Talk:Multiracial Americans/Archive 1

Observation about the pictures
I've noted that the pictures are all half black/half white people and some aren't that famous. I think we can do a little better. I'll replace some of them with Hines Ward (black/asian), Rob Schneider (white/asian), Barack Obama (black/white). I think that's every good combination. I think an explanation on why being half-hispanic doesn't could would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.54.137 (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hispanic and Latino Americans -- I am not sure, but it appears that Hispanics are considered an ethnicity and not a race in the US. I.e. Hispanics themselves may belong to any race, so that you can be white and Hispanic, black and Hispanic, Asian and Hispanic as well as mixed-race and Hispanic, but you cannot be "half white half Hispanic". --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can update the pictures, I think adding Charles Mingus would be fantastic. According to Mingus, he was "yellow" and "negro." According to his page, he's half white, 1/4 Chinese, and 1/4 black/AA.

[QUOTE]you cannot be "half white half Hispanic".[/QUOTE]

You can be half White and half Hispanic if the Hispanic parent is a Mestizo, which most Hispanics in the U.S are.

Very soon most Americans may not be "white" in the US. For that reason if you are "white" you will not be "white" anymore?Pranks.

Native American section
I'm going to greatly increase the Native American section it's grossly missing alot of information as if Native Americans just stayed off on their own. I'll probably do that tomarrow, but this seriously needs to be addressed.Mcelite (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is pointless and biased
It is clear whoever wrote this article is some who's half black/half white. For one we don't need to include this as there is much discussion of this across wikipedia. All this article does is fork. Second it's too broad including people who are eurasian, mulatto, and white/native american ignoring that these people don't have anything in common. Third it's biased into a "blame the blacks" attitude. Why don't we get rid of this crap. YVNP (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I would self-identify as very much neither Multiracial nor American. Though I don't take responsibility for all of the article, it being a WP:SS split off Multiracial, where the "United States" section was beginning to dominate the article. The article is fully referenced, and clearly discusses an existing topic. It is also a matter of record that the racial identity in question is actively embraced by a small but visible minority of US Americans, the 6.8 people or 2.4% mentioned right in the lead. I am also unsure where you suppose anyone is "blamed", and for what. Are you implying "blame" for the emergence of multiracial identity, or conversely for the long delay in its emergence?

So, if you have suggestions for improvement, let's hear them, but if you're just going to claim the article is "pointless" based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I must remind you of WP:FORUM. for the vast majority of Americans whose parents didn't defile th--dab (𒁳) 13:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is that it's too inclusive with little reason for such inclusion. How are Eurasians and Mulattos the same? Surely they identify in a drastically different way and receive drastically different treatment? YVNP (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Where's the Monoracial American article? Christopedia (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That can probably be put into the article on the United States. This article is specific to represent the variation of the United States which is not exactly shown to the rest of the world. Some parts of the world believe all Americans are Caucasian or that all people classified as African American are nothing but descendents of slaves.Mcelite (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Monoracial American" isn't a term:
 * (the 11 google scholar hits are for "monoracial American Indians", not "Monoracial American")
 * (the 11 google scholar hits are for "monoracial American Indians", not "Monoracial American")
 * (the 11 google scholar hits are for "monoracial American Indians", not "Monoracial American")
 * (the 11 google scholar hits are for "monoracial American Indians", not "Monoracial American")

"Monoracial Americans" are known as either "White Americans", "African Americans", "Asian Americans" or "Native Americans". I am replying to this as if it had been a serious question. I realize it was more likely an attempt at sarcasm. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg
The image File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article w/ updated stats.
I've been somewhat busy fixing some other articles but someone who has adopted this article might take Interest in this. Multiracial people become fastest growing US group, By HOPE YEN - Associated Press Writer (Via Yahoo News), Thursday, May 27th 2009 @ 4:45pm EST CaribDigita (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston
How is Jennifer Aniston Multiracial? She comes from all european decent, making her only White? Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeh I took care of it. Both her and Renee are only of European bloodlines so I had to remove her as well.Mcelite (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I am curious about Angelina Jolie, are there any sources verifying her Native ancestory? Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that turned out to be a rumor and her father denies that they have native blood so her picture was removed as well. I checked everyone else and they are cleared they can represent.Mcelite (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiracial American based on race not skin color
Although it has been practiced by the US Census Bureau for almost 2 centuries to use skin color to define a persons Racial back round since 2000 people of European race were able to specify what race such as German. So to say a person of mixed European race is white is just immoral and wrong an actual creates bias and defeats the purpose of this article.--Antiedman (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is very racist
I fail to see why this article would not include Multiracial Americans of Multiracial European origins.

I am sorry if Multiracial Americans that have a dark skin color are treated still to this day not as good as white skin colored Multiracial Americans. Please do not take your aggressions of your negative racist experiences out in this article this article is here not just for people who are dark but to all Multiracial Americans including the Multiracial Americans of Multiracial European origins. For when you take your aggressions of your negative racist experiences out on Multiracial Americans of Multiracial European origins you too become a raciest.

If action is not taken soon to correct the wrong of not including Multiracial Americans of Multiracial European origins and finally once again include them i will find a way to get this disagreement settled by Wikimedias article conflict resolution  sector. --Antiedman (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can tell you the first step you need to take in "Wikimedias article conflict resolution  sector", in advance: see WP:CITE. Provide a quotable source and we'll include it, no problem. Your source must discuss "multiracial Americans" to the inclusion of "Multiracial European origins" and you're in. No source, no discussion. No discussion, no "dispute". No dispute, no "conflict resolution". Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I will ask you once again, civilly, to stop edit warring over this article before you have presented a single reference for whatever point it is you wish to make.

Now please either own up with some source or else do drop it. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes of Multiracial definitions
Title:WHITE ETHNICITY

Quote: "It is imperative for all members of multiracial families to acknowledge their family’s complete heritage. White American is not an ancestral group. Know where in the world your family originated (your specific European ethnicity(s) in the case of White Americans) if at all possible." http://www.multiracialsky.com/identity.html--Antiedman (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

two points.
 * (a) this is just some web page you googled. It isn't quotable. I have asked you to read WP:RS about five times now, and still you persist in ignoring this very simple and basic request.
 * (b) this is advice to "multiracial families" to go into ethnic specifics as far as possible. Fine. I fail to see the relevance. If it was a notable author giving this advice, we could quote it. It isn't clear how this is relevant to your cries of "bias".

Can you now please calm down and explain what it is you want in a coherent way and based on actual literature, yes? --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am qouting an Q & A Artical From the U.S Census Bereau Title of article:Questions and Answers for Census 2000 Data on Race March 14, 2001

Quote from article: Question: "will data on race be presented?

Answer: Data on race will be shown using several different options. For example, in the Public Law 94-171 (redistricting) file, data will be shown for 63 racial categories. These include White alone, Black or African American alone, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, Some other race alone and 57 possible combinations of the above six categories.

