Talk:African Americans

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024
17:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)188.10.18.131 (talk) Most African Americans are descendants of enslaved people within the boundaries of the present United States. While some Black immigrants or their children may also come to identify as African American, the majority of first-generation immigrants do not, preferring to identify with their nation of origin. Most African Americans are of West African and coastal Central African ancestry, with varying amounts of Western Europe.

188.10.18.131 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/decennial-census-measurement-of-race-and-ethnicity-across-the-decades-1790-2020.html 188.10.18.131 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. GrayStorm(User_talk:GrayStorm&#124;Special:Contributions/GrayStorm) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Obama once again
Please stop edit warring ! If you see that another editor disagrees, you should not simply restore your edit, but start a discussion here, see WP:BRD. Not everything that is true or sourced is also relevant, see WP:ONUS. Now, please explain why you think that Obama's parents and Kamala Harris are important enough to be mentioned in a lead section that doesn't mention giants like Douglass, King, Tubman, Jacobs, DuBois, .... I'd also like to know some good sources for your idea that only descendants of slavery are "conventional" African Americans. It sounds a bit like the idea that a person is defined by their great-great-great-grandparents. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't have that idea and it isn't mentioned in my edits today. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * Secondly, the lede abruptly mentioned Obama after multiple paragraphs that themselves minimized the importance of immigrants in the definition of "African American". It implied that Obama fits within that framework; he does not. I have actually added a new paragraph that actually reflects the article's content and the sources, noting that immigration is important to the identity, as seen in recent statistics and the fact that Obama (and Harris), second-generation immigrants, are the first two African Americans in the White House. natemup (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with natemup that the lead minimizes immigrant African-Americans, but I don't think it's best resolved by including parentage details for Obama and Harris. I've moved that info to the body, where it was previously not presented at all. Something I'd love to do if I had the time: survey some high-quality sources for basic definitions of "African-American". My suspicion is that the two sources we're currently citing for —both of which are very high quality, if a bit dated—are cherry picked. Anecdotally, usage of the term tends to be dominated by the US Census definition, which is much more expansive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As explained, I added an entire paragraph that includes statistics about the influence of immigration on the African-American community. It concludes with the fact that the two most powerful African Americans in history are themselves second-generation immigrants. Removing this information from the lede and putting it in the body, where it already is present, doesn't really make any sense. natemup (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The information is not present in the body, which mentions neither Obama's nor Harris's mother. The part you added about influence of immigration needs could be appended to the end of the preceding paragraph, as it slots well into the chronology. I'm not sure why you wouldn't follow BRD on this, especially since two editors have now reverted it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant info is already included in the body: their Black immigrant parents, which I connected to the preceding statistics. What paragraph it is included in makes no difference to me—though making the third paragraph any longer than it already is seems imprudent.
 * I can remove the part about their mothers, if that's really the issue. (Note that you removed all the information from the lede about their parents, even though their paternal ancestry was certainly mentioned in the body already.) natemup (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Natemup, from your edit summary: ... presented Obama as if he were a descendant of slavery (a conventional "African American") In my opinion, that's the idea that only descendants of slavery are "conventional" African Americans. Since I don't believe in that idea (but would like to be convinced by good sources), I don't think the parents are important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the description already present in the lede, which says the term "African American" mostly (or conventionally) refers to descendants of U.S. slavery and its outworkings, and that immigrants typically don't use the term for themselves. These are obviously true statements and are supported by content and sources throughout the article. How and why you specifically may not be convinced seems irrelevant. Moreover, you implied that linking the term "African American" to slavery (which the article already does, with sources) means we are defining people by their "great-great-great-grandparents". This is POV, unsupported by content or sources, and manifestly inaccurate: I'm a 32-year-old African American and my great-grandfather was enslaved. Slavery wasn't eons ago. You also say we shouldn't mention Obama's literal parent in the lede, for reasons still unclear. In your position, which seems to be original research, it seems people can't be delineated by their distant ancestors or their immediate ancestors.
