Talk:African Americans/Archive 24

RfC: Should this article have this lead image?
Should this article have this lead image? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No. It's not awful, but not that good either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Why is it not good? Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "not that good" in the sense that I prefer the no-leadimage-solution to using this image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I argued against the image above. I, for example, stated, "A single image can in no one way be representative of a topic like this. And MOS:LEADIMAGE is about selecting a representative lead image." Others agreed. And as a side note: I'm not interested in debating all of that again. So anyone I debated on it before should save their arguments if wanting to address me. People can read the previous discussion; I've already pointed to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a more than adequate image for this article. Bus stop (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. This image well represents the topic; it is not meant to represent each African American, just like the following articles have lead images that illustrate the subject without intending to represent each individual: Transgender, Woman, Human body, Breast, Nursing, and Professor.  There may be a hang-up on the word represent.  The image is not meant to speak for all African Americans.  Another word used in MOS:LEADIMAGE is illustrate, as in lead images should "illustrate the topic specifically [and] be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page."  This image fits that criteria.  This image has been discussed in talk sections above, where some editors agreed and others disagreed. I would prefer to hear other perspectives, but note that Flyer22 has stated that "Lead images often are not about being representative; they are often about educating our readers" and "'lead images commonly improve the presentation of an article' argument is most certainly true."  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that you love pulling up old quotes of mine and searching for or discussing me off Wikipedia, and referring to me even after I've been clear that you should not. Your above quoting me is nothing but WP:BAIT. People's opinions can change. And "often are not about being representative" doesn't mean they usually or commonly are not. I also see nothing educational about the image you are trying to push as the lead image for this article yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that Flyer22's comment which I quoted above is from an RfC referenced in MOS:LEADIMAGE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that I, Flyer22 Reborn, ended up being on the side that consensus was against in that RfC, and why consensus was against me and others who argued what I argued or similar. Also note that this aforementioned old comment also shows me saying "Galleries and collages are different things; by 'collage,' I mean a single image that an editor made by putting together different images, whereas a gallery consists of separate images put side by side. I mention both because both are subject to this image debate. And these groups of images often exist in our Wikipedia articles because one image often is not representative or not representative enough." and repeating that "For many topics, there is no way to have a lead image that is going to be representative of the topic or the topic as a whole." So, yep, the same view I have above. Context when quoting or otherwise referring to a matter is important. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is a single image. It is not a collage or a gallery. I think we are just discussing the possibility of using the one image at the top of this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We already debated this above. It's why I stated, "And as a side note: I'm not interested in debating all of that again. So anyone I debated on it before should save their arguments if wanting to address me. People can read the previous discussion; I've already pointed to it." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote given by Flyer actually does not give the full context of the original comment. My understanding of the argument is that collages or galleries are preferable to single images, and while there is no way to have a completely "representative" imagine, that is ok because images are not always meant to "represent" topics, and images are important.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, you know more about what I was relaying than I do. I provided the context you did not. Your "The quote given by Flyer actually does not give the full context of the original comment." statement makes no sense. Editors can read that quote you unnecessarily linked to and decide for themselves. Since you want to keep baiting, consider this my last reply to you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn—aren't the people depicted contemplating the identity addressed by this article? What else does one do in a Black History Museum except contemplate the identity of being an African American? It seems to me that the image is entirely on-topic. Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This Rfc is perfectly inline with the close of the previous Rfc. However, if someone wants more Rfc:s if this one close as no or nc, consider WanderingWanda's suggestion above on having a what-images-should-we-vote-on-in-a-Rfc Rfc. Too much discussion on this and editors will start suggesting moratoriums. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what is good about the particular image in question is that it depicts people contemplating a particular identity. If we are going to have an article about "African Americans" we might as well show African Americans contemplating that identity, which they do in a "Black History Museum in Georgia". Such an image would seem to me to be in accord with the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. The mentioned photo looks to be appropriate for the article, and can portray the concept of the name of the article (namely "African American"); albeit pasting another photo (with a better look/aspect) would be nicer, instead! (at least I personally assume so)! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No The image is cluttered, the figures are poorly differntiated, it's not clear from the image what they are doing or what is depicted. It's just not a well-made photo and it doesn't illustrate the topic of the article.  SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No And what part of “hell no” is not understood here? The image is low quality, and there is a clear consensus (notwithstanding the RfC dramas above) that at the current time, neither images not image galleries/composites are used in the opening section or the infoboxes of most ethnic articles. Knock off the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense and let’s close this endless drama.   Montanabw (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Poor composition, even worse lighting, makes everything hard to see. This photo is not worthy of any infobox. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Very poor picture technically, with very dubious logic about it exemplifying anything in particular. Possibly no picture could exemplify the Af Am group adequately, but this one certainly doesn't, and is frankly both dull and difficult to 'read'. Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the lead image needs to "exemplify the group" in order to "illustrate the topic" as the policy states. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If one accepts that "exemplifying the group", is nigh-on impossible (which it may well be), being remotely interesting visually, or having something interesting to 'say' about the group is at least the bare minimum. This fails that minimum requirement IMO. Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear your criticisms of this particular image; I'm just keeping things open for other images if this one is ruled out.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This image is also dominated by male figures. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The picture is low quality (partially blocked faces, faces with odd expressions, kids distractingly looking at something off image, etc.) and having an image is a controversy magnet. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment For the interested, I created Jack Hadley. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice work,, in creating that article. I don't know if this has already been addressed but could the image of Hadley at the newly-created Jack Hadley article also be used as the lead image at the African Americans article? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In theory, sure. As a result of discussion/consensus on this talkpage, I really doubt it. The same goes for the other images of Hadley. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many excellent choices there. Photographically, this is great. Bus stop (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, actually it should not have any lead image. Everyone can have a different opinion of what constitutes the proper image for African American. Like, do we select a man or a woman or a transgender? An adult or a child? Someone born in the 1800s or someone born in the 2010s? No single image can justify and it is better not to put any.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No - Roughly per montana &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit
has repeatedly changed the population numbers without updating the source. If they're accurate, they can be included with an updated source (I couldn't find a reliable source that confirms the numbers but someone else may have better luck). In the mean time, please stop changing the numbers without changing the cited source.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your decision. Bases upon your own demographic representation in the population is steadily declining. The African American population has been noted in Wikipedia over a year at 14.1%.
 * Race and Ethnicity
 * Black and African Americans
 * Clearly states that the African American population is 14% so what do you mean?
 * Your interest should be too monitor and record the declining Welsh and Irish population. Not, to falsify African American population which is video recorded since last year, until it was contaminated with your false statistics. I will not show you the video's, but am also recording this as you propagandize Wikipedia.
 * "My interests are broad, but my primary focus is on medieval literature, particularly Irish and Welsh, and I frequently work on articles on the Arthurian legend."Linda Keita (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My "demographic" is not relevant here. Wikipedia's rules require reliable sources for information of this kind. If you have an updated reliable source, the figure can be changed. I can help with this. If not, it's not acceptable, and you may be blocked if you continue reverting.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The cited source is a search function within https://factfinder.census.gov. That source, in a new search, still shows the African-American population to be at 12.6%, based on reporting of a single race. If you're looking at the number of people who report they are African-American in combination with another race, then the total of African Americans rises to 13.6%. So Linda Keita's numbers are not supported. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that settles it.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

