Talk:African immigration to the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

The article's sources all check out. Can anyone else confirm this? --Yellowfiver 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you follow this link[1], and scroll down to where it says "PLACE OF BIRTH, CITIZENSHIP STATUS AND YEAR OF ENTRY", you will find it gives the number of Sub-Saharan Africans born in Africa at 1,035,253. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingInExile (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Annan

Kofi Annan is not a citizen of the U.S.24.185.49.151 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

watch

I guess I should watch this page. African Immigrants specifically refers to people from the African continent who come to the United States and their children. Not black Mexicans, Not black carribbeans, not black people from France, not anyone who is of African i.e. black descent! If you want, you can make your own article about Carribbean Immigrants, but that is not what I'm writing about. Carribbean Immigrants have similar stats, but should be categorized differently.--Blambloom 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

echoing Blambloom's sentiments, African Immigrants should retain its separate category for numerous reasons. They are a small but distinct and growing group. If rates continue, by the next Census, this article will seem like a no-brainer. The main reason it should be distinct from African Americans is because they are not a sub-group of African Americans but a distinct entity. Different culture, different languages, different history, and (most importantly for me) different statistics.

However because there is still the commonality of "blackness" I'd suggest a brief summary of the group be put in African Americans with a link to the full article as is seen in many other articles. --Yellowfiver (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am professor of history, and today's lecture was on immigration to the United States. One of my students brought up slavery, and that set us to discussing the numbers of non-coerced African immigrants to the United States. That's why I came to this page. Unfortunately, it only deals with very recent immigration--I'm going to see if i can find some actual year by year numbers for African immigration. If I do, I will incorporate them into the article. I think this article should stay. Grumpy otter (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Should Barak Obama's photo be a part of this category? While his father was an African Immigrant, he is a native US citizen. For this reason - I think that the picture should be removedSketer1 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I love, Obama, but he's a straight-up American, otherwise he could not run for office anyway...he's also half-white.. it's too complex to use him as the example ... futurebird 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC

welllll, the stats I use for Harvard and Berkeley are comprised of both African Immigrants and their children. That's what makes the group so interesting. The 2nd generation, American born, American citizen, American assimilated children do just as well as their parents (albeit, highly educated parents) do. There really only aren't any stats for 3rd generation African Immigrants.

I think Barack Obama qualifies, his mother is almost a non-entity and his father is a Harvard graduate. i.e., he follows the exact same trend as regular African Immigrants and their children, the only difference is, his mother is not African. Emeka Okafor, Joseph Addai, Hakeem Olajuwon (and his children) are all citizens, the 2 former were born in the states. PLUS there are black people in the U.S. claiming Obama does not deserve to be called black or African-American because he is not the descendent of slaves. He does not fit the historical definition of "African American" but he does of 2nd generation of African Immigrant. -acutally if you guys could find a better description of these African Nisei that would be helpful. I do understand what you're saying though. maybe Barack fits in multiple categories: Black, Mixed Race, African-American, American-African, Keny...man, his mom being white really throws a wrench in an otherwise perfect categorization--Blambloom 18:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

although never explicitly stated, this article does show the incosistencies of Race and Intelligence. I don't want to get into it because I don't have the stomach for that kind of debate. African immigrants are just as black (actually genetically MORE black) than black Americans (due to mixing with whites and native americans) but do fine. Imagine if everyone knew these facts. Also shows the importance of culture and upbringing rather than 'race' and other societial constructs. --Blambloom 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw Barack Obama's picture up there so I removed it. He was born in Honolulu, HI which is a part of the United States, last time I checked. Also, common sense tells you that he isn't an immigrant if he can run for president. C'mon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.64.4 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I restored Obama, explaining why in the summary, but only now saw that you also left a message here. My reasoning is that given the current definition in the article, which includes both immigrants and their children, Obama should not be excluded. When the definition changes to only include natives, then I'd support removing him, too. SamEV (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is painfully clear that Barack Obama has no place, whatsoever, on this article. Senator Obama's father was not an 'immigrant' per se - he never gained American citizenship - so therefore, why should his son, a born and bred American into a family that has been there for generations, be included into this? My mother is English and my father was Tunisian, and was never a British citizen. If someone called me an 'immigrant' I would be direly offended; it is the same situation with Barack. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.195.111 (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's picture has returned to this page. People, it is just ignorant to portray him as an immigrant. He is not an immigrant. He is a native-born citizen of the United States. Was his photo added (and then re-added) to this page by a conspiracy theorist who believes his birth certificate is faulty and/or phoney? Kids, this is why you should not use wikipedia as an authoritative source for any research. DanielStylus (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What is being attempted here is shoehorning two concepts into one article - "African immigration" and "Notables with at least one African parent", so let's separate them into two articles to keep everyone happy? – ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The law states that if a person is born in the U.S., they're automatic U.S. citizens. There are no tests later on in life to earn U.S. citizenship. We can talk all about how the definition states that this article covers African immigrants and their children, but if we were to be technical, everyone here could count as immigrants because they're children of immigrants. Having Barack Obama under "African immigrants to the United States" is not objective. He is a U.S. citizen, born and raised. Having his picture up shows political bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.44.26 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro of the article can use some work. It seems to have original/unsourced statements. Also note that Africans that have U.S. citizenship are refered to as "African Americans". --Ted87 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect, Ted87. The AA term does not refer to indigenous Africans. They are Nigerian, Ethiopian, Ghanaian, etc. Africa is a continent, not a country. Nationalities refer to countries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.49.151 (talk • contribs).

Ted87, this isn't a smear campaign against Obama. Eventually all the children of African Immigrants, even the immigrants themselves can be technically "African Americans" Obama's white mother doesn't take anything away from his heritage, and he is indicative of typcial African Immigrant's children. Most of Harvard's blacks are not the traditional definition of "African American"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yellowfiver (talk • contribs).

I don't know what you are talking about. I never even mentioned Obama's name. --Ted87 07:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw Barack Obama's picture up there so I removed it. He was born in Honolulu, HI which is a part of the United States, last time I checked. Also, common sense tells you that he isn't an immigrant if he can run for president. C'mon!