In data products where it will not be possible to show 63 racial categories, such as the Demographic Profiles, data will be shown for seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. The seven categories are White alone, Black or African American alone, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, Some other race alone, and Two or more races. The two or more races category represents all those respondents who reported more than one race.

A third option provides data about people who reported a race either alone or in combination with one or more other races. For example, the White alone or in combination category consists of those respondents who reported White, whether or not they reported any other races. In other words, people who reported only White or who reported combinations such as "White and Black or African American," or "White and Asian and American Indian and Alaska Native" are included in the White alone or in combination category. Using this option there are six alone or in combinations groups: White alone or in combination; Black or African American alone or in combination, American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination, Asian alone or in combination, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone or in combination, and Some other race alone or in combination. If the number of people in these six categories is calculated, it will equal the total number of responses and will generally exceed the total population."

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html Which means that a Multiracial American of Multiracial European origin could officially claim that they were more than one European racial group i.e A Multiracial American of German & Irish decent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiedman (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding like to show the information set forth by the U.S.A government on how an American citizen Can clam their race

title of article: Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used in Census 2000 and Beyond link: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiedman (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how people being able to enter "Some other race" on the census form demonstrates that people with two white European heritages are "mixed race". That's drawing a conclusion of your own. Please find some reliable sources that argue that people with more than one European heritage are mixed race/multiracial. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, many Hispanic people have a largely white European heritage. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense to say the people with 2 more different European bloodlines i.e.(British and French) are of mixed race. Mixed ethnicity and culture yes, but not different race. Also yes Latinos are largely of Spaniard descent there's no denying that at all.Mcelite (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

indeed. It has become painfully clear that "Antiedman" has no case. Please save yourself further embarassment, and everyone else some time, this isn't going anywhere.

This article is about the emerging "multiracial identity" in the US. Antiedman is essentilly claiming that of the  6.8 million USians who ticked "two or more races" in 2000, some were in fact identifying as of "mixed-race European" descent. E.g., "some people ticked 'two or more races' rather than 'white' because they self-identify as of 'mixed Mediterranean-Nordic race', maybe because they have Italian and Swedish ancestry".

That is, on the face of it, just a claim. It is a far-fetched claim, and would need a solid reference per WP:REDFLAG, but it is still just a claim. If Antiedman can present a source stating exactly this, we'll have a discussion. But we do not have a discussion until then. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Some Other Race" in the U.S. Census
About half of Latinos answer "Some Other Race" to the U.S. Census Bureau. Those who answer in that category are usually "Multiracial" mestizos or mulattoes, but the U.S. Census put them together in the White category. So the U.S. Census should join together the category "Multiracial" (2,4%) with "Some Other Race" (7%), so the real percentage of MULTIRACIAL Americans is about 10% of the population. Another 8% of Latinos answer "White" and it is right to put them with the rest in that category. But not the "Some Other Race" answers which fit better in the "Multiracial" category. As their ancestors mixed so many decades or centuries ago these Latinos don´t consider themselves multiracial, but they are aware they are neither white nor black nor indian, so they answwer "Some Other Race". But, in fact, they are the first "Multiracial" Americans. The U.S. Census Bureau should redirect that category ("Some Other Race") to MULTIRACIAL instead to White in the next 2010 U.S. Census.--88.26.56.108 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And if 20% of "black" Americans are over 25% white, that would add another three points to the "MULTIRACIAL" Category in the U.S. Census. And we should add that over half of "native" Americans and "native" Hawaiians are over 50% white, adding another two point to the Multiracial category.

So, really, and leaving apart politics, the percentage of Americans who are clearly Multiracial amounts to over 15% of the population.--88.26.56.108 (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see your point, but we need to base the article on reliable sources rather than our own educated calculations and guesstimates. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a guess but data from the U.S. Census Bureau.--79.146.20.1 (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

race is evidently purely a matter of self-identification in the US. You could even tick "black" if you're white, "white" if your black, or generally anything you pleased. For the purposes of the official census, people are whichever race they say they are. I am confident that in the next census, the number of "multiracial" will be considerably higher as the concept becomes more hip. --dab (𒁳) 20:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama?
Being the first multi-racial president, I think that he should definitely be in the infobox. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, should his image be given such a prominent position, or an equal position to other multi-racial notable persons in the infobox? Furthermore, only have him in the infobox as an active politician, and no other mulitracial politician from the opposite side of the political spectrum makes the infobox politically unbalanced, thus meaning that it violates WP:NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly how is that a prominent position? I don't see this is a political thing.Mcelite (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely we can agree that the President of the United States might be a good example of a multiracial American without engaging in political battles? Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He is in the top-left of the infobox, and the image is larger than others in the infobox, thus giving a superior position. President Obama is a good representative of Multiracial Americans, however, he shouldn't be the only politician in the infobox, as there are other multiracial conservative politicians that could provide a balance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok...so just simply make his photo size the same as others if you consider it favortism and what other politicians did you have in mind?Mcelite (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)Done. As for whom on the political right could provide balance, there is Colin Powell (Jamaican/Scottish/Irish), John Ensign (Irish/Filipino), George Voinovich (Serbian/Slovene), Charlie Crist (Greek Cypriot/Scottish/Irish), Chris Christie (British/Italian), and Tim Pawlenty (German/Polish). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I think you're confusing the concept of "multi-ethnic" heritage with that of "mutiracial" heritage.
 * Second, according to the article, a person is multiracial if they "identify themselves as of 'two or more races'". As far as I know, that isn't the case with Colin Powell, who describes himself as Black. I don't know much about John Ensign; does he self-identify as multiracial? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unaware if former SecState/GEN Powell self identifies as being multi-racial. Are all Caucasians considered one race? Senator Ensign, does self-identify. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Caucasians are considered one race. If you're British and French you are still Caucasian but if the person was British and let's say Bahamian then that person would be multiracial.Mcelite (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is the case Keanu Reeves should be removed because as his article states he is Lebanese/Canadian, for people from Lebanon are mainly arabs, and arabs are caucasian. Furthermore, Jessica Alba should then be removed because as her article states she is Danish/French Canadian/Mexican.  Mexican is not considered a seperate race from Caucasian, unless you group it with Native American, which may or may not be the case if we are following race as established by Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Acording to the Keanu Reeves article, Lebanon was just his birthplace. His mother is English and his father is of Hawaiian and Chinese descent. He's also Canadian-American so I don't see any reason in his removal from this article. --Tweeheart (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although being Canadian-American shouldn't be enough to warrant inclusion into this article, due to his father's ethnic background, he is already multiracial, and thus I retract my comment about Reeves.
 * Unless I hear otherwise, I shall be including Sen. Ensign into the infobox. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got no problem with his addition to the infobox. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when did John Ensign self-identify as multiracial? Besides, he only claims to be 1/8th Filipino. --Tweeheart (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clearly stated in the article that he self-identifies as being Filipino American, and it is a matter of record that he is Italian American. By those two parts, he falls within the scope of this article.
 * If you would like to nominate another prominent conservative multiracial individual, I'd be more then happy to hear suggestions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note how you told me to "nominate another prominent conservative multiracial individual". You are clearly dragging politics into this. The infobox isn't about that, but rather a varied representaion of actual mixed race individuals. A trickle of non-white ancestry does not make one multiracial or a person of color. This is rediculous, we may as well include every white or black person who claims to a have a "Cherokee great-grandmother" (and heaven knows ALOT of white or black people seem to make this claim). Judging from your username, you're probably not going to listen to me and you'll keep pushing your agenda. --Tweeheart (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweeheart, did you read the beginning of this thread of discussion? The addition of a conservative multiracial individual is to make the infobox politically neutral, and therefore not an attempt to give one side or another undue weight.  Without said inclusion, an image may be projected that multiracial americans are only of one persuasion or another.
 * Furthermore, your interpretation of what it means to be a multiracial individual is rather exclusionary, which I don't believe is in the best interest of the article. Rather it should seek to be inclusionary, that all individuals who claim to have multiple racial ancestry should be included.  The benchmark is the U.S. Census, therefore anyone who claims more then one racial ancestry is included, not just what we as individual editors think should be included or excluded. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go look up White people, and you'll see that not everyone classified as such is 100% "pure" Caucasian/Euro-descent - it's a social classification, not just a biological one. John Ensign is very much a white person, and is not relevant to the multiracial category. --99.40.48.225 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, my mistake: I edited before without using the talk page (apologies), but I read this entire conversation, and not only has RightCowLeftCoast confused 'race' and 'ethnicity' several times (making me wonder how someone lacking any understanding of something so basic thinks they are qualified to edit a page about any 'multiracial' people), but I noticed the user Tweeheart brought up a valid point when they said that we may as well include every other white/black person in North America claiming a "Cherokee great-grandmother." Many Americans may have a 'mixed past'. The addition of a white guy claiming ONE Filipino GREAT-GRANDMOTHER is quite laughable, especially when it is a claim which cannot be verified to a background that may very well be imagined. (BTW, Filipino is a nationality, NOT an ethnicity - this politician could be related to a Spanish-Filipino and not an indigenous one, which makes the addition of John Ensign even more worthy of deletion/change and just as pointless as having Jessica Alba's picture on here.)