African American task force
FYI, there's a request to create a new task force at WikiProject Council/Proposals/African-American task force -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm writing, as the point I would like to make is about a discrepancy; which is that Obama was not 'the first black U.S. president, as it is mistakenly written in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans#Social_issues and on the wikipedia page for Obama. Obama is mixed race i.e. mother is completely white, and father is completely black. This does not make him the first black u.s. president as he is the first b&w bi-racial U.S. president However, his wife, was certainly the first black first lady as her heritage is mainly of black descent.

thank you. looking forward to seeing the changes made to all of the wikipedia texts incorrectly referring to Obama as the first black U.S. president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streykatt (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * See Q2 at Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"The phrase generally refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States." - It occurs to me as read the above, that in light of the definition in the opening paragraph, technically, Barak Obama is not African-American either (none of his ancestors were slaves in the USA). He is half-African and half-American, by heritage, I suppose. (The article makes clear that nearly all African-Americans are "mixed-race", so he as much "the first black U.S. president" as any other, especially since he identifies as Black as his ethnicity.)

"African Americans in Missouri" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African Americans in Missouri. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"African Americans in Wisconsin" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African Americans in Wisconsin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"African Americans in Washington, D.C." listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African Americans in Washington, D.C.. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"African Americans in Rhode Island" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African Americans in Rhode Island. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"African Americans in Connecticut" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African Americans in Connecticut. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"African Americans in Memphis, Tennessee" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African Americans in Memphis, Tennessee. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"African Americans in New Orleans" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African Americans in New Orleans. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"History of African Americans in St. Louis" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of African Americans in St. Louis. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve -- controversy over validity of term
I think you should possibly consider adding a section that at least mentions this term "African American" being used as a blanket term for all black people could potentially be considered offensive to those who are black or African, but not American.

Likewise the inference that the only "true blacks" are the descendants of former slaves, which could equally be considered offensive to those not included in that group and also not from the designated geographic region.

Plus the lack of recognition that some descendants of former slaves may have long ago left the American continent, that not all slaves in the United States were of African descent, and so on. Also that not all Africans are black. In fact not even all "blacks" are black. Most of those living in the US don't even come close to being genuinely black (in the chromatic sense).

หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

People who are unfamiliar with with American racial classification...
... may be unaware that "Africa" and "South Africa" are not the same. --Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me to a talk page I'm obviously watching. I reverted you here and here because, like I stated with the first revert, the lead states that the definition of "African American" encompasses "any of the black racial groups of Africa." The lead sentence of the South Africa article states, "South Africa, officially the Republic of South Africa (RSA), is the southernmost country in Africa." So I asked you, "How are you distinguishing?" What WP:Reliable sources state that South African Americans are not included in the definition of African Americans? I also pointed you to Disambiguation and its usage guidelines with my second revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, you don't see the top of the Africa article stating, "Not to be confused with South Africa." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Obama as an African American?
Second sentence in this article:"The phrase generally refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States.[7][8][9]"

Last sentence in the lead section. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected President of the United States.[18]

Obama is not a descendant of an enslaved black person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.77.6 (talk • contribs)


 * As you say, the second sentence says "generally". What we care about is what reliable sources say about him. Not editors' interpretations like yours. Doug Weller  talk 17:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * See Talk:African Americans/Archive 23 and Talk:African Americans/Archive 23. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Brown Americans" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brown Americans. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

American Descendants of Slavery and African American
We've got an interesting issue here. ADOS sees African Americans (why no hyphen?) who are descended from slaves as deserving their own racial classification. This explains the request above about Obama. As a consequence, we are now getting good faith editors such as User:ADOS MMXX removing some black Americans from African American categories. I think this needs discussion and I'm not sure where. There are three wikiprojects that are relevant for instance, but I don't think we want multiple discussions. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now at WP:ANI Doug Weller  talk 16:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Terminology
Can someone add the following under terminology, second to last paragraph where the citation needed tag is:
 * "Most Africn Americans prefer the term African American to black or Afro-American." (Ref: Gamble, Teri Kwal; Gamble, Michael W.; The Public Speaking Playbook, SAGE Publications, 2019, p. 354, ISBN 9781544332383 )

