Wikipedia talk:African American

Join the Discussion
The discussion is currently taking place here. Any other suggestion is welcomed. --User: (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me, although it does rankle that all of the genetic/cultural/historical/geographical complexities that go into the group that I associate with should be reduced to skin colour. pietopper 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with pietopper, but am at a loss to think of anything other than the scientific racial terms (Negro, Caucasian, Asian etc.), which are far too formal and carry far too much baggage, to use instead. I did suggest looking at how other encyclopedia deal with this, from which we might take a guide. LessHeard vanU 22:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica seems to use the word both from what little can be gleaned from article summaries, although African American seems more common. Black:Bill Cosby African-American:Halle Berry, Tiger Woods (although they are biracial), Morgan Freeman, Carl Brashear, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton Alvin Poussaint.
 * It was also nice to see that when looking for examples, Wikipedia had an innumerable amount of Biographies, where even fairly famous people were nowhere to be found in Encyclopedia Britannica. ;)--YbborTalk Survey! 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, I think we're getting into a usage issue similar to colour vs. color, i.e. British English versus American English. As I understand it, the current system is ad hoc: use "black" or "African-American" (with or without the hyphen), as it suits the writer of that particular article.  I'm okay with keeping it that way.  To me, making a guideline about this is just too complicated.  If a consensus does develop, it should of course be noted in Naming conventions. YechielMan 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with pietopper. Living in France, I heard couple of times Americans referring to French blacks as A-A, in ordinary conversation flow. Some people have definitely been brainwashed into political correctness! :) Anyways, it does seem sensible, is what I am trying to say.. Baristarim 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is exactly what we are trying to avoid, using an Ameri-centric term which is inaccurate. In the case of France, Holland and Belgium much of their African descended populations came directly from Africa (unlike the UK where most came from the Caribbean, which is part of the Americas) so usage of "American" is wrong. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment
''It is a term used mostly and made popular by the American media as well as American politicians, however the common U.S. citizen has not yet adopted the term, nor has the rest of the world. Additionally, it has caused confusion when international readers browse Wikipedia as well as misuse (regardless of an individual's nationality, ethnicity or geography).'' If that sentence was in an article, I'd feel like it needed a citation needed tag. Granted, I live in a rather "politically correct" region of the U.S., but the term is used by common U.S. citizens here. Saying it is "used mostly and made popular" by the American media might be an impression given to those outside the U.S., but could that not be because outside the U.S. it is the media and politicans who are heard and quoted more? If this policy is ever to exist, it really needs some verifiable sources about the creation of the term and its usage. If those sources aren't available, then statements like this can't really be a part of it. Dina 14:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A little sarcasm there, but no hurt done. That sentence is mine, and the citation would be me. So don't worry your little heart that I stole it. Now, having said that, I've read many things in my life so thoughts are often formed from knowledge gained, thus some parts of it may derive from things read of past. ; --User: (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstand me -- I'm not accusing you of plagiarism (which is what I think you're suggesting I am?) I'm saying that you need to support this assertion with facts, figures or third party sources because I dispute its accuracy.  Dina 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did understand your post to mean that you thought I was plagiarizing. If you refer to the discussion in the Village Pump, you will see some references there, one on CNN. Additionally, read the African-American article and you will see that Wikipedia also states the same issues and that it is controversial in the U.S. as well as the rest of the world. Additionally, Baristarim gave the example above that living in France he has seen this. Many non U.S. based editors can comment on this and add, as they have been, that it is an Ameri-centric term. Interestingly, the very first paragraph causes confusion in stating that Many African Americans possess European, Native American or Asian ancestry as well. If this is the case, then they are not African-American. It's all so confusing. Step back and look at this at a global stance, not a small, regional, U.S. town stance. --User: (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the articles in question, as well as added my thoughts to the discussion on this matter at the Village Pump. In case you are curious, I don't happen to live in a small US town, rather a large US city with a vast diversity of ethnicity, language, culture, race and opinions. Further, despite the color of my passport, have spent a great deal of time in other parts of the world.  So I'd suggest that I am not automatically looking at this from a "small, regional U.S. town stance" simply because I disagree with you.  Your claim that the term is "used mostly and made popular by the American media as well as American politicians, however the common U.S. citizen has not yet adopted the term" is what I primarily take issue with.  I dispute it, it is a broad generalization, possibly impossible to source, and it has a great deal of POV.  Your proposal here will gain no traction if the proposal itself implies that anyone who disagrees with it is provincial and biased and less if you make the same accusation against those who choose to "join the debate".  I do not dispute that it is an American term, what I dispute is your claims about who uses it and why.