 * Perhaps both politicians should be removed. However, Barack Obama is the POTUS (and therefore the most prominent and well-known multiracial person of ANY nationality in the world right now), and he was included for a good reason. I don't think anyone on here is biased or believes mixed race people lean towards any political persuasion, but RightCowLeftCoast comes off as nothing more than a vocally conservative user willing to include anyone (even a white guy, apparently) in the image box, because of a paranoia about a "liberal image" being "projected" re: multiracial Americans. If anything, this page doesn't need a white person added because of some bizarre belief in the one-drop rule (nor does it need any more pictures of mixed black/white individuals or black people that make false claims to Cherokee/Blackfoot ancestry in the Native American section, I can say that much). --99.40.48.225 (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent} You do bring up good points, however, my edits are supported by WP:NEU and WP:UNDUE, and my reasons are sound. Where you might see my edits as POV pushing, I see it as bringing the infobox to a neutral state.  As for Senator John Ensign, he has claimed both races, being Filipino as stated in the article (any speculation that he is not is WP:OR) and being Italian Ameican by being a member of the Italian American Congressional Delegation.  Therefore, Senator Ensign falls within the scope of this article.  That being said I have not objection to President Obama being in the infobox, however I am disturbed that there appears to be an active effort to exclude a conservative representative to the infobox. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jumping into this discussion again, I only viewed the addition of John Ensign silly for the reasons I stated above (credit to Tweeheart's examples)...not because of his politics, my own or anyone else's. I don't see other editors on here as trying to exclude individuals on such a basis, either.


 * If we must include politicians in the info box, then maybe a user will show up with some worthy candidates of mixed race - I am drawing blanks after Colin Powell, but obviously he does not count and has not identified as such. However, self-identification seems like shaky grounds to include an individual's picture in an infobox, especially if their ancestry is so distant it's rendered meaningless/practically non-existant (as seems to be the case with John Ensign).


 * The last thing I want is an edit war, and I'm not trying to get involved in a way that is not constructive. I do feel that this article is a GIGANTIC mess, and would like to contribute in a helpful manner. Not because I disagreed with the inclusion of John Ensign in the infobox, but (mostly) because there are some glaring inaccuracies in the actual CONTENT of the page. In fact, that's an even bigger issue altogether. I don't want to veer too far from the topic, so I am ducking out of this discussion to think of ways in which this article can be improved... --99.40.48.225 (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone down this line of thought as you are going before, in other articles regarding racial/ethnic definitions, and have been rebuffed by other editors and supporting references, and yet here I stand in opposition to said same line of thought. Being a member of X race/ethnicity or another isn't a matter of percentage of parentage, but a matter of claiming said race/ethnicity.
 * As to my confusion of race and ethnicity, if you look at the definition of both words, they are similar, if not at times potentialy overlaping
 * "2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics"

- webster's dictionary


 * "a member of an ethnic group; especially : a member of a minority group who retains the customs, language, or social views of the group"

- webster's dictionary


 * Furthermore, there is an entire article about how race and ethnic self identification and alternate versions of definitions of what makes up ethnicity X or race Y. An example of this can be seen on the discussion of what a Filipino American is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dreams from my Father
Why is Dreams from my Father listed in the 'See Also' section, and how on Earth does it even remotely relate to this article? 4.168.0.178 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mulatto is it's own distinct designation
There needs to be a distinction mulatto and African-American designations. Yes, African-Americans are a mixed-race people, in so far as they have trace amounts of white and, (to a far lesser degree), Native-American heritage. However, a mulatto is someone of black, it's historical multiracial component included, and European descent. Therefore, black and mulatto are separate designations. It is true that the one-drop rule forced mulatto's of the early 20th century into the black population. However, certainly a distinction should be made for the child of one black parent and one white parent in modern times. Don't you agree? Hence, I disagree with mulatto being under the category of African-American, as a mulatto is the product of an African-American and a white parent.

For example, a person who is African-American with white blood would have both a different cultural heritage and a different genealogical than someone say with an African-American father and Polish-American mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulatto Pole (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The expression mulatto is archaic and offensive. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mulatto itself is not offensive. it derives from the Spanish word for someone of mixed African and European heritage. It carries an offensive connotation only because of the shared disdain for multiracial individuals of black and white heritage by both the separatist and racist black and white communities.

