I get that the Black, Pan-African, and African American community recognizes Obama as the first president from their race. However this page description: This article is about the U.S. population of Americans of West/Central African ancestry. For the population of recent African origins, see African immigration to the United States.

does not fit with this sentence at the end of the lead:

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


Obama has only East African ancestry, and his African ancestry is descended from recent immigration. 98.210.246.205 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The wording was recently changed, I changed it back. The definitions should really be between recent immigrated sub-saharan and those(and their descendants) who lived in the USA before the end of the Civil Rights Era. Dave Dial (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The first two sentences of this article are highly problematic. In fact, both are wrong. Almost all Italian-Americans have some recent African-American ancestry (i.e. migrating out of sub-Saharan Africa within historical times). And the cases of Barack Obama, Colin Powell and many others prove the invalidity of the second sentence. With so many crucial contemporary issues surrounding African-Americans (Black Lives Matter, etc), it is truly sad that the Wikipedia article on African-Americans starts off with two sentences that are demonstrably false. Additionally, it is insulting to recent immigrants to the US from Africa to deny them the identity African-American. They are every bit as African as the descendants of slaves. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how it follows from anything you said that the first sentence is highly problematic, let alone wrong. As for the second sentence, did the word typically not display in your browser? RivertorchFIREWATER 18:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how you don't see that the first sentence is problematic. Did my comments directly above in "A more precise definition" not display in your browser? The first sentence should be modified to indicate that African-American refers to people with ancestry that departed sub-Saharan Africa in the 16th century or later. As for the second sentence, does the word insulting not appear in your dictionary? How would you feel if you were Barack Obama and someone said to you, "Your type is not typically considered African-American, but we'll make a special exception in your case." --Westwind273 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. I try not to edit based on how I might feel if I were someone else. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Per Q2 at Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, he'd probably be ok with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny, the Q&A you point to contradicts the second sentence of this article. It says all with black African ancestry are African-American, regardless of when they came to the US. But I guess you don't care about Wikipedia articles contradicting each other when you edit. --Westwind273 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Though it's nice when WP is reasonably consistent, it is often not because of it's nature. Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ is not an article though. But Obamas african-american-ness is/was a tricky subject for some (there's probably sources enough to make a separate article on the topic). Debra Dickerson wrote at one time "President Barack Obama, who is the son of a Kenyan immigrant, although technically African-American, is not black." Another time she wrote "African-American, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves, because Obama is not a descendant of West Africans brought involuntarily to the United States as slaves, he is not African-American." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the wording that Britannica uses is far superior: "African Americans are largely the descendants of slaves—people who were brought from their African homelands by force to work in the New World." That is a statement of fact. Using the word typically gives the negative connotation that recent immigrants are atypical, and are therefore in some way less genuine. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The words mean the same thing. I can't see how "typically" has negative connotations. Largely means typically and typically means largely. Frankly, this whole thread seems frivolous and a waste of time. Dave Dial (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You linked to largely twice. If you had actually linked to typically, you would have seen that the definitions are not identical, and typically does in fact have the connotations that I described. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Dave Dial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018

196.88.104.116 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 18:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

Change African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans[3]) to African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Black[3])

African Americans no longer use the term "Afro- American." Afro is a hairstyle in the USA and not a people group. People in the Caribbean or South American tend to use the term "Afro" in front of the country name to denote someone of African descent.

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. While you're undoubtedly right that the term has become far less common, I wonder if your claim that "African Americans no longer use the term" is overstating things a bit. Can you provide a source to support your claim? In any event, this has been in the lead sentence in one form or another since 2005, so there needs to be clear consensus for changing it. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, even if there is a good source for that, that's not the end all/be all of it. There's the rest of the english-speaking world. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed hatnote

Is anyone going to get bent out of shape if the following or something similar is posted as a hatnote? It reflects what was discussed previously under https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:African_Americans/Archive_16#Hyphen and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:African_Americans/Archive_13#Hyphen

When used as a noun, African American does not have a hyphen (example: "They are African Americans."). When used as an adjective it does (example: "African-American communities").

I think this might help avoid errors, of which there are plenty, in many other articles. I correct them when I find them. deisenbe (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You want us to use a hatnote to add a grammar note? We don't use hatnotes in that way. Terminology and grammar issues are supposed to be addressed in a section in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Er, dude. In the phrase "African American communities" the term is totally a noun, not an adjective. Take it from a linguistic (not polyglot) savant. Naughty Autie. 185.4.118.145 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That confuses function and category. In "African American communities" "African American" is an internal pre-head modifier, a function we usually consider to be typical of adjectives (category). Common parlance: "compound noun used as adjective". Drmies (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

I would suggest the following addition to the section on the black church Additionally, 50% of american seventh-day-adventists are black. Rkgrant (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 01:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Still not done. For info, see the Demographics section at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/03/a-closer-look-at-seventh-day-adventists-in-america/, which asserts that 37% are white, while 32% are black, 15% are Hispanic, 8% are Asian and another 8% are another race or mixed race (as of 2015). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Interracial marriages with Japanese people is common in the African American community.

Many African Americans marry Japanese people [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.247.210.4 (talk • contribs) 23:44, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

  • That's not exactly what the book said. The book didn't say it was common. It said that it wasn't taboo in Japan, and that African-Americans were interested in part because it allowed to be free and equal. And the information you cited was in a Jim Crow era context, not the present day. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_Americans/Archive_22&oldid=1142386983"