 * In response to your quote about African-Americans possessing other ancestry, I don't actually think that that is all that confusing. I am an Irish-American.  I am also a Norwegian-American.  I rarely refer to myself as either, but they are not mutually exclusive.  Yes, I can see where it might be confusing to some, but I'm not convinced that the way to minimize that confusion is simply to rid Wikipedia of a widely-used term.  Many millions of English speakers find that to be a perfectly sensible sentence, as the usage of the term in American English does not require that a person described as "African-American" be only and exactly a person of African ancestry with American citizenship.  There are many expressions, all over the world, that I don't really understand.  However, the burden is on me to research them a bit, so as to understand what they mean in context, not to insist that they make no sense and therefore should not exist.  Dina 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You say "However, the burden is on me to research them a bit, so as to understand what they mean in context" -- so, what exactly, in any context you care to name or examine, does African-American mean, other than "black"?
 * It means black American. That is what it means to a great number of Americans, including myself. It is widely considered the polite and formal way of saying "black American" and as such, is more widely used in a situations like in an encyclopedia article than a water-cooler conversation. That is fact.  Just as "suspenders" means what Brits call "braces" and not what Americans call a "garter belt".  It is not right or wrong, and should not be a matter of policy to determine whether or not the expression "should" mean what it does.  The fact that some individuals have used it incorrectly to describe black citizens of other countries does not render the expression useless, or ridiculous.  I am having a moment of feeling sorry for us poor Yanks, who in our efforts to be just and fair to our own citizens, seem to annoy the citizens of other countries.  A Scottish friend of mine once sneered at me for using the word "signage" because it was "such an Americanism". I responded at the time that I happen to be an American and can no more rid myself of such usages than he could rid himself of his tendency to use the word "wee" when he meant "small".  Simply being an Americanism is not a grounds for the creation of a policy to remove it from articles where it is accurate and reflective of how Americans (and African-Americans) write and speak about such matters. Dina 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that. You make the point perfectly: I am not an American, so don't call me an "African American" based on the colour of my skin. You rail against citizens of other countries being 'annoyed' -- I think we have a right to be 'annoyed' when you willy-nilly impose your standards and usage on us. I think the proposal below puts the matter to rest. pietopper 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)•
 * Where is the disagreement here? I haven't called anyone who was not American an African-American, and have, in fact, said specifically that such usage is incorrect.  I have no issue with not calling people of other countries "Americans" when they are not, in fact, I have yet to encounter anyone in this discussion who has made that argument -- how could they?  It's patently ridiculous.  So in what way am I (or anyone else) "imposing" standards and usage? Dina 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For me the term does have a certain utility in the US in certain cases. I have a neighbor who is from the Solomon Islands. She is "black" if by skin-tone we mean she is the same or darker than African Americans. However she is at the same time not a black woman by the US cultural understanding of that term. She has no known ancestors from Africa or who were part of African American culture. African American has some difficulties when differentiating with Egyptian immigrants, but in certain cases it's useful in describing a US individual for cultural-historical reasons. Also because some in the US do identify with African ancestry and the term.