But this is relatively petty, as it only addresses the name of this group that is distinct form African-Americans. Someone who is half Asian and half White is not called Asian. Surely, you acknowledge the difference between someone of black and white heritage and someone of black heritage. Do you understand why it is profoundly unacceptable to list African-Americans and those who are mixed under the same categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulatto Pole (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As you acknowledge, mulatto "carries an offensive connotation". The section of the article in question is about how multiracial Americans self-identify. It is about those who self-identify as African Americans, not as mulattos because—as I wrote—in modern American usage the term is offensive. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming mulattos self identify as African-Americans. It's incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.72.45 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE
I'm going to do a big WP:BEFORE here and request that this page not be treated as an article for an ethnic group because there is no external documentation suggesting "multiracial American" is anything more than a census construction. The topic of Multiracial-ism may be notable... but it is not an ethnic group... and so I'm requesting that the part of the article that suggests it is be pruned. Bull dog123 10:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, an individual who is a Multiracial american is not necessarily an ethnic group of themselves, but an individual of two or more races. That in an of itself is the scope of the individuals who are covered under this article, and those individuals and the group and subgroups of it I believe are notable enough to warrant having its own article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why is this article in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States? Shouldn't this article have a different title to reflect that it is not a uniform group of people? Bull dog123  20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Bulldog, you might do better to delete the article altogether. There are millions of multiracial Americans, but throwing them all in a pot and making an ethnic group of them is original research. To top it off, the article is a quote-farm. I'm not sure there's a "good" version to revert to. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I opened Articles for deletion/Multiracial American. I see talk page discussions won't do anything. Should have figured that out given the very first topic on this talk page Talk:Multiracial American went by without any change. Bull dog123 15:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Couple points. 1) This RfC isn't really appropriate.  The place for this conversation is AfD.  I motion that this RfC rescinded. 2) I generally agree with what I interpret to be Malik & Bull's pro-deletion sentiment.  NickCT (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

BIAS in favour of Black Multiracials
I am Eurasian. I am half Greek and half Chinese. This article is heavily biased in favor of black multiracials. I am not racist to black multiracials but I think you'll find that there are more multiracial people in this world who are Eurasian. In fact, Asian+White couples far outnumber White+Black couples in the United States. So why aren't we discussed more? And how come almost all the pictures in the article are black multiracials? Enough with this Afrocentrism. We should be honest and post no more than 1 or 2 black multiracials since Eurasians and other non black multiracials are far greater in number or else you might as well name the article "Black Multiracial". JiangVoo (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing you seem to miss is that this is about Multiracial AMERICANS and that in the USA the number of people of mixed Euro-African and Afro-European roots is far more significant than the number of Eurasians, this does not involve the rest of the world. I am more than sure that in the world you will find more Eurasians considering the fact that Europe and Asia are freaking adjacent to one another, but that has nothing to do with THIS country. In the United States the two largest populations are Euro-American and Afro-American. You failed to take into account that the years of rapes and interracial mixing between the two,and some Native Americans, was far more significant and for far more extended periods of time. The number of interracial datings between Asians and Whites may outnumber Black and White but that has very little to do with what biracial mix is most common. Its hard to say you're not racist if you say "Enough with this Afrocentrism", write these mixed race people off as Black, and then turn around and promote Eurocentrism. You dont even realize that most of the people here are "mixed White people"(to counter your argument). You seem to care less about people who are of mixed African and European ancestry but what about people who are of mixed Asian and Native American Ancestry? Pacific Islander and Native American? Asian and Pacific Islander? It was totally unnecessary for you to point out and downsize "Black Multiracials" and then turn around and have the audacity to say you're not racist when "black multiracial" is a racist oxymoron and an excuse for you to one drop these mixed people. Geminious2010 comment added by Geminious2010 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean, "in favour". Is the article claiming that "black multiracials" are better? Does it even claim that they are more numerous? If you have any reference you may use to expand the article, you are most welcome, but your complaint as it stands appears to be completely detached from anything actually found in the article at this time. You just seem to complain that the "Eurasian" section isn't as developed as it could be. Well doh, that's a textbook case of sofixit. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are alot more reliable sources on people mixed with African American, Caucasian, Native American ancestry. It's just been publicized alot more and a part of it is because of the history of slavery in the United States. Just as I've been unable to find an reliable sources on Native American/Caucasian admixture even though it's to a much less degree than African Americans with native blood. There's nothing but a few blogs about the subject. That can also be said about Eurasians not much has been written about it.Mcelite (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree with JiangVoo and other users in the above talk sections who have implied that this article has a strong Black bias. I do not know enough about the Asian-Caucasian mix re: demographics to respond to that specific assertion ("...I think you'll find that there are more multiracial people in this world who are Eurasian. In fact, Asian+White couples far outnumber White+Black couples in the United States"), but I do think the article's body is a bit lacking - though I wouldn't go so far as to say there's any *bias* in the sections, I do think they could use some additional information on mixed race people who aren't black/of African descent (if there are any reliable sources out there with additional noteworthy information). For me, the photos are also problematic: they show nothing but mixed African Americans, EVEN in sections that don't necessarily merit a picture of someone who would just be racialized as/seen as nothing other than Black by North American society...and nothing else (i.e. the Native American section). I do see one picture of a Eurasian, but honestly: where are the mixed Indigenous Americans (Indians AND Hawaiians)? Hapa Hawaiians and other mixed Pacific Islanders may not represent much of the U.S. demographic, but they still account for some of it. Not to mention, there is a big problem when Rosa Parks (an individual with no actual PROVEN Native ancestry, and most likely no cultural ties) is the "representative" for this group (Native Americans). Though there may be a large amount of black people who happen to have SOME Native blood, not many have a significant amount or even the specific and correct tribal affiliation(s) to prove it. Basically, they represent multiracial African Americans, not multiracial Native Americans. I'll admit to not having any great ideas as to how the individual sections can be "improved", but I really think we could start with the pictures. This country is not black and white. (Yes, pun intended.) Perhaps the header photos could be edited to omit some pictures of mixed Black people for other mixed people - such as a photo of a Eurasian, a (visibly mixed) Native American and a Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander American? If it helps at all, some prominent figures who come to mind are the following: Dwayne Johnson (Samoan + Black), Don Ho (Native Hawaiian, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch), Jim Thorpe (Sac/Fox + Irish), Jennifer Tilly (Chinese + White), Karen O (Korean + White), Benjamin Bratt (Peruvian + German)...and really, the list goes on. They would add to the "diversity" (or really, create it) that would probably satiate a lot of Wikipedia readers. Just my two cents! --Tweeheart (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