Barack Obama's picture has returned to this page. People, it is just ignorant to portray him as an immigrant. He is not an immigrant. He is a native-born citizen of the United States. Was his photo added (and then re-added) to this page by a conspiracy theorist who believes his birth certificate is faulty and/or phoney? Kids, this is why you should not use wikipedia as an authoritative source for any research.DanielStylus (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

"African Immigrants (U.S.)" is a highly idiosyncratic term. I suggest Africans in the United States.--Pharos 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 11:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The--Yellowfiver 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC) title of this article is fine the way it is. Leave it alone. Like that old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."24.185.49.151 15:52, 24

"Calling this article "African Immigrants" is Americocentric and inaccurate because it's not just about African immigrants to the US, but their descendants as well. We do have Wikipedia:Naming conventions.--Pharos 19:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

no, no, no. The title of the article is fine as "African Immigrants" (U.S.) merely indicated the destination. What you did was make the title Afrocentric, actually you really just made the article obscure, and harder to find. The name really should simply be "African Immigrants" If one is looking on google and is looking for this group, what do you think they'll enter? --straight to the point--African Immigrants. or roundabout Africans in the United States. This has been a really good article so far, and your help is greatly appreciated, but I would prefer you not to ruin it.

You also redirected "African Immigrants" to "African Diaspora" I dunno if you're some black activist trying to draw attention to "African Diaspora" but African Immigrants are an interesting subject as well. And they are named "African Immigrants!"--Yellowfiver 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And African immigrants to Europe are also "African immigrants". That's the problem.--Pharos 20:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! That's why the article was first named "African Immigrants" and then changed to "African Immigrants (U.S.)", This new change doesn't help or clarify, it just forces the article to fit your subjective view of the term. It's really a travesty. I foresaw something like this happening and meant to put write a complete section about the term before a foolish debate like this would begin. Americentric? doubtful, if anything it's biased towards African Immigrants (notice very few negatives in the article) why is that? I'm the son of West African parents at one of the colleges the article mentions. thought I was different, until I found out about African Immigrants. --Yellowfiver 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article is anti-African. I'm saying the title "African Immigrants (U.S.)" is idiosyncratic and not in keeping with our naming conventions. We have no articles on "Russian immigrants" or "Chinese immigrants".--Pharos 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese American, Russian American, Mexican American are all great terms, but we cannot use the term "African American" because it describes a specific group. Also the article combines the overall performance of African immigrants, combining Nigerians with Ethiopians with Ghanaians, because there aren't enough stats for the groups by themselves. There are articles called "Chinese Immigration to the U.S." The title's relative uniqueness lie in distinguishing the group from the now commonplace term "African Americans" Because of the history of Africans having already having lived in the U.S. due to slavery, different "African Immigrants" have to be described, and have been by numerous sources. Check all of the references, we are referred to as African Immigrants. NPR, NY Times, The 2000 U.S. Census. "African Immigrants (U.S.) certainly fits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yellowfiver (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC).--Yellowfiver 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The "immigration to" articles are specifically about the process of immigration, not the immigrant communities themselves. I realize that the term "African American" is taken, and that an alternate is needed. Hence the form "Xes in Y", which is used in many articles, while no other articles use "Xian immigrants". "African immigrants", no matter how much you personally may identify with the term, is also plainly inaccurate as a reference to American-born people.-Pharos 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the American-born people whose are the children African Immigrants. I did not know how to reconcile that with the title. That being said, I don't know how "Africans in the United States" is better.--Yellowfiver 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no inherent contradiction between being "African" and being American, as I said we have several articles like Hungarians in Vojvodina or Chinese in Japan. On the other hand, there is an inherent contradiction between being an "immigrant" and being American-born.--Pharos 17:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't have the will to fight. "African Immigrants" is the term used by NPR and the U.S. Census, that's official enough for me. "Africans in the United States" doesn't make it any better. The inherent contradiction still exists. You just wanted to hijack the page "African Immigrants" because it now redirects to your "African Diaspora" article. Good job--Yellowfiver 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it a very strange idea that African diaspora is "my" article, considering I haven't edited it once in 2 1/2 years at Wikipedia. Look, there's nothing wrong with saying "African immigrant" when writing in an American context (well, except that it excludes children of immigrants), but this is very much an international encyclopedia and surely you're aware that the considerable majority of Africans who immigrate go to countries other than the US.--Pharos 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading university data

The great majority of non-traditional African Americans at elite universities are Caribbean, not African. While I don't doubt that Africans are well represented in such institutions relative to their numbers, one has to remember that Africans are a tiny minority of people in the US.--Pharos 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

References? --Yellowfiver 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Although I think the Harvard study concluded that the majority of blacks in elite American universities are either bi-racial, African, or the first or second generation children of African and particularly, Caribbean immigrants.

.............

72% percent of the people in that study were not from Africa, and many did not even self-identify as black (many identified as Hispanic, mixed, and other)! The study was very sloppy. I would not reference it in relation to African immigrants - It is more of a pro Affirmative Action/anti-immigrant manifesto.

The Study: Massey, D.S., Mooney, M. and Kimberly C. Torres, Charles C.Z (2007). Black Immigrants and Black Natives Attending Selective Colleges and universities in the United States. American Journal of Education 113 (Feb. 2007)

--70.68.179.142 10:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

African Immigrants

I put this paper together sometime ago. Although I have incorporated much of the information into this article in the past, I believe their is much good information that I have not. Please, if you have time see that some more of this information makes it into this article.

African Immigrants:

In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education (and several other sources using similar data), African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans (Logan & Deane, 2003; Dixon, 2006; Journal of Blacks in higher education, 1999-2000; Onwudiwe, 2006; Otiso and Smith, 2005; The Economist, 1996: Shobo). Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61).

In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61). This information suggests that America has an equally large achievement gap between whites and African/Asian immigrants as they do between white and black Americans.

The Canadian sociological literature on immigrants also paints a similar picture, however, less stark. All visible-minority immigrant groups whether from the Caribbean or India do better academically than their native born (non-visible) cohorts, on average. Both foreign-born and Canadian-born blacks have graduation rates that exceed those of other Canadians. Similar patters of educational over-achievements are reached with years of schooling and with data from the 1994 Statistics Canada survey. (Guppy and Davies, 1998; Boyd, 2002).