Thanks.2A02:C7F:AC31:400:307D:53C6:BA64:BFE5 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020
African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans)[4] should be changed with the addition of the other social construct of "Negro" and "Colored" These are period terms that are found on government documents. a possible edit would be this African Americans (also referred to as Negro, Colored, Black Americans or Afro-Americans)[4] Resmooth (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. That's adding text to a sourced statement that may not be supported by the source. In any case, obsolete terms don't need to be mentioned in the article lead.  There's already a terminology section in the body that goes into more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Their history is similar to Roma gypsies
It should mentioned in the article.

https://philpapers.org/rec/MUDFTG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.26.36 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Roma in the US face nowhere near the level of discrimination black folks do. Lol.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:488F:A6B5:D50E:A540 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this be two pages?
While reading this article it felt like two distinct subjects which might be worth separate pages. African Americans and African-American history. The second article already exists. Given that the second half of the "African Americans" is part of the history of African Americans (it is even called History) should this part be merged into "African-American history". Just a idea - please comment. Mtpaley (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Y-DNA
"The next most frequent Y-DNA haplogroup observed among African Americans is the R1b clade, which around 15% of African Americans carry. This lineage is most common today among Northwestern European males." And the Chadic speakers of Northern Nigeria and Cameroon, where it locally is high as 95%. [|R1b1a2 (R-V88)] 83.84.100.133 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

African Americans are not an ethnic group, they are a racial group,
Ethnicity is a cultural thing, it cannot be used to cover a group that race is a core component of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.131.193.6 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * African Americans (of which I am one) generally identify themselves as a group with a describable culture, who just happen to be of a race separate from that of their White counterparts. Black people are a racial group, and Black Americans are a cultural ethnic group who are Black. The description is fine as it is. RaiBrown1204 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Mexicans were also discriminated during Jim Crow
Add Mexicans to the article. https://www.history.com/news/the-brutal-history-of-anti-latino-discrimination-in-america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.26.36 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not relevant enough to this article. "Mexican" is also not a race.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:488F:A6B5:D50E:A540 (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nor is African American. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mexican is a nationality. Hispanic and Latino' would be a far more appropriate term, as it denotes an ethnic group. African American is also an ethnicity. RaiBrown1204 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hispanic and Latino'' are also not ethnic groups, but linguistic groups. You can be white, black, Mestizo or an Indigenous American, but Hispanic either way. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 16:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition to the "generally denotes" sentence
Alanscottwalker, as seen in the section above, we recently debated the sentence you added to. Consensus in that discussion seems to be that leaving that sentence as it was is best. You added "even while some recent immigrants or their children may come to identify as African American or may identify differently." I'm not sure how I feel about this addition, except that I'm not keen on the fact that it's supported by a media source rather than an academic source and that, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, it should be covered lower in the article if it's to be in the lead. I'm not sure that it's WP:Due for the lead.

Pinging Doug Weller, Cullen328 and B Simone77 for their thoughts. No need to ping me when replying. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we have people like Shirley Chisholm, Colin Powell and more recently the two who are now mentioned in the lead of this article, Barack Obama, and Kamala Harris, so it seems in some sense to be personal experience not historical artifact. Also, African American is a recent term -- was it ever meant to exclude the history of Negros or Blacks, like those of the Universal Negro Improvement Association or the United Negro College Fund or the Historically Black Colleges and Universities? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually like the USA Today article and think it makes some excellent points. The statistics about immigration from Africa and the Carribean are enlightening. But I agree with Flyer22 Frozen that an academic source would be preferable. I also share her concern about including material in the lead that is not covered in greater detail in the body. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've often said that we should use academic sources, so I'm going to say that here. And although there might be times something can be in the lead that isn't in the body of the article (eg someone's age), in this case it would need to be covered in the body first, summarised in the lead. Doug Weller  talk 17:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's added by that clause that is not already in the lead and in the body of the article? Its not disembodied alien information, it's application and illustration of the principles and concepts already there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the "Official identity" and "Terminology dispute" sections, you're saying it's covered by the "Terminology dispute" section? I think a bit more, perhaps from the source you added, should be there since the source you added goes over issues and the "Terminology dispute" section already uses media sources. Using a media source for this social matter isn't too much of a concern. Regarding the lead stating "some recent immigrants"? It's vague. Readers will wonder what type of immigrants unless assuming that the text only means black immigrants. The "Terminology dispute" section states "black immigrants." So I think that the lead should as well. If any other ethnic group is being talked about, that's undue. Also, Barack Obama is mentioned in both the "Post–civil rights era" section and the "Terminology dispute" section. Kamala Harris also needs to be mentioned somewhere lower in the article since she's mentioned in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the lead (and the paragraph the clause is in) is about the African-related diaspora (and also says the topic goes by three names, African Americans, Black Americans, Afro-Americans). The first part of the sentence to which the clause is appended is about the African-related diaspora, so the clause is naturally about the African-related diaspora that is already being discussed, and it's right before the second paragraph which is about the African-related diaspora. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that "immigrants" in that sentence shouldn't be clarified with "black." I added "black" per what I stated above. You didn't address the rest the of what I stated in my "04:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)" post. So either I or someone else will handle those aspects. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am rather neutral to against the mention of Harris in the lead at this time, as a kind of recentism but she was already there. So, I would be fine with moving that mention down. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Indy beetle, regarding this, the Harris aspect should be mentioned somewhere lower in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that. It just isn't important enough to warrant mention in the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Obama again
Geographyinitiative, regarding this and this? We need to be sticking to what the sources state and with WP:Due weight, not changing the definition because you think it excludes Obama. Various reliable sources refer to Obama as African American. That is why his Wikipedia article does. See the FAQ at the top of Talk:Barack Obama. Also, as seen in the archives, Obama has been discussed enough on this talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