can we please maintain some sort of distinction between "zomg bias!" and "article extension welcome"? --dab (𒁳) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree more needs to be added I completely agree with Asian/Pacific Islander mixture especially in Hawaii as there is notable mixture between Hawaiians and Japanese Americans. In the Native American section is extremely difficult to find someone who is still in the culture per se because most people who are of partial or even half Native American descent usually have no cultural times to the tribe anymore. It's a harsh reality and also to make the arguement that Rosa Parks has no prove of being Native isn't going to fly. Native American is the only race in the U.S. that you need proof to prove who you are which has messed up alot of families. I chose Rosa Parks because she is extremely notable it's not well publicized that she is of native blood and she does have phenotypical characteristics that are native. Also you are correct there are more people with Asian/European mixture but finding information on it has been difficult if you can find more resources discussing it from reliable sources then great =). The only person I can think of immediately who is half Native American is Della Reese, her father is Cherokee.Mcelite (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is to diversify the pictures. Also, if false claims about Indigenous people are going to be laid here, I am just going to put this out there: no one in Native American/Native Hawaiian communities would ever view Rose Parks, Della Reese or Japanese Americans living in Hawai'i claiming Hawaiian blood as being Indigenous in any way - having a CDIB or just "saying it's so" doesn't cut it, either. I realize that Della Reese may claim Cherokee ancestry, but so do a lot of Black and White people in this country - it's one of the few things people think they can get away with, and many supposed "bands" of the Cherokee Nation will actually accept outsiders (it's called 'honorary status', something that I wouldn't doubt someone like Della Reese may have--if she even has a card--knowing who she is). Other tribes are not so forgiving. I am not trying to take the sofixit route that dab mentioned, but the claim that it is "extremely difficult" to "find someone who is 'still in the culture per se'", pretty much implies that mixed Native Americans--especially ones that are half or more--just don't exist. This is just not true, though it seems to be a common belief amongst non-Indigenous Americans. It should be proven wrong with this article. It's why I tried to help by naming several famous persons: Don Ho, Jim Thorpe, Benjamin Bratt, Dwayne Johnson. If you are talking proof here, then fine: Don Ho's mother, Honey Ho, is Native Hawaiian. Jim Thorpe was born on a reserve, so he never had what white and Black society would consider "acceptable proof" of his blood (i.e. a birth certificate), but most Indians who were half or more back then DIDN'T. (Many people born on reservations were not born in hospitals, and some don't even have social security numbers...to this very day.) Benjamin Bratt's mother is a Peruvian Indian, he has strong ties to his Indigenous culture AND he is a well-respected member of the urban Indian community in Northern California. Dwayne Johnson is another perfect example, seeing as how he represents Pacific Islander Americans being half Samoan. If we absolutely MUST add another Black American (though it would defeat the purpose of diversifying the pictures), then fine - Dwayne Johnson stands for that. Anyway, I just named two people who are exactly half Native American AND who were/are vocal about their ties and grew up with their respected cultures, as well as tackled the Hawaiian and Pacific Islander issue. I really do feel that this article's pictures are in desperate need of some changes. Native Americans and Native Hawaiians are not some rare, dying race - there are just a lot of fakers (and confusion) out there. As I stated earlier, Black people who claim insignificant amounts of Native American blood do not represent actual multiracial NATIVE Americans, or even share the lived experience of someone who is - they just represent multiracial AFRICAN Americans. That would be like putting a picture of one of the many (and unfortunately, there ARE many) famous White Americans who claim Native American blood or Asian Americans who claim Hawaiian blood: ridiculous, biased and marginalizing those actual mixed Native peoples out there. There is a difference between being white/black/Asian/what-have-you with some Native American/Hawaiian blood, and being an actual multiracial Native American. As far as your statement re: Rose Parks goes, I want to point out that Rosa Parks actually has absolutely NOTHING in common with Native Americans as far as phenotypes go. This is such a common misconception - that just because someone doesn't look "full Black" or "full White", they've got some Indian in there. A lot of people seem to have some very bizarre ideas of what Native Americans "should" look like (I'm not saying Mcelite or anyone else on here does, but there are people out there who do!), therefore, the pictures should show AT LEAST one HALF Native American who has lived the life/has the culture (and the look, as well - I really think that's important if we are talking visuals, here) - not people who just claim descendency. Otherwise, this is just another version of the "one-drop rule". This is a highly touchy subject, and so I really don't think another Black person needs to be added. I don't think the article's body itself is biased at all! I just think the pictures are... Also, I am not trying to be know-it-all or rude, but I would not be so quick to say that there is a "notable mixture between Hawaiians and Japanese Americans". It's a pretty well-known fact that most Asian Americans living in Hawai'i have no actual Native Hawaiian blood or even distant ties, WHATSOEVER - let alone *Japanese* Americans. You seem like you know a bit about Hawai'i due to the fact that you mentioned Japanese Americans - there are A LOT living there. They make up a significant amount of the demographic. However, none are Native Hawaiian. If we want to mention Native Hawaiians who DO have Asian blood or an ethnic group from Asia that DID intermarry with Hawaiians, it makes much more sense to mention Filipinos and the Chinese. Many Native Hawaiians, if not recently mixed, may have a Filipino or Chinese ancestor - none have any Japanese ancestors, and little-to-none are mixed recently with Japanese Americans. This is due to the fac that Chinese and Filipino immigrants were the first wave of ethnically Asian people to arrive in the islands, not the Japanese. I guess you could Japanese Americans claiming Hawaiian blood are a little like the many White and Black Americans that claim Indian (usually Cherokee or some other "civilized" or Southern tribe) blood: there's an awful lot of them, but none are the real deal. Also, if you read this far, then THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. Oh, and here is a prime example of a mixed Native American, who also happens to be African American. Though she is not famous, and I know her picture probably would not suffice for this page (though I wish it could), she is the "actual thing". Her name is Radmilla Cody and she is a former Miss Navajo pageant winner. --Tweeheart (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * HI. Sorry for the late reply I am currently in the Southern part of Illinois and just survived an inland hurricane...Ok I mentioned Della Reese because her father is Cherokee. I don't have a problem adding someone who is also white/Native American mixture like hmm..let's say Chuck Norris that's who I can think of right now I'm kinda tired.. As for claims that's an extremely big and troubling issue that's seriously causing alot of problems and yes some people do have some crazy ideas as to what full blood native look like because of t.v. and other things. If a full blood native was to cut their hair if they don't already have it cut and were baggy clothes and long shirt and for ex. walk downtown and Chicago people would never think that person was full blood they would eithr think they were Latino or African American which is sad but true. Also I apologize if I made it seem like I meant that most Hawaiians are now mixed or anything like that but if you are able to get a hold of any information on it that's great because that does need to be expanded. Also even though through historical papers, oral history, and some genetics (which we're still working on because it's not accurate) it's harsh to same someone is faking it most don't and that is from their point of view very aggravating which is why some have just given up and just past that knowledge on in their family and disregard the tribe or tribes they are descended of. Also with those whom are partial African American there is a misconception that they are just descendents of the five civilized tribes which is false because you have alot of tribes on the east coast as well such as the Delware tribe whom were freeing and taking in slaves as early as the 1600s. Not very surprising but there wouldn't be as many descendents with Sioux blood for example as there would be Cherokee, largely because the Cherokee had slaves and some got married which was mostly not frowned upon but there were some that were against and even pushed for a law to be made for that not to happen even though it wasn't strictly enforced they were just trying to stay on good terms with white people back then. However, you look at the Seminole and you get a different outlook on life. Anyway I'm open to adding another picture of someone with Native ancestry to show more diversity and also keep in mind that native bloodlines don't die off that's apart of the one drop rule attitude that has done nothing but cause problems even for people who are half native. Oh by the way I do know of that singer she is interesting.Mcelite (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Mcelite (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a year has gone by and I haven't seen any positive change to the article re: Native or Pacific peoples, so instead of crying 'fix it'/complaining, I decided to help out by adding a well-known Native American of mixed ancestry to the page - one who is known as one of the greatest Native athletes, as well as celebrated by both Native communities and the non-Native population. He is a perfect example. I also plan on creating a section for Pacific Islanders, as there is no reason why these two groups of people should be ignored by a Wikipedia article and have been neglected for this long. --Tweeheart (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that I plan on making some contributions to the Afro-Asian and Eurasian sections, as it surprises me that there is so little information on such large/growing groups. Hopefully these changes will help! --Tweeheart (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm sorry it comes off as the issue being ignored..for me it isn't. I'm extremely busy right now with school and trust me there are a few articles that I need to update and just haven't had the time to do so. Jim Thorpe is perfectly fine he was an excellent athlete. Also the fact that there is little info on European/Native admixture largely because it's also not common and lack of research done on it. I'm still wanting to update the article on Native American slavery because another article will be combined with it that has been just sitting there alone and needs to be moved.Mcelite (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to fix bias
Firstly I added multiracial European-Americans and multiracial people of white/Caucasian skin color to the infobox photo mosaic. Then I added a section on 19th century America which informs people of the many European immigrants who intermixed and bore multiracial European-American children.--Antiedman (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added the neutrality warning message box to warn of the neutrality of this article and the expert message box because I see that my attempt needs further attention that I can not provide --Antiedman (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could try to explain what you think the problem is before slapping these templates on the article? It isn't clear in what way you think it is biased. If you think that people of mixed German and Irish descent "should" be described as multiracial, but fail to present quotable sources to that effect, the article will not include your opinion not because it is "biased" but because you failed to present evidence that your idea has any kind of notability. --dab (𒁳) 05:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me about that is that if a person were of mixed Malian and Cameroonian descent they would not be seen as "mixed" they would be black. I am tired of these one sided views of Multiracialism. It as if these people are saying up with "white multiracials" and down with "black multiracials" when more than half of the people represented and information given is surrounded around people of mixed European roots. The fact that these people are being written off as black is not only the REAL bias, its also very racist. Know that I am not using that word out of context, it is racist to "one drop" someone and simply say they are a "black multiracial." That is a racist oxymoron, as is "white multiracial". Multiracial people have ancestors that are descendants of people who have indigenous roots from people of a certain continent or region. For example, a person of indigenous European(German,English etc) and indigenous American(any Native American) ancestry. —Preceding Geminious2010 comment added by 98.214.255.14 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New source for article
. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Banality + OR in Lede
Statement about "... far higher ... " only makes sense on the basis of somekina strict observance of and credence given to the notion of "pure races" an especially worthless concept in the context of the US. Once one is the domain of established linguistic and logical pragmatics, this become self-evident POV pushing. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Appears to have been cleaned since then. With respect to the matter of people hiding their multiracial identity in the past, that situation is now reversed. I'm regularly seeing people who are white claiming it. For disclosure I'm the same as the Prez except my father was an American, as I never tire of repeating :) That specific multiracial group numbered 2 million in the 2010 census, didn't see that in the current text. Did some cleanup on this page. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See that that it isn't (cleaned of the thread topic) but no matter. As for the article itself, it's consistent with the other hyphenated american articles. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