In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George's, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. However, minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had far lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles. Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for University admissions were actually working against students from these ethnic groups who were on average more qualified for higher education than their white peers (Cross, 1994).

According to the report The State of Working Britain, published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the highly regarded London School of Economics, 21 % of adult blacks in Britain with African origins have a university degree. Only 14 percent of adult white Britons are college educated.

Of the African-born population in the United States age 25 and older 86.4% reported having a high school degree or higher, compared with 78. 9% of Asian born immigrants and 76.5% of European born immigrants, respectively. These figures contrast with 61.8% percent of the total foreign-born population. Immigrants groups in general tend to have higher high school graduation rates than the native-born general American population.

Those Africans born from Zimbabwe (96.7 percent), Botswana (95.5 percent), and Malawi (95 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Cape Verde (44.8 percent), Mauritania (60.8 percent), and Somalia (63.3 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006)..

Of the European born those born in Bulgaria (92.6 percent), Switzerland (90.5 percent), and Ireland (90.4 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Portugal (42.9 percent), Italy (53.7 percent), and Greece (59.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).

Of the Asian born Mongolia (94.8 percent), Kuwait (94.7 percent), the United Arab Emirates (94.5 percent), and Qatar (94.3 percent) were most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Laos (48.1 percent), Cambodia (48.4 percent), and Yemen (49.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).. (Most people think the Asian group includes Orientals exclusively, this is not true)

Dodoo (1997) finds that while African immigrants are indeed the most educated of black groups in the U.S., he finds a negative return on African immigrants’ education attainment for diplomas obtained outside the United States. However, the same does not hold true for Caribbean immigrants. Although he finds that among blacks – native and immigrants – Africans earn the most, when earning-related endowments such as educational attainments are included in the analysis, this expected African advantage disappears (Dodoo, 1997).

Distortion and Group Differences:

In the United States researchers often muddle group difference data by aggregating divergent geographical, historical, cultural and ethic groups into crude and arbitrary categories with whom they then compare with the general population. This in practice misleads unwary readers into the false belief that those aggregated group mean scores objectively characterize the individual groups who have contributed to the overall figures. Take for example: Only 5.3 percent of Central American immigrants have earned a bachelor’s degree, and only 19.5% percent have graduated from high school (Davy, M. 2006). This difference is often coupled with data relating to South American immigrants who, according to the Migration Policy Institute (Dixon, D., and Gelatt J., 2006) 23.4 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher and 74.3 percent reported having a high school degree. These skewed grouping methods; the Hispanic category in this case, creates the false impression in the minds of readers that South American immigrants are poor students based on the fact that they speak Spanish or Portuguese, alone.

The African born and Employment:

The African born are concentrated in management or professional and sales or office-related occupations. Of the employed population age 16 and older in the civilian labor force, the African born were much more likely than the foreign born in general to work in management and professional occupations as well as sales and office occupations. Additionally, the African born were less likely to work in service, production, transportation, material moving, construction, and maintenance occupations than the foreign born in general.

Ethiopians, Sudanese and Somalis, who mostly immigrate as refugees, do not do as well as their counterparts from English speaking African countries such as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya. The reason was because most people from the three countries immigrate to the United States as refugees and asylum seekers, following crises in their home countries (Otiso and Smith, 2005).

Source Materials:

African Immigrants in the United States are the Nation's Most Highly Educated Group. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61doi:10.2307/2999156

African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31 doi:10.2307/3134095

African-Born U.S. Residents are the Most Highly Educated Group in American Society The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 13 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 33-34 doi:10.2307/2963153

Boyd, M. (2002). Educational Attainments of Immigrant Offspring: Success or Segmented Assimilation?

Cross, T. (1994). Black Africans Now the Most Educated Group in British Society. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 3 (spring, 1994), pp.92-93

Davy, M. (2006). The Central American Foreign Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the European Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. February, 2005

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the African Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. January, 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the Asian Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006 Dodoo, F. N-A (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in America. Social Forces 76: 527-46

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the Caribbean Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. July 2006.

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the South American Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. May 2006.

Guppy, Neil and Scott Davies (1998). Education in Canada: Recent Trends and Future Challenges. Ottawa: Statistics Canada and the Minister of Industry.

Kefa M. Otiso and Bruce W. Smith, (2005). “Immigration and Economic Restructuring in Ohio’s Cities, 1940-2000”, Ohio Journal of Science, 105 (5): 133-137 December 2005

Logan, J.R, Deane, G (2003). “Black Diversity in Metropolitan America.” Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban Regional Research University Albany

Onwudiwe, E. (2006). “Reflections on African Brain Gain Movement.”

The Economist (1996). 339 (7965): 27-28

In Educational Attainment, Black Immigrants to the United States Outperform Native-Born White and Black Americans. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education © 2003 CH II Publishers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk)

Health

I have added a section on health. You may link to the references to get more information and maybe improve the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for those sub-categories(Nigerian-Americans, etc.). Tell it on the Africans in the United States article. There are way too many articles. Cut it down. Erase those sub-categories and put it on the main page.Fclass 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:John Ogbu.jpg

Image:John Ogbu.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats the point of this page