And that second sentence does state "generally", not "always." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What does the word 'generally' mean in the context of the sentence? Is it telling us that the term 'African American' is generally used in English with the meaning that follows thereafter, or it is telling us that speaking generally, African Americans are descendants of the enslaved persons mentioned? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know what you think of my new edit- I try to clarify what the 'generally' is talking about. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Geographyinitiative, regarding this? Again, we should follow what the reliable sources state. We should not be trying to "clarify what the 'generally' is talking about" unless the sources do. The first source states, "most (but not all) Americans of African descent are grouped racially as Black; however, the term African American refers to an ethnic group, most often to people whose ancestors experienced slavery in the United States (Soberon, 1996). Thus, not all Blacks in the United States are African-American (for example, some are from Haiti and others are from the Caribbean)." The second source states, "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States. The reason we use an entire continent (Africa) instead of a country (e.g., Irish American) is because slave masters purposefully obliterated tribal ancestry, language, and family units in order to destroy the spirit of the people they enslaved, thereby making it impossible for their descendants to trace their history prior to being born into slavery." They are speaking on what the term refers to. While your edit doesn't look like it changes the meaning, it's best to err on the side of caution and focus on the term like the sources do. So I reverted your latest edit while tweaking the text by adding the words "term" and "African American." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Followup tweak here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously those from Haiti and from the Caribbean originally had ancestors from Africa who were slaves, and are now in America. This non-American cannot comprehend how that does not make them African American. And using the name of the whole continent to describe the ancestry of these folk is obviously inaccurate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only interested in following what the sources state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in why the sources say what they say. And whether it makes sense. I won't put rubbish in articles. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * that would be an issue for a forum. I will say that words mean what they mean, so anti-semitic does not mean hatred of semites in general. Doug Weller  talk 11:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Does the US Census use descent from enslaved persons as a criteria for being African American? If not, a note needs to be put on the population figure provided in the infobox explaining that the 40 million number is not connected to the definition in the second sentence. We wouldn't want readers to get confused and accidentally include and exclude people who are descendants of enslaved people in the African American definition. For instance, I believe there is some portion of the White and Native American population that includes people who are descedants of slaves. Don't forget Obama: he probably checked the African American box too, despite not being a descendant of an enslaved person. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The term African American generally denotes descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States." There are people who would check White or Native American on the US Census that fit this definition guys. Also, Obama doesn't fit in this definition. Terrible work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have offered an undeniably powerful rebuttal to the way the second sentence is currently written. The definition is just too broad as it stands, and it simultaneously excludes too many who are undeniably African American. I have various ideas about how it could be written, but I have already failed like three times, so I would rather wait for your opinions and see what can be done. Please let me know what you think about my most recent comments so we can find a way to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for your time! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Black Indians in the United States Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * American Whites today are also partially descended from enslaved black people. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * More correctly, some small percentage of Americans who identify as white are partially descended from Black African people. Most likely, more have some small amount of North African ancestry, especially Hispanic people. If someone has a tiny percentage of Black African ancestry, there is probably no way of knowing if that came from enslaved Black people or free Black people or from Africans and their descendents who have lived in Europe in small numbers for thousands of years. In the final analysis and going back millions of years, every single human has 100% African ancestry. The bottom line is that we are obligated to summarize what the full range of the highest quality reliable sources say about African-American identity, without any form of synthesis or original research. That is not our job as Wikipedia editors. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, not all African Americans' ancestors who lived when slavery was legal were slaves- free blacks were enumerated seperately in the early census counts. Can't you see how bad this definition is as it currently stands? Obama is excluded, descendants of free blacks are excluded, and whites and Native Americans with enslaved black ancestors are included. That is just not up to Wikipedia standards. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the US Census page, and it says that there are 45 million people who say they are African American, with 5 million apparently being multiracial. I would say that the 45 million number should appear in the infobox too. (If I am reading this right.) By the def presented in Wikipedia right now though, there would be a massive undercount. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is bizarre. The African American page uses the Census 'one race' number (40 mil) instead of the multi race number (45 mil) but the White American page uses the multi race number (243 mil) instead of the one race number (234 mil). This is terrible. Wikipedia really is unscholarly after all. Help me out guys: let's find a way to make all this right. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "...people who SAY they are African American" (My emphasis.) Is that what we are really left with here? There is no One-drop rule any more to provide us with precision. I'm not American, and I look at a lot of the attempts by many in that country to be precise about race as incomprehensible and, ultimately unachievable. Wikipedia itself acknowledges that race is impossible to precisely define. If all we are left with is self-identification by individual people on a census form, it's no business of Wikipedia's to try to create a precise definition of African American. I just looked at this year's relevant census question. It says - The category “Black or African American” includes all individuals who identify with one or more nationalities or ethnic groups originating in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Examples of these groups include, but are not limited to, African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, and Somali. The category also includes groups such as Ghanaian, South African, Barbadian, Kenyan, Liberian, and Bahamian. (Note the words "include, but are not limited to".) So we have individuals deciding what they are based on that definition, although many won't get that far into the details. They will just pick a "race". There is clearly great difficulty for even those running the census to decide what African American is. Is it a race? A category? A nationality? An ethnic group? Sorry about the rambling, messy post, but in my mind that just highlights the messy bowl of jelly (jello?) we are trying to pin to a wall here. We need words that emphasise the self-identification aspect of African American, and describe the factors that might influence the choices people make when making that self-identification. Much more precision is very difficult to achieve, and probably going too far. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Geographyinitiative, you stated that you "believe that [you] have offered an undeniably powerful rebuttal to the way the second sentence is currently written." You also stated, "Please let [you] know what [I] think about [your] most recent comments so we can find a way to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for your time!" How I feel/what I think has already been stated. Stick to the sources with WP:Due weight. This is per WP:Verifiability and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I am not interested in you challenging the sources or any of your WP:Synthesis. I am not interested in any editor's philosophizing on this topic. I am not interested in debating any of this. And since I watch this article/talk page, I do not want to be pinged to it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * In other words, Geographyinitiative, drop the stick and move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This article should follow an established source, like, for example, the "Encyclopedia of African American Politics", which has a lemma "African American". it discusses the history of the term, (rather than proscribing its meaning), which is essentially an evolution of the earlier term "black", and suffers from many of the same problems. It also mentions some other interesting points like, for example, the adoption of the term by recent African immigrants (Ghanians, Kenyans, Nigerians, Senegalese, Ethiopians, and others), very reminiscent of this discussion thread. The article should be required reading for anyone pafticipating in this discussion, I hope there's a snippet preview on Google Books available. Unfortunately, good sources are hard to obtain, and this is a major obstacle in the development of good articles. --83.137.6.248 (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the US Census clause based on what we see here. Let me know if there are further issues. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Per comments above, you should stop pushing this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Man, what is going on here? I pointed out a major disconnect between the definition given and the US Census count, as well as finding 5 mil African Americans who we are accidentally ignoring and all I get is 'drop the stick'. In truth, I'm really not pushing anything. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is going on here is what I stated above. You are not listening. Not only are you not adhering to WP:Due weight, you aren't listening to any of the points above about why you are pushing things. It is not for you to challenge or "fix" the literature. And, again, "generally" is already there. It is not for you to try to explain what "generally" means, as if people don't know what it means. I'm not going to sit here and keep debating you. You keep throwing things against the wall and hoping one of them sticks when you have absolutely no WP:Consensus for any of it on this talk page. So, yes, you should move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Geographyinitiative needs to drop any stick or move on. ALL editors need to be willing to discuss the obvious problems and looseness in the definition(s) of African American in our article. It IS a difficult area, with no certainty about what an African American is. We need to say that it is a self-identification people make on the census, and perhaps what factors in their ancestry might influence them to make such a declaration. We really cannot say much more. There are no laws defining what an African American is, and no fixed rules. We must not act as if there are. Sources on this are not as useful as in many topics. The simple fact of what happens with the census is pretty much all that matters. All else is speculation BY the sources. And we do pick and choose sources here all the time. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, to repeat, WP:Verifiability, WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:Due weight are clear. If you and/or Geographyinitiative want to challenge those policies and/or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, you can make your case at WP:Village pump (policy). You stated, "The simple fact of what happens with the census is pretty much all that matters." No. We go by how the literature usually defines the term/topic. WP:Verifiability, WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:Due weight are our rules. That is why Doug Weller replied to your "I am also interested in why the sources say what they say. And whether it makes sense. I won't put rubbish in articles." comment by stating "that would be an issue for a forum." WP:Not a forum. I'd rather not have to start an RfC on this and/or bring people from WP:Village pump (policy) into it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are Wikilawyering. I am not trying to be difficult here. I am genuinely trying to understand how you can put content in an article that is definitely wrong or is being seriously questioned. Your growing aggression and use of threats suggests a weakening case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what WP:Wikilawyering means. Here you stated, "Worrying att[i]tude." That you consider following the rules appropriately (which is what I am doing) worrying is what is worrying. But it's not surprising, given your history. It is made explicitly clear by our policies that we don't go by what we personally think is wrong or editors questioning the literature (seriously or otherwise). You've been here since 2008. You know that. My so-called growing aggression suggests me not wanting you or anyone else to waste my time. It suggests me being utterly frustrated by your WP:Not a forum and WP:Synthesis-engaging behavior. That you consider me stating that "I'd rather not have to start an RfC on this and/or bring people from WP:Village pump (policy) into it." a threat suggests that you know your case is weak. Unless you have reliable sources identifying some problem, what you consider the problem does not trump what the reliable sources state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew this could be a sensitive subject coming in to it. Please do not get angry at each other. Let's set a positive example for others. I will come back to this after a few days or so. I hope something can be done about the 45 mil number without my direct editing. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I am pretty sure I have pointed out a glaring problem on that front. I will actively work to be as friendly as possible. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is simple. Stick to what the literature states with WP:Due weight. Unless you have reliable sources explicitly identifying a glaring problem, what you consider the problem does not trump what the reliable sources state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is very disheartening to find experienced editors dismissing reliable sources because they are speculation or that they can decide if the source is reliable based on their decision as to whether the source makes sense. It's an argument I've had with new editors, never with older ones. The only thing sensitive here is not the subject, it's the way people are not willing to accept reliable sources.  Doug Weller  talk 17:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's start over. US Census US Census: One race - White	234,904,818 Black or African American	40,916,113 US Census   Race alone or in combination with one or more other races - White	243,832,540  Black or African American	45,109,521 English Wikipedia: White Americans 243,832,540  African Americans 40,916,113 Question: Is or was there a specific rationale for using 'one race' figures for the African American population total and using the 'combination' figures for White American population total? How can the 45 mil figure be added on this Wikipedia page and the 234 mil figure be added on that Wikipedia page? I have made edits attempting to do this. This is clearly a problem; let's solve this first. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC) , what leads you to conclude that the definition put forth by U.S. Census Bureau is definitive in this matter? Wikipedia articles should summarize what the full range of the highest quality reliable sources say about the topic. Definitions by academics who specialize in African-American identity should be preferred over definitions by government bureaucrats who are obligated to finish their census job in 2020 and will never rethink their definition in July of this year. Academics, on the other hand, are rethinking and re-evaluating constantly, without regards to a ten year schedule. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Let me know what you think of the two recent edits specifically. Once the population numbers (45 and 40, 243 and 234) are included, then the definition questions can be more easily addressed. (Also, if there really was a good reason that the population figures were pulled from different parts of the 2018 chart (the 'comibination' part of the Census figures in the case of White Americans Wikipedia page (243 mil) and the 'one race' part in the case of the African American page (40 mil)- my guess is that this was an accident), then I think that this should be made into some kind of note on the population figures.) To quickly respond to your question: I do not by any means assert that the definition put forth by U.S. Census Bureau is definitive in this matter. However, your statement seems to indicate there is a divergence in the definition used by the US Census and that provided in the second sentence of this Wikipedia article. In order not give readers an inaccurate impression that the population figure provided is based on the definition given, that divergence you are saying exists needs to be addressed in some way, perhaps in a small note or something. (Mr. Cullen, I realize that you may have a negative impression of me. I hope that through this exchange I can improve your impression of me. Note that I have recently made two specific edits on the English Wikipedia mainspace that are directly related to this topic, and I am looking for feedback. Thanks again for holding down the fort in Wikipedia.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * , my perception is that your edits are somewhat tendentious and that you have not gained consensus for them. In my view, you are elevating the census bureacrat's definition over academic definitions, and I have a problem with that. The second sentence is a problem only if it does not accurately summarize what the full range of high quality academic sources say. So, please provide a source analysis that justifies your edits. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The population figure is the question I would like to know about now- were the recent two edits correct? How can they be made more correct? I just added the references in two new edits: (I am not elevating the Census g-men over the academics. I am saying the Census g-man's definition may be (according to others) different from the definition in the second sentence, and if we ignore that, then it gives the impression that the second sentence's definition "matches up to" the Census population figures provided. In fact, there was no attempt to count the number of persons descended from enslaved black people in the 2018 census estimate.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC) (modified)