More specific than European
Celtic, Germanic or Slavic should be the classifications for a particular european ethnic group. European is too vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.134.150 (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion?
There is no topic explaining the fact that in many US Muslim and Catholic communities, religion often trumps ethnicity as primary social identity. In many of these communities that maintain strong ethic identity, marriage between diverse ethnic couples is accepted between families who subscribe to a common religious sect.

174.150.163.88 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Moi
 * Does this belong more in the articles about the religions, or if here do you have references from reliable sources to add content per WP:VER? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Depp
I'm concerned with using Johnny Depp as representing those of white and native admixture because the reliable sources citing his heritage state that he himself isn't even sure what is in his own family but guesses. Right now I don't have time but citations must be included with the pictures.Mcelite (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Every living person in the article should have reliable sources cited with regard to their ancestry, and it would be a good idea for the non-living as well.
 * However, the image galleries should probably be removed per WP:Galleries. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Tina turner 21021985 01 350.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 * The nomination result is kept on December 29, 2011 - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tina turner 21021985 01 350.jpg Bab-a-lot (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Carol Channing
Carol Channing is of African and European descent, this was sourced. Below is exactly what had been posted in the gallery. I don't see how pointing out that she is known as white, and not black, despite this is considered defamatory. One of the articles sources is from CNN. Bab-a-lot (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Carol Channing colour Allan Warren.jpg|White American actress Carol Channing was born to a white mother, and a half German-American and half African-American father.

Image galleries
Why are there image galleries in this article? Please see WP:Galleries:
 * [T]he use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. ...


 * However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons.