Can someone please tell me the point of this page. I dont see a European immigration to the United States page. And why is Baracks picture up there when he dosent even consider himself African? His father left him at two. He didnt even know him for christ sakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.140.235 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please start a page on any subject of your choice if you feel the need for it. A person's lack of interest in a subject does not necessarily invalidate an otherwise legitimate scholarship. Merlin1935 (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of this page is to recognize there is a big difference between Black american (those who came to american through the unfortunate history of slavery) and african americans (those who came from africa by choice to gain US citizenship and search for a better life in america but still remaining pround of where they come from) Africans have a different history, cultuture and lifestyle, we come from a place that racism is rarely seen or never seen; almost everyone is of a darker skin tone, we feel as if we can accomplish anything if we put our mind to it due to the lack of discrimination and we come to this country with a strong mindset, our educational system all thou not meeting western standards produces some of the smartest people. Barack obama is included because his father is african wether people like it or not. His father recived a phd from harvard;an acomplishment not so easly achieved, his mother (a teenage mother) chose to give him the african name Barack Obama. He still sees him self as part African as evidenced by his visit to his Kenyan family including half brothers and sisters in 2006. Although born in america with a caucasian mother he is still Keyan- Irish american or African american, you dont deny your culture once you are born in a different country. If this is so then there would be no irish american, italian americans, german americans everyone would be American. We are all americana but we are still proud of were we come from. Africans in perticular are very proud people due to our history that extend to the begining of time and our cultures that has been passed on. Wether you are raised by a parent or not you dont deny their culture. This come to the case of nature vs nurture did his intelligence come from his teenage mother who was a teacher, his grandparents, his passion to fight for a good education as a mixed race child or the genetic make up of his Harvard Phd father? nature vs nurture.....when africans look at his face with the ears, we see a kenyan body long and lean, only things is the face is lightener and since we dont deny any africans we see him as one of us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.131 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Kwame Anthony Appiah

As a person of mixed race, I find the inclusion of Barack Obama and Kwame Anthony Appiah as personally offensive to me. This is 2008, and it appears that some wikipedia editors are still either adhering to the one-drop rule, or are trying to claim mixed race people into one category or another; both highly offensive ways of thinking. Let us address this. Obama was born in America, to a White mother, and a Black father - this does not make him an immigrant, in any sense of the word. If you are saying that the President of the United States is a foreigner, just because his father was not a citizen, then that is a truly racist comment, and will not be tolerated. As for Kwame Anthony Appiah, what makes him differ from any other Englishman that has migrated to the United States? There have been quite a few, for your information, and if you base the distinction between him and others on the basis of skin colour and ancestry, then you were born in the wrong century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph gives a stipulative definition, so it's rather pointless to argue that it is wrong. It states that in this article, both the immigrants and their descendants will be discussed as one group. The lead concludes with a disclaimer addressing racial idenfication. Simply put, "African" is not to be taken as a racial identity in this article, just a place of origin. SamEV (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful for you to actually read my comments. I did not dispute the validity of the first paragraph, in fact, it justifies the removal of Obama and Appiah from the page. Appiah was a mixed-race Briton who moved to the United States by his own accord; not a single member of his family was an 'immigrant' to the United States. This disqualifies him from the page. Obama's father, also, was never a citizen in the United States, so is therefore not legally classified as an immigrant. Does this help you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I should begin by asking you to be civil, as I have so far been with you. (Please read WP:CIVIL.)

I'll also inform you that I read your comments twice, and portions of them maybe thrice.

Also, it would help if you read the article stipulative definition, as it validates our definition here.

On Appiah, can you show reliable sources that dispute two key claims I've read about him: 1) though born in London, he grew up in Ghana, and 2) he is of Ghanaian citizenship and/or nationality. The first claim is found on his own website ([2]). Elsewhere, he's referred to as "Anglo-Ghanaian" ([3]). This indicates dual citizenship/nationality, one of which is African, thus making him eligible for inclusion here.

I'll point out that the objection you raise about Obama's inclusion could perhaps apply to your claim of Appiah's Britishness, since Appiah's father was a student in the UK, and so perhaps not an immigrant. Still, I think it's an immaterial argument. Whatever Obama Sr's technical status, he did come from Africa to the U.S. SamEV (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, as you may have seen by the time you read this, I've just removed Appiah and Obama because they're biracial. Their inclusion in what is now an article explicitly about a Black American group should be debated. (Hey, I'm no one droppist, either.)

About Appiah again, I came across the following info: "Appiah is also a person of multiple nationalities—Ghana and the United Kingdom by birth, a citizen of the United States by choice..."[4] SamEV (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Title again

1. The article is not about "Africans who have immigrated to the United States", but rather `Africans who have immigrated to the United States and their US-born descendants` as even the previous version already stated in the very first paragraph.
2. The African immigrants and descendants the article covers are Black Americans: this is explicitly stated in the sources, such as the Lewis Mumford cite given for the population ("The size and regional distribution of the black population". A quote: "We now classify over 1.5 million blacks as Afro-Caribbeans and over 600 thousand as African.") Again: this is overtly, specifically, explicitly a Black American subgroup the article treats of.
3. The overarching rubric of "Black American" comprises several subgroups. The largest is African American, with Afro-Caribbean Americans the next largest. Third are this group: Black Americans who are African immigrants or the descendants of African immigrants. Another group are Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. And there's perhaps room for more, such as Black Americans from European countries.
4. If anyone would like to dispute any of this civilly and with solid facts and reasoning, I'm more than willing to engage them in such a debate. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, in changing the title of the article to "Black Americans of African immigrant origin" from its long-standing "Africans who have immigrated to the United States", you single-handedly changed the entire direction of the article, and without first having established consensus. Secondly, the article is not about "Black Americans of African immigrant origin"; it's about Africans who have immigrated to the United States. This is, among other things, because not everyone in Africa is black. The article, for instance, mentions Egyptians who have immigrated to the United States, and Egyptians most certainly aren't "black". However, the way the article has been retitled to label every African who happens to have immigrated to the United States as "black" gives the absurd and incorrect impression that they among others are. Middayexpress (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Moves

I don't have an opinion on the correct title. However, the first move caused several double redirects. IF the page is moved then the person doing it is obliged to click on "what links here" and fix all the double redirects. The copy and past move back caused the loss of the history which is now fixed. Please discuss the move first before anything else. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's incredible what's going on. Get this, CambridgeBayWeather: that editor, Middayexpress, says 'all immigrants from Africa are not black'. And just like that, he moves the article. The thing is that this article happens to be about the black immigrants and their US-born descendants.

In other words, Middayexpress wants the title to misrepresent the article.

But don't take my word for it, CambridgeBayWeather. Just have even a cursory look at the article and verify what I've written. SamEV (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the article does not and has never been about "about the black immigrants and their US-born descendants". It is about African immigrants to the United States, just like its long-standing title indicates. This is why the article references Egyptians, Mauritanians, and Cape Verdians, among others. To quote the actual text, the article is about:

Africans immigrants, in the scope of this article, are recent African immigration to the United States from the continent of Africa and their descendants.