The definition as provided accidentally excluded enslaved black people themselves from the African American definition. I attempted to reword it per the demographics section in the article, which says there were 4.4 mil African Americans in 1860 if I am reading correctly. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By this proposed new wording I have added, Redoshi, Cudjoe Lewis and first generation enslaved black persons are included in African Anerican. The current wording is an improvement but not perfect. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You said “As an aside, there were no ‘African Americans’ prior to being given citizenship in the 1860s” but the article currently says “In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, the African-American population had increased to 4.4 million” How can these two notions be reconciled? Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By what was implied in Simone's statement, there were no African Americans before the Civil War, hence Crispus Attucks was not African American? Can we not see how the definition in the second sentence needs rewording? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this issue is not the central focus of my editing work on Wikipedia, I will not continue to do work on the page because it is too contentious and could easily lead to my account being banned. But this discussion has shown overwhelming evidence that the second sentence definition is highly problematic, and I hope it will be amended or put in its proper context at some point. Good luck! Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I stated above. So, of course, I agree with B Simone77 reverting you altering the "generally" piece again. I also agree with Cullen that you are being tendentious. I pretty much indicated before that you were being this way. If you continue on this path, I expect you to wind up at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard with a report against you about slow edit warring or at WP:ANI. I'm not threatening you. I'm just stating that I think you are being tendentious and that I would report you continuing to make contested changes if it continued. As for this bit you added to the infobox, I'm not looking to revert it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