--T. Anthony 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dina, I think you are being a bit presumptuous and POV by inserting that it is the polite and forwal way than the other. You dispute the facts that it is is media driven and made popular by the media, yet you assert some new concept...where are the facts backing up that statement? Also, I see where you are wanting to go with your analogies, but they don't work, because the Scots aren't trying to force their wee on us, nor are the Brits forcing braces on us. Yet, we are trying to force this term on the world. One thing I have not heard answered by anyone, is what rules and who determines whether a person is going to be black or African-American? And how do we address the rest of the world's concern, which this is a world encyclopedia, of the American-centric view? And what about someone in Central America or South America or the Canadians? How do we address the issue of the disambiguation of the term America? O.K., so that was more than one question :) --User: (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dina is 100% correct that "African American" is what Americans are told to use in formal writing. (Please don't bring up other countries, as we are not talking about them and it's just an error if somebody does use it out of context.) This is trivially sourced: In the United States, there has been a series of terms that have been "churned" in the last couple of generations including "Afro-American", "Brown", and "person of color" (not to mention the early 20th-century's preferred "Negro" and "Colored"), so a lot of whites have become excessively cautious about terminology. "What do they want me to use now?" is a common refrain. From personal observation neither "African-American" or "Black" will offend 90% of American blacks, but there's a tiny minority who might be offended by "Black" simply because it reduces someone to their skin color, so "A-A" tends to get preference in formal situations and especially in situations where whites are speaking in the presence of blacks. The point made in the essay that the rest of the world prefers "black" is just irrelevant in the U.S. where there's a strong bias -- right or wrong -- against using it in formal situations, such as writing for an encyclopedia. As a writing instructor (which I am not, but I have led writing groups), I would never advise what this essay does, simply because it a) makes non-black writers uncomfortable and b) actually has the potential to cause offense in a few situations. In the U.S., the rule is that "A-A" is always OK, but "black" should be used cautiously. No, I'm not saying that "A-A" should always replace "black" when writing about American blacks (again, in any other case, it's just an error), I'm saying that a blanket rule against its use is bound to endlessly confuse American editors. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't started by the media and I'm not precisely sure that's what drove it. There were several Africanist or Afrocentric schools of thought in North American black society that encouraged "African American" or "Afro-American" many years before it became popular in the media. It's not universally preferred by A.A./Black America, but I think Dhartung above me is correct.--T. Anthony 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some final thoughts, because I agree with User:Dhartung's comment that a lot of this is a "solution in search of a problems".
 * To call a non-American citizen an African-American is always wrong and should be corrected on sight. For slightly more complicated heritage, a single expression will almost never suffice.  It seems that other editors have handily solved this problem in a variety of ways, and perhaps we should be taking our instruction from them.  For instance (all taken from the first sentence of the articles in question):
 * David John Matthews (born January 9, 1967) is a South African, now naturalized American,
 * Derek Alton Walcott (born January 23, 1930) is a West-Indian poet, playwright, writer and visual artist who writes mainly in English.
 * Grace Jones (born Grace Mendoza on May 19, 1948, in Spanish Town, Jamaica) is a model, singer and actress.
 * From the Seal disambig page: Seal (musician) (Henry Olusegun Olumide Adeola Samuel), an Afro-European soul singer
 * William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (pronounced [dʊˈboɪz]) (February 23, 1868 – August 27, 1963) was an American civil rights activist, leader, Pan-Africanist, sociologist, educator, historian, writer, editor, poet, and scholar. He became a naturalized citizen of Ghana in 1963 at the age of 95
 * What I mean to say is we have a lot of accurate ways to express ethnicity and citizenship. It is not necessary for a wholesale removal of one term, nor it is necessary to assert that the term is useless.   As long as the facts of the matter are stated clearly, there is no need to make policy for a problem that does not seem to really exist.

Cheers Dina 12:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as what people prefer to be called -- if they have expressed a preference publicly, or by a description in say, an official biography, then that preference should be honored. If they haven't, their preference cannot be known and the decision should be based elsewhere.