This group is to be distinguished from Black Americans who are descended from Black Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, as well Americans with roots in other parts of the African diaspora. Meaning, the term encompasses individuals of recent African ancestry. "African", in the scope of this article refers to national origins rather than racial affiliation as defined by the United States Census.

It's SamEV that, from November 15th onward, has attempted to single-handedly change the entire direction of the article by rewriting this long-standing statement of purpose to now read:

Black Americans of African immigrant origin are Black Americans who arrived in the United States as immigrants from Africa or are descendants of them.

This group is to be distinguished from Black Americans who are descended from Black Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, as well as from Americans with roots in other parts of the African diaspora.

Also note that a discussion regarding the title and consequently the direction of the article has already taken place on this talk page, and the denouement was that the name should remain the same.

Given all this, I strongly suggest SamEV stop trying to work his way around the consensus process, which he never sought much less obtained in the first place. Middayexpress (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Middayexpress message of 07:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Middayexpress, you're wedded to the notion that the article is about all African immigrants, but it's not. Please take the time to read it. Please.

There is no mention of White and Asian immigrants from Africa. There simply isn't. The whole article concerns itself with Black immigrants. I know you want it to be otherwise, but it isn't, Middayexpress.

"This is, among other things, because not everyone in Africa is black."

Precisely! An article that is about Black African immigrants but has a title that pretends that the article is about all African immigrants is misleading. The title has to match the contents is what I keep telling you.

The mention of Egyptians was misleading, and it even contradicts you, as it actually cited a page from the Mumford Center which is (guess): only about Black immigrants.[5] Has nothing to do with North Africans. See what I mean?

In light of all that, changing the title on the spot is the least any editor should do. And I won't even invoke WP:BOLD.

I addressed Cape Verdeans in the article, and Egyptians above. And there is no mention of Mauritanians in the article. SamEV (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence. The only reason why the page is no longer about African immigrants to the United States is because you changed the article's direction. For starters, on November 15th, you changed the article's title from "African immigration to the United States" to "Black Americans of African immigrant origin".

Prior to that date, the article's statement of purpose in the introduction used to read:

Africans immigrants, in the scope of this article, are recent immigrants to the United States from the continent of Africa and their descendants.

This group is to be distinguished from Black Americans who are descended from Black Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, as well Americans with roots in other parts of the African diaspora. "African", in the scope of this article refers to national origins rather than racial affiliation as defined by the U.S. Census.

And you of course then changed that as well to:

Black Americans of African immigrant origin are Black Americans who arrived in the United States as immigrants from Africa or are descendants of them.

This group is to be distinguished from Black Americans who are descended from Black Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, as well as from Americans with roots in other parts of the African diaspora.

You also removed all mention of Egypt and Cape Verde Creole (e.g. 1, 2) to make the article refer strictly to what you believe are "black" populations, thereby accommodating your non-consensus page rename.

So please do not tell me that I am mistaken. It's you who is mistaken and attempting to justify your non-consensus page rename and entire article rewrite by, incredibly, pointing me to your latest edits as a justification for single-handedly overhauling the article's long-standing page name & direction. Middayexpress (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a mention of Mauritanians in the article, and here it is:

Those Africans born from Ghana (96.9 percent), Zimbabwe (96.7 percent), Botswana (95.5 percent), and Malawi (95 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Cape Verde (44.8 percent) and Mauritania (60.8 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education.

Now see my response above. Middayexpress (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot, there is a little list that mentions Mauritania. OK, so let's see. There was that mention of Mauritania, two of Cape Verdeans (one in the infobox), two of South Africans, and that misleading mention of Egypt. The other 98% of the article was about Black African immigrants and their US descendants. You're placing too much weight on the previous title and a couple of statements in the lead and elsewhere. They need to represent the whole article; the article doesn't have to keep a title just to please one editor. And you give me too much credit. After the title and those few sentences, I mostly copyedited. I also removed a table that was wildly off. I have nothing to hide. Here's a diff of both our versions, for anyone interested: [6]. I plead guilty to giving this article a title, lead, and a few sentences in the rest of the article that bring it in line with the other 98% of the article. I removed contradictions amounting to 2%. Guilty.

A few questions, Middayexpress: what does the article say concerning the health of White immigrants from Africa? How does it compare to native-born White Americans?

What does the article say concerning Asian immigrants from Africa compared to native-born Asian Americans?

What, per the article, do the data say about African-born Whites and Asians in Canada?

Are there 80,281 African immigrants in Washington, DC, or does the table refer to 80,281 Black African immigrants? Look in the Demographics section. Here's a hint: it's the latter. Similarly, the entire table is about Black African populations in those metro areas. But don't take my word for it, visit the table's source: [7].

But I bet that if I asked you the same things about Black immigrants from Africa, you could find all those answers in the article, in whichever version of the article. That's the kind of info of which the article was and is still made.

One quarter of the immigrants from Africa are White. But nowhere near that fraction of the article is about them. That's not right: Virtually no part of the article is about them.

I'll leave the passing mentions of Mauritania and Cape Verdeans, as these mark the exception to the rule, so that when you read the article you can see how wrong it is to claim the article is some sort of balanced portrait of all African immigrants. SamEV (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. By "Please reply below" I meant at the bottom of the page. My mistake for not being clearer. But I did some refactoring so the discussion will be all in one place now. SamEV (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you are attempting to justify your non-consensus page rename and entire article rewrite by insinuating that the article, despite its plainly-asserted statement of purpose in the introduction, was mainly about Black Africans rather than Africans at large; so, like, what's the big deal? The big deal is that even though Egyptians, Berbers, mulattoes, etc. may represent a minority of African immigrants to the United States compared to the more populous Black Africans, they too are native Africans and were already included in the article before your wholesale edits. More importantly:

• You renamed the article to make it strictly about Black Africans rather than all Africans.
• You subsequently modified (e.g. 1, 2, 3) the article's contents including its statement of purpose in the intro and elsewhere in the article so that it no longer pertains to Africans at large but strictly to folks you personally deem "black" Africans.
• You never bothered risking going through the uncertain consensus process although you already knew full well (given the title you gave to this section of the talk page) that another heated and long-resolved discussion on renaming/changing the direction of the article had already taken place before.
• You have since persisted in avoiding going through the consensus process by recreating anyway the "Black Americans of African immigrant origin" page that the administrator CambridgeBayWeather had to delete to redress your initial non-consensus page move (which you also reverted back to).