From reading the notes above, maybe you should ask African Americans - specifically DACS (if you don't know the anacronym, then you really shouldn't be editing this wikipedia) to help. In the case of Obama his is widely known as the first Black President. Techically he is not 'African-American' - he is biracial Kenyan American. To say he is African American is just plain wrong. He is black though, and this still important. But his ancestors were not victims of American chattel slavery, nor did they survive Jim Crow, or have the civil rights struggle or the 1950s/60s. His father was an immigrant - and these are very different experiences with deeply significant implications and importance. Globalsista (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Shirley Chisholm
Please add Shirley Chisholm entered the U.S. House of Representatives in 1969 as the first African American woman in either chamber of Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1805:CA4C:58BD:6428:3848:2EC0 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does "Black American" redirect here?
There should be a separate page for Black Americans just like there is for White Americans. Not all Black Americans identify as being African just like not all White Americans identify as being European. This doesn't make sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeminoleNation (talk • contribs)
 * SeminoleNation, it redirects here because it is one of the significant WP:Alternative terms and is addressed in the article. We follow the sources with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

2 errors
There are two errors in the article.

1. Reference #10 is inaccurate. Black and African-American are not synonyms. Black is a race, African-American is an ethnicity.

2. At the very bottom of the page, President Obama is listed as African-American. He is not African-American, an ethnicity which is a very unique experience. President Obama is Kenyan-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopyandramen (talk • contribs) 07:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It will be hard to find WP:RS to support your opinion. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Article about world's oldest African American
Between 2012 and 2018, English Wikipedia had an article about the world's oldest African-American, Matthew Beard (the fourth-oldest man in the world: Oldest people). In the aftermath of this 2018 WP:AfD discussion, the article was redirected to List of the verified oldest people, thus making all of Mathew Beard's biographical details contained in the article itself inaccessible to almost all users.