Where African American is appropriate
I think we are getting a little carried away with attempting to discard the term African American (and also defending the status quo) completely. There is the cultural distinction of African American; one that is particular to the United States. The greater majority of black Americans have lived in the USA for many several generations, some from a time when ancestors were taken as slaves. It is understood that their African culture(s, since not all came from the same African identity) was forcibly discouraged and they were instructed in the practices of Euro-American culture. However, aspects of their original cultures did survive and were incorporated into the new social systems. Evan after emancipation the social standing of black Americans, and the legal distinctions promoted through segregation, resulting in hardships and poverty, meant that the majority remained within their own social class and continued to evolve a different, although complementary, culture than all the European orientated derived types of American. Today African American is a part of the cultural diversity of the USA, but also stands separate from other black cultures throughout the world. This aspect of culture is properly titled African American as it specifically deals with a group of people with a unique history within a nation, who continue to express and conduct themselves according to that tradition. In short African American, meaning black Americans of a perceived social and economic grouping, is a cultural definition and everything derived from that culture is itself African American.

This distinction also argues that African American is entirely inappropriate in identifying any other group of African descent. LessHeard vanU 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I essentially agree with everything you have to say here. It is the misuse of the term that has caused issues and I have yet to hear anyone argue that Seal (musician) should be properly called an "African-American".  He shouldn't because he simply isn't.  I do think that this policy could simply be a subset of something like WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  I also think that unsupported assertions about the history and validity of the term (such as exist in the proposal now) are unnecessary and a bit inflammatory.  All that needs to be said (and I'm not sure there needs to be a whole policy to say it) is: Don't call black citizens of other countries African-Americans because they are not Americans.  Which is essentially the same thing as "write stuff that is accurate or other people will change it."  Cheers. Dina 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A subset of Countering systemic bias does seem an appropriate place. LessHeard vanU 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From reading the essay, it does sound as if you want to get rid of the term completely rather than just avoiding misuse of it. Perhaps it could be made clearer when it is OK to use the term. Recury 13:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, made some changes. What are your thoughts? --User: (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Further readings
A short history of terminology: Negro and Colored were of course the preferred U.S. terms through the 1950s. (I knew a matron of upper-crust black society in her corner of Illinois who continued using "Colored" her entire life, and she died in the 2000s.) In the 1960s, James Brown helped popularize "Black". In the 1970s the term "African-American" began to be used in various academic contexts. At a 1988 conference Ramona Edelin presuaded Jesse Jackson to promote the term African-American. The point was to move the identification away from skin color and toward a social, ethnic, and geographical identification. Due to the term's 20 years headstart in academic circles and its preferred usage in terminology such as African American Vernacular English, the term rapidly gained acceptance. By 1996 the monumental Norton Anthology of African-American Literature by Nellie Y. McKay and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was published and has become a standard reference work. (McKay's article shows the array of terminology in use throughout her career, in fact.)

By 1991 African Americans and Black Americans were at equal acceptance levels, and Negro or Colored had become unacceptable. By the mid 1990s, 82% of blacks accepted the term African-American, with Black coming in second at 76%. A more recent study (login required; summary) show that preference between the two terms was almost equal, with A-A just edging out Black. A typical example of the terminology's usage is the New York City 2007 resolution against the "N-word" (euphemism in original), with "African-American" the preferred term throughout, with some references to "Black Americans" and "black people" found inside the text. Finally, there is the Usage Note attached to the word black in the American Heritage Dictionary, which notes that "African American" has become popular without displacing "black" or "Black American", and pointing out that a critical problem with using "Black" is the corollary usage of "White" or "white" (or something else entirely) in the same document.

I hope this provides some context for non-Americans as to the dimensions of this term's usage in the United States, which the current essay seems to be lacking or outright misrepresenting. There seems to be an impression that African-American is a false term promoted by elites (or perhaps whites). In fact debate on terminology continues and has largely been led by black scholars and leaders with differing points of view. But inasmuch as African-American is a newer term, it is now very heavily used in professional and formal situations in the United States. Asking American editors to discard or avoid it, especially for the contexts where it is most appropriate, is asking them to speak someone else's vernacular, as if "-ise" were promoted over "-ize" even for American topics. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this discussion was prompted by the use (outside of WP) of the phrase "African American" in describing the ethnicity of black Frenchmen. While African American is entirely appropriate regarding black culture in the USA it is entirely inappropriate in relation to black persons outside of the USA. The discussion was originally to find consensus that AA is incorrect use for persons outside of the USA, and if there was a term that could be used equally within and without the USA.