In short, Wikipedia is not your personal playground. You have to go through the consensus process on major moves such as this; there's no way around it. You can't just overhaul the long-standing article name & page direction to fit your own personal wishes or desires. Instead of attempting to bully your way past other editors and completely avoiding the consensus process, per WP:MOVE, you should have instead listed the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves since you already knew full well that the page move was controversial (to put it mildly). Middayexpress (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it short and sweet: Tell me 10 facts from from your version of the article about non-Black African immigrants and their US descendants.

If you need me to lower it to 5, or even less, just let me know. I'll be back later today for the answer. If you have those facts, I'll step aside and the article is all yours. SamEV (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. CambridgeBayWeather did not "delete" anything. Rather, he moved the page to reunite it with its history after you did a copy and paste move. So please, quit it with the lies. SamEV (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to do even a thousandth of that. My posts above speak for themselves. And so do your own comments (made in this section of the talk page), which betray you as already knowing full well what this article was really about to begin with:

The first paragraph gives a stipulative definition, so it's rather pointless to argue that it is wrong. It states that in this article, both the immigrants and their descendants will be discussed as one group. The lead concludes with a disclaimer addressing racial idenfication. Simply put, "African" is not to be taken as a racial identity in this article, just a place of origin.

Versus what you later personally modified the article to mean:

Anonymous, as you may have seen by the time you read this, I've just removed Appiah and Obama because they're biracial. Their inclusion in what is now an article explicitly about a Black American group should be debated.

Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Of course CambridgeBayWeather deleted something, as this link clearly indicates. Middayexpress (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)
First, about this "delete" thing. That's a temporary administrative measure. I thought you were talking about a permanent delete. There wasn't one. So you're right that he deleted whatever, but you neglect to say why: because you did a dirty move! (A copy and paste move.)

Ah, the "stipulative" business. Well guess what? I was wrong. Yes, because like you, I'd not taken a really close look at the article. I'd not examined its sources. I had taken the title and lead at their worth and had ignored the fact that the article in toto pays only lip service, so to speak, to African immigrants in general. But I came to my senses. You, however, steadfastly refuse to come to yours. And guess what again? African "is" taken as synonymous for black. It's right there in the articles chief source, the Mumford Center report (emphasis by me): "Among non-Hispanic blacks, we classify those reporting their ancestry and/or country of birth in the predominantly black islands of the Caribbean (including such places as Jamaica and Trinidad, but not Guyana) as “Afro-Caribbean. " We classify people reporting their ancestry and/or country of birth as a specific sub-Saharan African country as “African." We classify the remainder of the black population, including those who report their ancestry as “African" without a specific country reference but whose place of birth is not Africa, as “African American.""[8] That's right. Every time they write "African", they mean "Black". SamEV (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. You say "I don't need to do even a thousandth of that." It would help your cause if you did. Your non-response is not going to look very good, especially when I post my 10... about Black African immigrants and their descendants: all from the article. SamEV (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's something of a joke for you of all people to be talking about anyone making "dirty moves", seeing as how you have more than demonstrated that you have no regard whatsoever for Wiki policies or for other editors and administrators. You can also try all you want to recant your own (actually quite convincing) posts from less than three days ago, but it's all for naught; the cat's out of the bag, I'm afraid.

"African", moreover, is not taken as synonymous for black. It means a native of Africa and you know it. That one Mumford report is used a grand total of three times in the original version of the article that you completely rewrote: twice in reference to a general population count of about 600,000 Black Africans in the US; the second time in reference to their habitation patterns. It still in no way disproves the stated intention of the article presented point blank in the article's intro:

This group is to be distinguished from Black Americans who are descended from Black Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, as well Americans with roots in other parts of the African diaspora. Meaning, the term encompasses individuals of recent African ancestry. "African", in the scope of this article refers to national origins rather than racial affiliation as defined by the United States Census.

You also made a huge mistake re-imposing for a record fifth time your non-consensus rename and entire rewrite of the article because CambridgeBayWeather specified that any page moves must go through administrators. You really blew it this time buddy. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. I see you changed one reference. That's one way to do it: if challenged to point to 10 facts about non-Black African immigrants, from the article, and you can't, add them! In fact, even by resorting to that, there are still not even 10. Not just facts, but statements of any kind. You finally recognized the central truth: the article is narrowly focused on Black African immigrants.

Isn't it funny how my posts become "quite convincing" when you want to use them against me? LOL. Thanks for the backhanded compliment, I guess.

BTW, what CambridgeBayWeather said is that the page can't be moved to the previous titles without admin help, not that admin should be asked to move it: "OK so the page is at Immigration of Africans to the United States, with the talk page attached, and all double redirects to the article and the talk page now point directly to that page. And I think that most of the redirects, African immigration to the United States and Black Americans of African immigrant origin now have several edits meaning the page, with history, can't be moved there without administrative help. Please no copy and paste moves. ".[9] See? Notice his request that you should stop the ridiculous c&p moves?

Please post those 10 statements, Middayexpress. If even that few don't exist (or perhaps some lower number, should you admit 10 is an impossible mission), there's no reason for the article to remain at this title. SamEV (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop moving the page around based on two peoples differing opinions. IF you both can't agrre on the anme and there is nobody else commenting then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Ask for a third opinion is the way to go. OF course you could also try Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. For now, due to the fact it keeps getting moved about with no thought to the double (non-working) redirects I have put it back here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking of mediation down the line. SamEV (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been quite clearly told not to move the page without first achieving consensus, something which you have not sought much less accomplished. This is the second consecutive time you are flouting both administrator directives and WP:MOVE. Stop trying to single-handedly impose your view on Wikipedia's readership. Middayexpress (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you persist in going against the original intent of the article?