 * Obama was originally introduced in the same lede paragraph linking the term "African American" to slavery and its outworkings, as though he fits in that framework. This made no sense. He is clearly an African American but he isn't a descendant of U.S. slavery and his Kenyan father lived in the U.S. for a total of five years. Obama (and in my addition, Harris) are thus better connected to the recent immigrant influence on the African-American community (regardless of terminology), in which 20% are descendants of immigrants or immigrants themselves. This crucial stat is in the article but wasn't even mentioned in the lede, so I added it and mentioned Obama and Harris thereafter, since their immigrant parents are a major theme of the content and sources concerning them in the article already.
 * Your preferred edits, which you have now restored via revert for the second time while decrying "edit warring", leave the lede somewhat incomprehensible: Obama and Harris, African Americans who uniquely belong in the lede due to their service at the pinnacle of American government, are mentioned after a statistic on immigrants but no mention is made that they are second-generation immigrants themselves. As such, I think my edits should be restored. natemup (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding: I didn't restore my "preferred edits" with my second revert, I restored Firefangledfeather's version. Also: WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, WP:BRD. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you two serious? When have Black Americans been anything but the descendants of slaves in America? Where you are born doesn't determine what you are and we are the only ones who fall for this nonsense. The only place on earth where you sign documents and become another nationality. If you're born on an airplane it doesn't make you an "airplanian" neither would people tell you so. Barack Obama is a Kenyan American, point, blank, period. Do you think he'll win an argument about reparations? This is the confusion America is causing. Do you think we'll be part the tribe of we were in Kenya for 3 generations? Hell no! We'd be an entirely different ethnic group. So-called "African-americans" (black Americans) are a distinct ethnic group and that's what we have to realize. These people do not claim us and spreading this misinformation is not helping us in the world view. In Japan they do not accept foreigners as being Japanese, you could be Chinese in Japan for 3-4 generations and the Japanese will still look at you as a china man. So-called African Americans (black Americans)are the descendants of the slaves who were brought here to the Americas, nothing else. Userace1117 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that Black descendants of U.S. slavery are a distinct ethnic group, but as it stands, this page is not limited to that group. How to fix that, I do not know. Maybe make a new page? There is a page for ADOS (though it's mostly about the organization/movement). natemup (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * so what happens when more white south Africans start moving to the Americas, will they be "African American" too? Maybe we should start a page for American blacks" (the ethnic group, those of slave descent in America). Userace1117 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You clearly restored Firefangledfeather's edits because you prefer them (and because they remove from the lede the info you previously removed from the lede), not because there was any consensus, sources, or improvement.
 * Notice you didn't respond to anything else I presented here. WP:ONUS is about adding new info to a page, not deciding what already-included info belongs in the lede. You have yet to provide any reason for not including certain info in the lede other than you "prefer not to mention" certain things there, per your most recent edit summary. You say we should discuss it but are not discussing anything, instead posting links to misapplied policies. It reeks of gaming the system and wikilawyering. natemup (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We're pretty stuck. Rsk6400 and I think that details of Obama's and Harris's parentage are too much for the lead, you think otherwise. We've all presented reasons, and no one has said "prefer not to mention". When deciding what is too much detail for the lead, there are really no options other than editorial judgment, unless someone wants to do an exhaustive source survey.
 * No one is gaming or wikilawyering. This is a garden variety content dispute. Maybe we seek out some dispute resolution? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "prefer not to mention" is in fact a quote from RSK's edit summary on their last revert. It follows similar reverts they have made in the past, on the grounds of personal preference (though with the facade of consensus and edit-warring). This is why they titled the above talk heading "Obama again"; they don't like this content being in the article and have removed it before from the body, IIRC. That is why I brought up wikilawyering and gaming the system. The blocking of this info is entirely untethered from sources, content, consensus, or reason. Just POV and vibes.
 * Moreover, "too much for the lede" isn't really a reason. Too much "detail" relative to what? The lede would be too long? Their parentage doesn't matter? Immigration shouldn't be mentioned at all in relation to important individuals? Help me out here. This is a massive article with a relatively modest lede overall. Adding ~10 words is nothing and I've already explained why it makes sense given the lede as it stands. natemup (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining the quote. In Rsk's summary the "prefer not to mention" was about mentioning Harris at all, not about the thing we're discussing here. I would say the lead is overlong already, so I am eager to cut it down, not expand it. POV and vibes is just a dismissive way of referring to someone else's editorial judgment. There is too much well-sourced content about African Americans to fit it all in the lead. We have to decide somehow what to include. I think immigration should be mentioned; again, compared to my experience with good sources, I think the lead is weirdly hostile to Black immigrants.