 * It then got a bit messy. LessHeard vanU 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If that was the original intent of the discussion/essay, then it certainly falls short of clarity. The essay as it stands discourages the use of the term African-American, even for Americans, with some dubious claims and faulty reasoning. I'm not rebutting a theoretical here. As for the simple assertion that African-American is an inappropriate descriptor of black Frenchmen, that seems a straightforward matter requiring no essay. --Dhartung | Talk 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have there been any incidents, widespread or anecdotal, of Wikipedia editors insisting on calling non-Americans African-Americans? Because Carol Lin, so far as I know, doesn't edit here and her mistake happened on CNN in 2005.  I don't think any editor that I've seen has advocated that non-US citizens be called African-Americans, and yet this policy, in my read, seems to urge that no one should be called African-American.  I'm not entirely should why that's the case.  I think a consensus that non-US citizens should not be called African-Americans should be an easy one.  A universal word for all black citizens of the world seems perhaps much harder, and I'm not sure necessary.  I mean, to try and be funny about it, if we can't all agree how to spell the word "color" in English, I despair of everyone agreeing how to describe an entire, diverse race of people, in all applicable contexts. Dina 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also originally misunderstood the intent, and it was only by debate that I came to the proper understanding. My belief is that the original author does not use British or American English as a native language or accent; but I am also aware that this does not disqualify them from promoting the formulation of better policy, rules or practice for en-Wikipedia. As much as it is the responsibility of the writer to make clear what they mean, it is also the responsibility of the respondent to ensure they understand the intent (both to the best that they are able).
 * As for editors insisting on the referral of any black person as African American; I have never seen it and I very much doubt that I would. I would, however, not be surprised if it were indeed used inappropriately. Much of my editing on WP is (via the random article function) adding in the name of the Nation, expanding names of States from the two letter abbreviations (or adding them per Nation), and removing the acronym forms added to wikilinks, and mostly for US derived articles. I understand that the majority of editors and articles are American based, but the assumption that the rest of the world is familiar with US idioms and idiosyncracies is particularly apparent in my editing. In short, I would think that a number of US editors would (in good faith, etc.) use the term African American in the wrong context. I would not want to see it become recognised as proper use, through practice, for all the many reasons already discussed.
 * The differing use of English, be it British, American, Australian, South African etc. is covered in Wikipedia rules. I cannot point to it right now, but it says something along the lines of articles should be written either in the usage appropriate to the subject (British English for British subject matter, American English for American, etc.) or where the subject is indeterminate in the style of the original author. African American would fall under this usage.
 * As you will note from the previous section, I feel that there is a specific case for the use of African American. It is not, however (IMO), on an ethnic basis but of a cultural perspective which has evolved from an ethnic grouping within a nation. I also believe that the use of the term black, providing that we can be satisfied that there would be no offence given to the majority of people so termed, would be as good a term for any person of African descent living in a country outside of the African continent. The use of the word black as an ethnic identifier is familiar in all English languages.