The first three men on the List of the verified oldest people (Jiroemon Kimura, Christian Mortensen and Emiliano Mercado del Toro) have articles, as well as the fifth man (Walter Breuning). However, the fourth man, Mathew Beard, the world's oldest African-American, despite having entries in Arabic Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, Serbian Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia and Ukrainian Wikipedia, no longer has an entry in English Wikipedia. I am curious as to whether there would be consensus for restoring his entry to English Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"White women calling police on black men"
The Policing and criminal Justice section of this article is heavily biased. It says that 40 percent of people in US prison are African Americans, but does not say what percentage of crimes in the US are committed by this same population group. Also, "White women calling the police on black people also became a widely publicized issue in 2020" is not nearly significant enough to be included in a short summary of Policing and criminal Justice of African Americans, and it is very biased and stupid for it to be included. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The percentage of African Americans in prison is the result of a complex set of causes, e.g. slavery, segregation, discrimination, poverty, bias in the judicial system. It is certainly not as easy as "They commit more crimes, so they end up in prison more often", which your comment seems to imply. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Blacks do commit more crimes relative to the total population, so it stands to reason they would be incarcerated more than other racial groups. Current stats have it that blacks are about 13 percent of the US population, but are responsible for more than 50 percent of violent crimes.  This fact is an "inconvenient truth" that the politically-correct crowd goes to lengths to suppress, often by trying to obfuscate with "it's complicated" statements.  Ultimately, being incarcerated for a crime is the fault of the criminal, not society as a whole or "white women calling the police on black people."


 * 216.152.18.132 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not denying this. The percentage of crimes committed by African Americans should be included with their percent representation in the prison system. Possible factors for this overrepresentation in crime, and prison population, such as the ones you talked about, should be included. In relation to "White women calling police on black men", I think we can both agree that this is nowhere near significant enough to be included in a short summary on African American policing and criminal justice. The whole section should be edited thoroughly to provide the appropriate information (Percentage of crimes committed by African Americans, percentage of prisoners who are African Americans, possible causes for these percentages.)NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing the Title to Black Americans
The term African American is outdated and is tone-deaf to the history of Black people in the States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojijozzumm (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think you have good reasons and good sources to support your opinion, you can start a move discussion. But for now, this article is called "African Americans" and therefore also the Info box has to have this caption. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR and other things before starting an edit war. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Are North Africans African Americans?
The terminology is vague, and that should be pointed out.

There are other cases, for example, Are South Indians, or Polynesians "Black Americans"? I have a colleague that jokes he is African American -- he is Africaan.

There is a word that is correct, and until fairly recently had no negative connotations. I dare not write it down though.

This is a suggestion for an edit. I personally cannot be bothered to try to make it. If someone else does, then great. But you DO NOT revert edits to the Talk page because you disagree with them! Tuntable (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP is based on WP:RS, not on jokes among colleagues (did you mean to say that he is Afrikaner ?). Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. If you think that the general usage of the term in English language is not correct, you might consider writing an e-mail to the editors of relevant dictionaries. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the term is confusing, and that that is not brought out well in the article. It is confusing because it does not mean what it says directly, and it is not at all clear what it does mean.  For example, from the article, Obama would probably not be an "African American" as he is an immigrant, but is that correct?  And yes, I cannot spel, thank you for the correction. Tuntable (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Obama an immigrant ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is "blacks" an insult?
I've run in to some people on Twitter who say that "blacks", lower-case is an insult because it doesn't include "people". Should all instances of "blacks" in the article be replaced with "Black people"? Is there a strong consensus on this in the African American community, or is it just some vocal people on Twitter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:CC12:0:E8CE:E6E4:D343:FC06 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

African American
Kamala is not African American. She is Jamaican (Black) & South Asian. Please correct. Moonshadow52 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the article lead: Immigrants from some Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations and their descendants may or may not also self-identify with the term. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This term African American is specifically used to identify the ethic group of black people who are the descendants of the ensalved black people who have been in the United States for over 400 years with a specific culture and history.

Kamala Harris does not belong to that ancestry she is of Jamaican and Indian ancestry which ties her to a specific cultures and histories, which is different from African Americans.

If Kamala Harris can identify as an African American then how do you distinguish the people who are the decandants of black people who have been in the United States predating the 13 colonies?

Can African American's move to Jamaica and because they are black too, identify themselves as Jamaican, or would they be an African American immigrant living in Jamaica? If they did identify themselves as Jamaican wouldn't that be a misrepresentation of thier cultural and historical background and offensive to the local Jamacians who have generations of ancestry and history in Jamaica? Healthyliving21 (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Foundational Black Americans
I don't doubt that ADOS is notable as a movement. But still your edit has two problems: The NYT source doesn't even mention "Foundational Black Americans", and it calls ADOS a group of online agitators ... small in number, with active supporters estimated to be in the thousands. That's not the description of an ethnic group. What you have to prove is that the ethnic group called "Foundational Black Americans" is notable enough to be included in the sidebar on the same level with groups like Afro-Brazilians. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Both ADOS and Foundational Black American is just another name for the ethic group of the descendants of the enslaved black people in the United States. I agree with this comment it is not simply a online group Healthyliving21 (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021
Healthyliving21 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC) The follow reads

Most African Americans are descendants of enslaved peoples within the boundaries of the present United States.[11][12] On average, African Americans are of West/Central African and European descent, and some also have Native American ancestry.[13] According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (≈95%).[14] Immigrants from some Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations and their descendants may or may not also self-identify with the term.[8]

The following should read as

African Americans are the descendants of enslaved black people within the boundaries of the present United States.[11][12] On average, African Americans are of West/Central African and European descent, and some also have Native American ancestry.[13] According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (≈95%).[14] Immigrants from some Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations and their descendants may not also self-identify with the term.[8]
 * ❌ No WP:RS given. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021 (2)
Healthyliving21 (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC) It currently reads On November 4, 2008, Democratic Senator Barack Obama defeated Republican Senator John McCain to become the first African American to be elected president.