 * I am not sure how to phrase my objection in a way that would make sense to you. I feel like it already makes sense, but you've proposed some explanations that are very distant from what I'm trying to say. Let's say I wanted to include ~10 words about "Lift Every Voice and Sing", 10 words about soul food, 10 words about Jehovah's Witnesses, and 10 words about using "counseling" instead of "psychotherapy". Presume you oppose one or many of those. Is there a way you could phrase your opposition that couldn't be dismissed with "POV and vibes" or "personal preference"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Firefangledfeathers, I agree with you in everything except one: I don't think that it's only up to editorial judgment whether to include the parentage of Obama / Harris in the lead. If we include that, we implicitly say that this is very important, and that can only mean one thing: Obama and Harris are not real African Americans. Modern societies are built on the assumption that you belong to a group if you identify with the group and are accepted by the group. Obama identifies as African American, and he got something like 90% of the African-American vote. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more. I take natemup at his word that the purpose of noting the parentage is to emphasize the importance of immigrant African-Americans to the community overall. As I read natemup's proposed version, that's the main way that I read it. If we're worried about pushing the view that immigrants are not real African Americans—and I really do worry about that—there are other parts of the lead that need more attention than this proposal. Also, when we're evaluating language based on how the reader will interpret it, we're engaging our editorial judgment! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In short, there are many reasons why Obama and Harris having immigrant Black parents is very important. That's why the article already mentions their parentage in the body multiple times. That's why I belongs in the lede. In my opinion, it's a neutral fact worth highlighting.
 * And again, not mentioning it—in a paragraph immediately following descriptions of the importance of U.S. slavery to the term "African American"—gives a false impression about Obama and Harris. Specifying their parentage does not make them less African American, but makes their identity more clear, highlighting the diversity that the community now comprises. (That diversity is a crucial evolution of the group, after all, and was previously left out the lede altogether.)
 * But since the sources linking the term "African American" to slavery are now in question anyway, it seems prudent to figure out what the term really does refer to most often in (modern?) reliable sources. natemup (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Black Americans
Some of this needs to be corrected. I understand the shift of different people coming to the Americas but I can't just identify with a people because it suits you or fits your situation. American blacks are specifically the descendants of slaves brought to America. Immigrants don't constitute American blacks. The distinction needs to be made. Userace1117 (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's a distinction, but the current parlance is that "African American" most often refers to descendants of U.S. slavery, but not exclusively. This is clear in all the reliable sources. There probably should be a Wiki article about the descendants of U.S. slavery specifically, but there's no agreed-upon name for that group, so the ADOS page is probably the best we can do for now. natemup (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This should be exclusive. Maybe there should be a separate page for those of other origins. There has to be distinction to avoid confusion and preserve our distinct history. No offense but these people did not build this country. American blacks did. Userace1117 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024
Can you change this sentence: "African Americans, also known as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa."

To this:

"African Americans, also known as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are an ethnic group consisting of Americans who descend from the formerly enslaved Africans of the United States."

The issue with the prior statement is that it is not specific enough and it is causing erasure. Caribbean, Latin American and Continental African immigrants all fall under the initial statement and they are not members of our ethnic group. You can not immigrate into an ethnic group. I can not provide a source because our ethnic group is not formerly defined. There are only articles that debate who belong to our ethnic group, or there are articles (and official statistics) who lump us in with Caribbean, Latin American and African peoples. We Black Americans know who we are and who our people are. Anyone who descends from the freed enslaved of 1865 are Afro / Black Americans. This change is imperative for us to begin defining who we are because many come to Wikipedia as the first line of research and we need this page to be as accurate as possible.

If you need me to prove that I am Black American I would be more than happy to if it means our ethnic group can gain more specificity. Asahae (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)