And how are you coming along with those 10 statements? SamEV (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why do you persist in attempting to impose your own non-consensus view on Wikipedia's readership? Do you not know that for controversial moves such as this that consensus must be established? Of course you do, since CambridgeBayWeather told you as much above. Middayexpress (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense. Your evasive attitude has all but confirmed that the article is, and was always intended to be about Black African immigrants. I challenge you to prove otherwise. SamEV (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You cut the nonsense and quit trying to bully your way past other editors and administrators. This issue has already been discussed ad absurdum above. Anyone can see this for themselves, including your own words to the effect that ""African" is not to be taken as a racial identity in this article, just a place of origin." So I strongly suggest that you stop with these silly, transparent games already. You've already more than demonstrated with your own words what this article was really about before your own non-consensus page rename and rewrite. Middayexpress (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Middayexpress, are there, or are there not at least 10 statements about the non-Black African immigrants? If there are, what are they? SamEV (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As I see this, there are three editors involved here: CambridgeBayWeather, SamEV, and Middayexpress. Therefore you don't actually qualify for a third opinion. You might consider other steps in the dispute resolution process. I specifically recommend getting involvement from knowledgeable people at WP:WikiProject African diaspora or WP:WikiProject United States.

However, since I'm here anyway, here's my opinion:

If the article discusses any immigrants from Africa that are not black, then the article's title must not exclude those immigrants in its title. Therefore Black immigrants from Africa or Black American immigrants and such titles won't work for me. Not "show me ten statements" or "try for just five" -- if the article discusses, or if editors here think that it should discuss, any immigrants from Africa that are not black -- including, BTW, not merely those from northern Africa, but also, for example, White Africans like the Afrikaners -- then IMO the title must leave room for them. To not leave room for non-black immigrants from Africa in the title is essentially to hang a sign out that says "Please delete any mention of non-black Africans from this article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up.

But shouldn't the issue of balance figure into it? After all, one could add a few sentences about African Americans to the White American article and use that as a basis for changing the title to something more general, like "American ethnic groups". SamEV (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your comments WhatamIdoing. You've perfectly articulated what it is I was trying to say above, and I of course fully agree with you. Middayexpress (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

SamEV, your example doesn't hold up. White American is presumably supposed to be about white Americans. The addition of a few sentences about non-white Americans, or about non-Americans, or even about Martians, doesn't change the fact that the article is about white Americans. If the sentences about groups other than white Americans are on topic (for example, comparing rates of literacy between white Americans and other groups), then they would be useful and appropriate. If they weren't, then they would get deleted as being off topic.

The decision here is really "What should be on this page?" Your answer appears to be "Stuff about just black people that immigrated to the US from Africa." Everyone else says it should be "Stuff about everyone that immigrated to the US from Africa".

As a matter of balance, "Stuff about everyone from Africa" should talk primarily about "Stuff about black people from Africa", because most of the "everyone from Africa" also happens to fall into the category of "black people from Africa". But you haven't given any reason for us to exclude the rest of "everyone from Africa", and I think that the larger topic is the more appropriate one -- partly because I think that having an entirely separate article, Non-black immigrants to the United States from Africa, would be both silly and necessary if we were to exclude them from this article.

Does that answer your question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, no. You suggest that my example fails because it mixes apples and oranges. So I'll try apples and apples. Are you saying that if an article about a particular white American group (say, Italian Americans) also makes a few mentions of other white groups, in an on topic way, such as (to use your example) by comparing literacy rates (and throw in home ownership and income, let's say), that article ought to be a general White Americans article?

You also seem to be agreeing with me that a few sentences about other groups don't change the fact that the article has a particular group as its focus and should be titled accordingly. SamEV (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't, but it's unimportant.

My opinion is this article ought to cover all people that immigrate from Africa, not just those that have a particular shade of skin. You don't have to approve of my opinion, but you asked for my opinion, and that's what it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you elaborated on your denial. You earlier seemed very confident about how wrong you think I am.

BTW, the issue is not that I think the article should discuss only Black African immigrants, but that that's what the article actually does discuss in its near totality, so much so that the current title is just plain misleading. SamEV (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That the article is currently incomplete does not change my view of what should be accepted in it.

If you give this article any name that suggests that it is for "Black people only", then this article will be (IMO) harmed in the following ways:

• It will never be expanded to include more information about non-black immigrants from Africa, because such information would be perceived as being off-topic.
• The existing limited information about non-black immigrants will be deleted as being off-topic.
• Editors would necessarily have to engage in original research on the subject of whether this person or that group is really "black enough" to merit inclusion here -- a sort of reverse paper bag party.

I do not think that this is appropriate. I believe that Wikipedia's readers are best served by including here everyone that immigrated from Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Point 1 is that the article has existed in its present state for a sufficient amount of time for info about non-Black immigrants to have been added. There's virtually no difference between the article's content today and its content half a year ago ([10]) or one year ago ([11]). Nor is there any difference in the balance of the current version and that of one and a half year ago ([12]). So I see no basis for supposing that the article will be improved to include all African immigrants within any reasonable amount of time. Rather than holding on to hope that 'some day' it'll be fixed, why not rename now to reflect it's actual state? When, if it is ever fixed, it can be renamed back. Don't you consider that to be a reasonable approach, WhatamIdoing?

"The existing limited information about non-black immigrants will be deleted as being off-topic."

When it is off-topic: As you pointed out, there are on-topic ways to include info about other groups, such as for comparisons. And again, information about non-Black immigrants isn't "limited"; it is almost non-existent.

On point 3, I don't see the necessariness of OR, nor how this would constitute a special case in comparison to any other article about black populations, such as the African Americans article. People get included if reliable sources say they're African American. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

Besides, this is not a gallery. It's an article first (prose); images and names of individuals are secondary. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this, but I want to be perfectly clear that the discussion will not change my mind. Given that, do you feel like there is a point to continuing this discussion? I am perfectly happy to clarify my views and engage in a discussion, but I don't want to mislead you into feeling that you have any significant chance of changing my opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't expect that you'll change your mind, either. Still, I am curious as to how you would clarify your views. If you will, please. SamEV (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Then let's take them one at a time. I say in #1 that if we rename the article to something that says "black people only", then non-black people will never be included.