It should read:

On November 4, 2008, Democratic Senator Barack Obama defeated Republican Senator John McCain to become the first biracial Kenyan American to be elected president.
 * ❌ No WP:RS given. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Black American and African American
Black American and African American (also including ADOS, American  Descendants of Slavery, as well as Foundational Black American). are specific terms created to identify a specific ethnic group of the Decedent's of the enslaved black people who were sold and/or captured and forcibly displaced from mostly west and central Africa to the United States of America whose history, ethinicty and culture predates the 13 colonies.

It is inaccurate, misleading, and disrespectful, to cross a ethnic boundry to label or self identify black immigrants and/or their descendants who voluntarily migrated to the United States with any one of these these terms; Black American, African American (also including ADOS, American  Decedent's of Slavery, as well as Foundational Black Americans

Black people globally share a racial background, however their are various ethnic groups and tribes across the world with different histories, values, and cultures. These differences are not a bad thing, however ethinic and cultural boundries must be respected. Healthyliving21 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP is based on WP:RS, not on what you personally call disrespectful. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Black is a race. African is a birthplace.
We need to clean up this insanity. African-American is not a race. You can pretend it also refers to an ethnic/cultural group, but it obviously refers to a birthplace-residency group, like all hyphenated continent words. African-Americans can be any race. Black Americans are black. African-American means born in Africa, resident of America. American-African means born in America, resident of Africa. White Americans are not European Americans, just as black Americans are not African Americans. Thewikipediaeditorguy (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a legal classification The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question ......So if your looking for racial classification change this is not the place to change US law.-- Moxy 🍁 16:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

African American is a unique term created for the descendants of the enslaved black people in the United States of America. The African part of African American is accurate considering the unique circumstances in which this ethnic group was created, African American ancestors were caprured from various tribes and ethnic groups mostly across the western and central parts of the continents of Africa.

There is not one specific country or tribe that all African Americans can trace there ancestry back to, the descend from various tribes and it various on which tribes based on the individual.

It is not accurate for Modern day black immigrants from over 54 specific countries in Africa from a specific ethic group and/or tribe to identify themselves as African American because they are not of the same history and culture of African American's who are the descendants of the enslaved balck people in the United States which predates the 13 colonies.

Modern day black immigrants from the continent of Africa can identify with the specific country they come from such as Gambian American, Ghanaian American, Nigerian American, Ethiopian American, etc.. just the way all other modern day immigrants groups do i.e. Chinese American, Mexican American, Italian American etc... Healthyliving21 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. There's a reason we don't refer to white americans as "European American" because it implies that they're from Europe, which they're not (atleast in the typical usage of "from Europe"). I mean sure, both white and black Americans have ancestral routes in those continents but most are so many generations removed that it doesn't matter. Also, the page for Black Canadians is Black Canadians not African Canadians for this very reason. Colin dm (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on our personal reasoning. And there are thousands, or even millions of reliable sources calling people like Barack Obama ... (you may complete this sentence by yourselves) --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

With or without hyphen and other recent changes
I undid your recent changes for the following reasons:
 * "Afro-Americans" is written with a capital letter, as seen in the given source and in all the dictionaries I have, including my ODE (3rd ed., 2010).
 * I don't see your rationale for changing "black" to "from Africa". White immigrants from South Africa normally don't identify as "African American", while Kamala Harris does, although her father was born in Jamaica.
 * I'm unable to find any source for your theory that "African-American" denotes a double nationality. ODE has only "African American", according to Merriam-Webster the two forms are synonyms. The closest to your theory is Cambridge Dictionary, but that's still different from your view. Also, your theory doesn't seem logical, since "American" refers to one specific country (the U.S.), while "African" doesn't. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Black" and "White"
The use of "Black" / "black" and "White" / "white" in this article is not consistent. I suggest we discuss at Talk:Slavery_in_the_United_States where a discussion has started some hours ago. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The capitalization is dependent on context, but generally Black should be capitalized (because being Black encompasses a culture, and identity, etc.) and white should be lowercase. Jezamae (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * MOS:PEOPLANG allows "black / white" as well as "Black / White", awkwardly adding that there is no general consensus against "Black / white". I personally prefer "Black / White", since it seems more logical to treat the two words in the same way. thanks for taking the initiative. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding new section
I know the new section on pre-Columbian claims will generate controversy (which I noted) since it's not a mainstream position (which I specifically noted, as well as qualified it with 'claims' to emphasize that), so I'm going to put it up here for any discussion.JWilliams835 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Something that has not been discussed by scholarly sources (see WP:RS) for more than a century is certainly as fringe as the flat earth theory. Please read WP:DUE for a discussion on when and how we present minority views. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

???
Why "Non-Hispanic" instead of "Non-Latino"? Brazilians arent hispanic, but they are latino L1948L (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to drop the hyphen at African-American culture
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:African-American culture § Requested move 23 June 2021. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Economic status outdated
I placed a banner in the Economic status section to draw attention to the outdated information. this is a lot of data to replace and any help updating this section is greatly appreciated.Robjwev (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"The term African American generally denotes descendants of enslaved Africans who are from the United States,"
So, US President Barack Obama is not African-American.

Did anyone inform him?

172.56.23.219 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been a point of contention among African Americans for some time, yes. He is the son of an African, who belongs to an entirely different ethnicity. He is Black, but as a first-generation descendant, he might not be considered technically African-American by many. As it is, though, there does not seem to be a widely accepted term to distinguish descendants of American slavery from other non-immigrant Black people in America. Certain groups are trying to establish terms now in the 21st century, but that's also a highly contentious and fraught issue. natemup (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)