There are nine images in the infobox. Do the additional pictures "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images"? Do they "have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject"? Honestly, I think the answer to both of those questions is No. Instead of image galleries, somebody should create a category on Commons for Multiracial Americans and link to the Commons category—if they feel such a Commons category is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The images illustrate a wide perspective of the topic that would otherwise not be interpreted. Also, several sourced images were removed. I am re-adding the ones that were cited. We can further discuss this, but I do think the images help illustrate the article pertinent to notable people who are represented by each category. As far as the sourced images you removed for passing, it's not to accuse them of passing, just that they could pass for another race identity other than what they actually identify as. Bab-a-lot (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "a wide perspective of the topic that would otherwise not be interpreted" means, but I think that's the purpose of the images in the infobox.
 * Please read WP:BLP. Unless a source says that a living person is passing, you may not include their photo under the heading "Passing". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the galleries are highly inappropriate - and how many people are going to be added, just to demonstrate there are multiracial people in the US? It's absurd. In addition, editors are proving careless with facts: the sourced page for the Billy Bowlegs caption, which said he was Osceola and African American, said nothing about African-American ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Circular and repetitious
The organization doesn't make any sense, repeating content in more than one place, arbitrarily lifting material without context from other articles, picking on isolated exceptions. Needs much editing.Parkwells (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ALMOST 20% MULTIRACIAL AMERICANS Including not just the self-declared "multiracial" (2.9%) but also those broadly "multiracial" who declered themselves black (2.6%), Hispanics who declared to be from "Some Other Race" (7%), Mixed Hawaiians etc. the result is almost 20% of Americans are in fact Multiracial.--83.61.80.8 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of genetic studies
It appears certain editors want to claim that many African Americans also have Native American ancestry (which genetic experts on the Henry Louis Gates show said was a myth). An article expressing reservations about some aspects of testing has been interpreted as if many African Americans really had Native American ancestry. Highly technical articles are cited and, I believe, misinterpreted in trying to support this position. Journalists are cited as if equivalent to scientists. The content for this section is too anecdotal and POV.Parkwells (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Henry Louis Gates' research isn't the end all be all to African American genetic DNA research. He's just one man with a t.v. show, his own approach and his own personal agenda. His background is specifically on African and African-American research, so his work is biased in that direction; and in the direction of his own personal reality regarding his own heritage. I don't think there's deliberate misinterpretation. It's a matter of which perspective on the matter can be properly backed up. There's enough data out their to support both views. The journalists cited based their writings on either scientific research results and/or their own personal genealogical, historical, findings. From my understanding, it's not required that only raw scientific study data be cited in article. There is research out there to support both Henry Louis Gates' claim regarding Native American ancestry among African Americans and the contrary. It's unfair to disregard reputable sources supporting the latter simply because you have the strong opinion that African Americans have very little Native American ancestry. Note that Gates never claimed he had Native American ancestry, so his research may be biased due to his own personal background. Incidentally, Gates is, indeed, a purveyor of intellectual thought and information, but that doesn't make his findings immune to dispute. Neither does this mean that all other research challenging his is obsolete.


 * I would also like to add, there are two issues regarding the topic of Native American ancestry and African-Americans. 1) Those who are Native American, only, by ancestry 2) and those who have inherited Native American identity and right of passage.


 * Yes, there is a difference between people who have Native American ancestry but identify as another ethnicity - European American, African American or whatever, and those who identify as Native American culturally and may have additional ancestries. The point of the geneticists' work was genetic ancestry; they concluded that the proportion and frequency of Native American ancestry among African Americans is not as high as in popular thinking. Genetic population studies like the ones they conducted can show these. Gates did not do the research. Of course there may be other research, but some editors are misinterpreting data from articles to try to prove their contentions and are not presenting the conclusions of the articles themselves. For instance, an article that says that if an individual does only direct-line ancestral analysis, which would be two lines, he will miss much of his ancestry, is not the same as saying that full-scale population studies of the full-range of ancestry will miss some Native American contribution, as currently known.Parkwells (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you the that article needs to flow better. Because of the highly controversial nature of the article topic, it's one that, really, could use citing per sentence. There are many facets to this topic and, I think, editors simply want a fair, more real, representation of the reality of this history. I'll make more of an effort to provide solid sources for what I add and edit moving forward. Bab-a-lot (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be good to ahve some other eyes on it, thanks. It's very confusing as it stands, as it goes from population studies to individual anecdotal stories. Again, I think the endlessly increasing galleries of identified multiracial people are overkill. What is the point now, and how many are going to be shown? It's supposed to be an encyclopedia overview, not a listing of any person who identifies as multiracial.Parkwells (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Multiracial American
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Multiracial American's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MSN": From Shar Jackson:  From Lolo Jones:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes no sense
(Note: This is not scientific, as clearly "mostly mixed" should consist of more than 50% European, not 25.)

What fool added this? It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.59.102 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren claim of status as Native-American
Recently elected Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren is listed as a white Native-American, with subtext implying that she is 1/32nd Cherokee. However, this 1/32nd claim, on top of being absurdly low in and of itself, and arguably not sufficient to garner her a position on this page (if 1/32nd was the qualifier for multiracial, I doubt you could swing a cat in modern day America without hitting a "Multiracial American" and this page would be near meaningless), but this 1/32nd claim was researched by Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes, and found to be incorrect and lacking historic backing. The citations (at least the ones that still work) do bring up the failure of Elizabeth Warren to prove a historic Cherokee ancestor, but in one of these articles, it is merely presented as a "controversy" and the gist of the facts only reported on the end of a rather lengthy article. These citations give a false impression to casual readers of Wikipedia. Elizabeth Warren's ancestry claims have no historic backing, and there is no good reason for her to have a position on this page. If we were to include this, than historic figures with vague claims of mixed-racial backgrounds such as W. G. Harding would also qualify.

I suggest that Elizabeth Warren be replaced with Charles Curtis, another American political figure and senator, but one with unchallengeable Native-American heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcanon92 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Who should replace W.G. Harding? And who is Charles Curtis; what makes him white Native American? Bab-a-lot (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I, actually, don't see a W.G. Harding listed. Bab-a-lot (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthony van Sale
He appears to have been an Arab, not an African-American. Under the US Census Arabs are white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.66.225 (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Arab ethnic groups, even during his time, also constitute those that are sub-Saharan African descended, but Arab in identity. This creates a population with varying degrees of physical traits, with many mixed-Arabs being able to pass as fully Arab. This is why his phenotype and ancestry are disputed. He and his immediate descendants, however, are noted as being African-American and contributors to African-American society. Bab-a-lot (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Over use of dark bown skin toned Persons in Main photos
As i have been watching this page for a grate long time it apears that many people Try to first represent a very narrow view of Mulityracial peoples by using a majority of photos with peoples with dark brown skin tones. As it stands this not only appears as a Very major neutrality issue but is highly ofensive. Given that Multiyracial peoples come in a rainbow of skin tones. More than just one white skin toned person should be represented.--Iamiyouareyou (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I challenge your claim. I think we should take a very close look as to why you are offended by the images represented in the article.


 * Overall, the phenotype representation of those with mixed ancestry, throughout the article, leans toward light skin tones and white phenotypes. In essence, the gallery serves to balance this in the article. Also, an effort has been made to equally represent the various identities, both social and political, of mixed race individuals in the gallery. If you scroll upward, we have already edited the gallery for the same reason you mentioned. We also addressed the claim of political bias.


 * Individuals with lighter skin tones and white phenotypes are represented under the following article sub-headings: Mixed race identity, White Americans, White Native Americans, American Pacific Islanders, Eurasian Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, and Passing.


 * Therefore, out of 12 article sub-headings with images, 8 include images that represent those of lighter skin complexions and/or those who have white phenotypes. Out of 133 article images that represent human phenotypes 57 of them are of individuals who pass, or identify, as white, and 36 of those images are of individuals who are not dark-brown skinned. That leaves only a remaining 40 images that represent individuals with brown and dark-brown skin tones.