Your response: You agree with me. However, you think it's unimportant, because (A) nobody's bothered to include significant information on non-black immigrants so far, and (B) therefore nobody ever will, and (C) consequently we should strongly discourage any efforts to expand the article to include non-black immigrants from Africa.

About (A) and (B): See WP:There is no deadline. See also Straw man argument. The fact that the article is not finished yet says nothing about tomorrow, or next year, or five years from now. About (C): I do not think that it is appropriate to discourage people from expanding the article in this direction. Even if we come back in ten years and find that no one has ever bothered to expand the article, I do not think that it is appropriate to tell them that such an expansion would be wrong.

Do you have any further questions about this item? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misrepresented my views. I did not say that we should strongly discourage anything. Rather, I wrote that the article should have a name that matches its content until such a time as anyone bothers to expand that content to include all African immigrants. I consider that preferable to retaining the wrong title for what could turn out to be a long wait, judging by the article's history so far. That is what I wrote, WhatamIdoing.

I must point out that WP:There is no deadline could be invoked in order to prevent action on absolutely anything at Wikipedia. I'll also remind you that it is not policy. Moreover, though that same essay states that at Wikipedia "There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today[.]" it continues with "It merely needs to have improved on yesterday." Well, I'm just seeking to improve on yesterday. I'm willing to leave perfection for some other day.

Your advice that 'it can wait, so it should' seems insufficient if no compelling reason for waiting is ever given.

Sad to say, but the first sentences of the Straw man article seem to describe well what you did here, WhatamIdoing. (That article begins: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent.")

You write: "Even if we come back in ten years and find that no one has ever bothered to expand the article, I do not think that it is appropriate to tell them that such an expansion would be wrong."

Again, I never advocated such a thing. However, you seem to neglect the fact that people are free to start new articles at any time. A general article could be started by anyone who has information about general African immigration. Such an article could even be merged with this one.

No, I have no questions. If you do not wish to continue the discussion, then we should not. SamEV (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we have found the issue:

IMO, re-titling this article as "black people only" is strong discouragement against adding information about non-black immigrants from Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be the intention from the beginning, as the article undoubtedly was created with a focus on Black African immigrants. That first edit, although at one point stating that "African Immigrant" "can be used to refer to non-black Africans who emigrate to the United States as well[.]" further on leaves no doubt as to what its intended subject really is: "Despite both being black, African Immigrants and black Americans (those who have been in the U.S. for a minimum of 5 generations) have many differences." And "Income levels among African Immigrants are also typically higher than Black Americans ... However, they still make less than whites and asians ... this can be attributed to cultural discrimination and racism i.e. African Immigrants are still black."[13] So it may be no coincidence that the article is still about Black African immigrants. SamEV (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a new issue.

The original intent doesn't worry me one way or the other. It's stupid to have two articles: Black immigrants from Africa and Non-black immigrants from Africa. Rejecting information on non-black immigrants essentially demands that information about non-black immigrants be moved to a separate article.

The fact is that the majority of immigrants from Africa have black skin. Additionally, the vast majority of reliable sources neglect non-black immigrants. Therefore the substantial majority of this article should be about black immigrants. Giving due weight to this group is not a justification for purposefully excluding non-black immigrants. Two people fleeing the mess in Zimbabwe this year have more in common, even if they have different skin colors, than not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that an article titled Non-black immigrants from Africa would be stupid. But then, I've never suggested there be one. Rather, I've maintained that this article should have a title that matches its actual content. The other article that could be created whenever anyone or 'anyones' get around to it, would be a general African immigrant article and would be titled as such (please see my post of 05:49, November 26): again, not a Non-black immigrants from Africa article as you claim. SamEV (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So your proposal is that we make this a "blacks only" article, and then to reinvent the "everybody" article, which would necessarily duplicate much of the "blacks only" article -- thus making them excellent candidates for a merger.

Is there any reason to exclude non-black immigrants from any article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is that we recognize, via a rename, the reality that this already is and was from the start made a "blacks only" article, and that overlooking the fact hasn't helped. After that, there are two excellent outcomes, in my view: A) a real, general/main article is created with a substantial amount of info about non-Black immigrants. The current article would be a subarticle of the new one; or B) That new information is instead added here, so that this becomes a general/main article in fact, not just in name as is currently the case.

With outcome A, there might even be a subsequent merger of the two articles, as I suggested before, which would redound to the same as outcome B. SamEV (talk) 19:09 29 November 2008 (UTC); 05:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So under option A, you want to create both a "blacks only" article and a separate "whites only" article, so that ultimately they can be merged into the same article? Doesn't this sound like just a bit too much work? Why not simplify your plan by finding and adding additional information about non-black immigrants to this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there isn't much about them out there, as you earlier acknowledged, too.

Also, could you please make sure you understand what I write before you reply? I wrote about a general/main article , not a "whites only" article. Please resist the temptation to use straw men and red herrings. I wish you'd be less invested in 'winning' the argument and more in actual, useful dialogue, WhatamIdoing. I hope none of that comes across as uncivil. But you have continuously twisted my words.

"General" means it would have a section each about Black, White, Asian, and other African immigrants, with this article being the one expanding on the Black immigrants section. SamEV (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine: you want an article about everyone -- so long as it's not this one. Why not have it this article be about everyone? Or at least why not quit trying to hang a sign on it that tells people that only information about black immigrants is wanted here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How much information do you have about non-Black African immigrants? Substantial enough to justify a general title? Show me, please. SamEV (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the exclusion of people solely on the basis of their skin color that requires a strong justification, not the inclusion of whatever evidence is/becomes available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now this is getting good. I'm very curious to see the depths you're willing to reach.

Lady, this is not about people's "skin color". (I'd object equally if the article were about green Africans, FYI.) It's merely about the fact that Black African immigrants are the nearly exclusive subject of the article, despite its more encompassing title, either because no effort has been made to expand the article, or because insufficient information exists about non-Black immigrants to expand it. I have neither the inclination nor the information to expand it myself, and apparently neither does anyone else. SamEV (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC); 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)