 * Finally, I don't believe that there need be a policy. I think an addition or amendment to WikiProject Countering systemic bias is sufficient. LessHeard vanU 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said. I'm well aware that Americans often write as if the entire world is American (I once related an unpleasant and bullying encounter I had with the cops in Moscow to a fellow American who responded: But what about the Bill of Rights!?!) And I am certain that there have been instances here of editors calling non US citizens "African Americans".  I've never witnessed it, but I'm sure it happens from time to time. It is only appropriate to continue to try to rid the Wiki of these inaccuracies, but the mistakes will no doubt continue to happen.  Along with spelling errors, horrible grammar and kid's writing about their friend's bands ;).  And the individuals who make these mistakes should be gently reminded, if possible, that they are, in fact mistakes. But there are already several policies and guidelines to use to make these changes (because after all, a guideline does not prevent an editor from doing whatever they want, it only justifies altering it back.) It's not verifiable that (for instance) "Seal is an African-American", because, well, he isn't.  Adding this to WikiProject Countering systemic bias sounds good to me.  Cheers. Dina 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The main possibility I consider is people maybe using "African American" for any black person in North America. Like blacks from Cuba or Canada.--T. Anthony 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do the Caribbean Islands, or the West Indies as they are more commonly known in the UK, count as part of the Americas? I only ask because a great many of black Britons (or their ancestors) came to the UK from there. I think that black Britons is correct for that population group now, but those still living on the islands have historically more in common with British culture than American. Would African-Caribbean be correct, recognising that a sizable minority in the Islands are white or Asian (that is Indian) descended (and every shade inbetween, bless human nature)?
 * This really is a point where the best of intentions could trip us up. I'm sure there are other examples, too. LessHeard vanU 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is only one small issue with the whole thing. In the Islands, and by the way, my native tongue is English, I think you mentioned this earlier but that it is not the case. Anyway, color is not as big of an issue in the Caribbean as it is in the U.S., and the majority simply say black without hyphenating it. But again, you all are missing a logical part in that African-American is not a color descriptive. But then, I will stop arguing and see what you all want. The term is not as widely as accepted as is expressed. Yes, the education elites have expressed that it is, but the only thing I can say is walk suburbia America and you will be given a true, non statistical, and accurate picture. Additionally, when someone looks in from another country, and they read African-American, they automatically get the same picture as if someone is saying Irish-American...that that person, or parents, were born in Africa. They are not reading Black American. I will go along with whatever consensus is called, however I don't think you all are looking from a global perspective or from logical perspective. Regardless of what is cited/sourced, you cannot dispute the facts stating, including wikipedia, that this is a media and politically driven term. Outside of the Media, and politics, this term would not be so charged. The common person, forget hypothetical statistics, do not use the term. It is sad that when someone steps off a plane, they are dubbed African-American as a black descriptive, by the media regardless of whether they are or not. Lastly, I've yet to have an answer for how we determine if someone wants to be Black or African-American? --User: (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the implication that the term "African American" has not gained wide acceptance in suburban American. I live in suburban America, and that term is in common use here; I hear it (and overhear it) in conversations all the time. I also hear "black", but both terms have definitely become accepted, and I was taught in school to prefer "African American" in formal descriptive writing. From a global perspective, I see the term being used many times by the BBC and the Sydney Morning Herald  to refer to black Americans. Andrew Levine 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, both. I'm still thinking that a statement like "Don't use African-American when the person isn't an American" is a bit tautological and a solution in search of a problem. But an additional admonition, probably right after WP:CSB's current line about the word "Nationally" (possibly part of the same point), against using US-centric terminology for non-US articles is what is needed. Treat African-American as a jocular extreme example of what not to do, perhaps? In any case I'm not ready to write something into that page yet, but if someone does, please let us know here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First consensus call

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

vote one of these below. *Keep Discussing    *Further develop article first     *Take consensus     *Take consensus at Village Pump —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maniwar (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep discussing, although I'd honestly prefer just ditching the whole thing. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Take consensus pietopper 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Please familiarize yourself with the text of proposed, as well as Consensus and How to create policy. More specifically, I'm wondering why this is on a separate page instead of on the talk page of one of the existing pages in the manual of style.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is an important topic, it does not merit a separate guideline page. Including this in the manual of style seems appropriate. Please merge. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected proposal
It appears that no consensus has been reached or will likely be reached. It seems that this should be marked as rejected ASAP. --Kevin Murray 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. It might be worthwhile having it as an example at WP:CSB as it is a potentially sensitive subject, but it is not notable enough to have its own policy or guideline. If the original author wished to make it an essay (linked from CSB) I would have no problem with that. LessHeard vanU 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dina 11:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)