 * Statistical Break-down 
 * 133 images total
 * *57 - white phenotype or identity
 * *36 - individuals with light skin complexions
 * *40 - individuals with brown and dark-brown skin complexions


 * Break-down by section
 * Gallery
 * *1 white phenotype: John Herrington
 * *4 light skinned individuals: Obama, Connerly, Larsen, Malcolm X
 * *4 brown skinned individuals: Clay, Iman, Woods Coleman
 * Early United States History
 * *1 dark-brown individual: Equiano
 * Multiracial families
 * *1 brown skinned woman
 * *1 dark skinned man
 * Multi-racial identity
 * *6 white phenotypes: Schneider, Ensign, Slash, Beals, Reeves, Szohr, Wentz
 * *1 white identified: Zimmerman
 * *5 light skinned individuals: Mingus, Richardson, Clarke, Graham, Kravitz
 * White Americans
 * *12 w/ white phenotypes
 * African Americans
 * *2 w/ white phenotypes: O'Hara, Horne (Horne rejected the option of passing to open doors for other African-Americans)
 * *6 light skinned individuals: Knowles, Foxx, Williams, Parks, Hughes, Jones
 * *7 brown skinned individuals: Houston, Louis, Kitt, King, Scott King, Waters, Hendry, Turner, Ali
 * *2 dark-brown skin individual: Winfrey, Garvey
 * White Native Americans
 * *12 w/ white phenotype
 * Black Native Americans
 * *4 dark-skinned individuals: Bowlegs, Brown, Lewis, Bonga
 * *2 brown-skinned individuals: Hendrix, Cody
 * *2 light-skinned individuals: Twine, Reese
 * American Pacific Islanders
 * *4 w/ white phenotype: Wilcox, Ka'iulani, Kuaihelani, Emma
 * *5 light skinned: Momoa, Johnson, Castle-Hughes, Kamehameha
 * Eurasian Americans
 * *8 light skinned
 * *3 white phenotype: Tilly, Lennon, Munn
 * Afro-Asian Americans
 * *1 dark-skinned: Marchand
 * *8 brown-skinned: Maraj, Ne-Yo, Scott, Kay, Kelis, DeSanto, Sohn, Jero
 * *2 light-skinned: Douglas, Harris
 * Hispanic and Latino Americans
 * *6 w/ white phenotype: Rivera, LaRue, Carter, Aguilera, Simon, Bach
 * *1 light-skinned: Perez
 * *2 brown-skinned: Mencia, Torres
 * *3 dark-skinned: Warwick, Jackson, Ali
 * Passing
 * *13 white phenotypes


 * Clearly, in this article, the white phenotype and individuals with light skin tones are more represented over the black phenotype and individuals with brown and dark-brown skin tones. Furthermore, there is no social identity bias in this article as each of the identities assumed by those of mixed parentage and ancestry are represented and clearly illustrated in this article. If you consider the statistics, the reality is your claim in REVERSE: There should be more brown and dark-skinned people represented throughout the article. Instead, however, the gallery was used to address this imbalance.


 * The problem with having truly equal representation of dark-brown, brown and light, white skinned individuals in the article is that mixed race ancestry and possible identity stemming from such, is generally not accepted among, and of, people of brown/dark skin tones who are products of deep multi-generational miscegenation. For the most part, history proves that no effort had been made to document mixed race lineage in brown/dark skinned individuals since sub-Saharan bloodlines have commonly been treated as a contaminant. Those with phenotypes that are close in proximity to first nation indigenous sub-Saharan Africans who were progeny of mixed-race births had no option of claiming this miscegenation, furthermore this was, generally, not documented. Thus evolved a normality where the ancestry is either forgotten, rejected and/or ignored. Not only that, overall society does not value the historical proof of deeply rooted multi-generational mix-race lineages in those with phenotypes close in proximity to first nation indigenous sub-Saharan Africans. Many individuals face mockery and are challenged by claims of this ancestry handed down by family lore or oral history. It's very difficult to find articles of such notables on this site, with an image and proper citation, to add to this article. Sometimes, even with proper citation, the claim/proof will be met with much challenge and ridicule (ex. Tina Turner). Bab-a-lot (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Replace Steve Jobs with Halle Berry. Bang, problem solved.

The vast majority of Americans are mixed race!
One thing is who we think our ancestors are and another thing is who they really are. Another thing is to speak of DNA as if it was a vague concept. DNA is just a part of our bodies that we can use to identify our REAL ancestors. According to REAL ancestry studies in America, the vast majority of people are mixed. Precisely DNA studies have demonstrated that virtually all those who identify as black are of mixed ancestry. The blanket term Hispanic is used for a group of people of very diverse origins and who are most often mixed as well and, again, DNA has demonstrated that many whites have ancestors from diverse continents, not to mention the fact that they are, at the least, a mixture of peoples from a lot of different countries. In short, socially people may identity as they want. Interestingly we see here how the mixed category seems to be very small in America. Fact is that the REAL mixed race category, in the sense of having ancestors from the native populations of different continents, is the most important in America, even if Americans do not see it, like to ignore it or like to live in denial. Prants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, no one is living in denial about anything because being 1% native American doesn't make you mixed race- it makes you a person who desperately wants to be interesting but has nothing of real interest to talk about. The average European is only 99% European in their DNA as a result of genes drifting from one race to another, they are not mixed. Being mixed-race needs to require some kind of blood quantum to be valid as a concept.64.189.66.225 (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * How can being 1% Native American not make you mixed race when the current presiding of the Cherokee Nation is only .03% Native American? He is accepted as Cherokee identified, but a 'black' looking/identified person with the same amount of the ancestry would never even have the opportunity to hold that position. The rules for whether or not a person is mixed/not-mixed identified are not consistent. For example, Johnny Depp is accepted as white, yet is part African-American slave; Vanessa L. Williams is about 53% European, but is African-American in identity.  Also, the current technology is still flawed, or not fully advanced, which leaves a lot of room for error in determining ancestry percentages.

Bab-a-lot (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I Fully concur Iamiyouareyou (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur as well.Mcelite (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A person with a tiny amount of ancestry from another continent is not mixed race, you're just a special snowflake trying to get attention because you're a boring person.96.241.72.141 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all Mixed Race Americans Know it, and then others Don't Admit it
Henry Louis Gates has written extensively about this, as have others.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Or it could be that a person with a black ancestor 200 years ago isn't so stupid as to claim "black and white" ancestry when the overwhelming majority of their ancestry comes from Europe. If you aren't at least 25% belonging to another race as defined by the Census then you should not identify as mixed race as that completely screws with the Census in order to satisfy your own special snowflake syndrome.96.241.72.141 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)