Talk:African Americans

Cultural Assimilation

Black immigrants are added to the lede that “some will call themselves African American”. Should this sentence be here without context because Black Immigrants are not African Americans and the essay is about African Americans, not what Black Immigrants may or may not later call themselves?

If a Black immigrant assimilated into African American culture, that is a cultural assimilation, not ethnic, and should be stated as such being that they have adopted the culture of African Americans, not became an African American.

Moving doesn’t change an ethnicity. It changes a nationality. Immigrants are proud of their ethnicities because they have a whole other history, culture and languages than African Americans, including different emancipation dates and holidays.

Either the statement should be removed or placed in context of “cultural assimilation” because it’s obvious that an ethnic German can’t move and become an ethnic Italian like a Zulu can’t move and suddenly become Igbo or Yoruba, Egyptian or African American. Cultures and histories are different and should be respected and treated as such realistically and factually. About four citations can be added to clarify that sentence, and I can add quickly “via cultural assimilation” with newspaper citations and PhD researchers as it has been studied extensively. WayMaQueen (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your claim that Black immigrants are not African Americans ? Your ideas seem to imply that ethnicity is something static which cannot be changed and which is independent from how people identify / call themselves. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The latest is with the new census having to clarify it due to the influx of more Black immigrants into the USA. They made a separate category for African Americans while Black immigrants are their (original nation + American) such as Nigerian American or Jamaican American. They had to add these categories because historically, since the 1700s, African American is a compound worded ethnicity pertaining to the descendants of the enslaved in the USA. The census needed to make room for them and not lump everyone as the same group of ppl because it isn’t correct.

It is erroneous to clump all Black ppl in the same ethnicity and this has been documented and written about by scholars. African Americans are their own ethnic group just like Igbo are and Zulu are. They have separate histories and cultures. If AA moves to Igboland, they will have to learn the culture. The same with Igbo moving into the USA and being around AA. Even the foods cooked are different and celebrations.

There are even ppl who are white who are not the same ethnicity all over the USA and even Europe. White immigrant doesn’t mean they are all the same and can just jump ethnicities. The same with Black immigrants. African Americans share an emancipation date that’s not the same as Haitians. Language unlike Haitians and Congolese ethnicities. Traditions/ceremonies unlike AA.These are factual and documented items in constitutions and histories of the peoples of these countries. A Civil War was fought in USA over African Americans being enslaved, it wasn’t over Jamaicans being enslaved. They fought another battle with other people.

This is why it is “cultural assimilation”, not an ethnic change. Ask an African immigrant if their grandparents were enslaved in the USA, their answer will be no. Ask an AA if their ancestors were enslaved in the USA and if they built HBCUs and created holidays in the 1800s, they will say yes. No Black immigrant today shares that ethnic history, but they do share a history just as powerful in their country of origin.

It has been centuries that AA have been in the USA, not fifty years and in that, they created their own culture and history, and when immigrants come over, they “culturally assimilate” partially or fully or become cross cultural but their background can’t change. It’s impossible for them to somehow be “of the emancipated black ppl of the USA”. Even reparations movement has clarified that there is a distinction between Black immigrants and AA. In order to be considered, an AA is a black person who had an enslaved ancestor prior to 1865 in the USA.

There are even separate heritage months for Black ethnic groups in the USA ex. Black History Month (for AA), Caribbean History Month(for Caribbean) and (African immigrant Month). The celebrations focus on separate ethnic histories during the year. WayMaQueen (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the sources: The first one is a master thesis in Social Work. That's not really convincing. The second one focuses on local studies. We already discussed the last one. I didn't check the other ones.

Regarding the content: The lead should summarise the article, and I don't see any discussion of the subject in the body.

Regarding the importance: African Americans have a long and important history and a rich culture. The lead already says that most recent immigrants don't identify as African American. Why do you think that the details of their integration into the African-American community are important enough for the first paragraph of the lead? See also WP:ONUS. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your long comment above seems to imply that e.g. Barack Obama is no African American because his Kenyan ancestors were not enslaved. That would go against thousands of reliable sources. It's not our task to tell other people who they are. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You asked me a question and I answered is all. If you would have continued to look at the sources, you would have seen more. There is just a disconnect between you and I in what cultural assimilation is. What Barack Obama did is grow up in a “culture” that he identifies with hands down. In order to see and connect with his own roots ethnically, he travels to Kenya and learns their way there. This is ethnicity. He falls in that cultural assimilation and there is nothing wrong with that. People can and do have a culturally assimilated Identity along with a different ethnicity.

He was raised here, not with his Kenyan father, therefore, raised in this culture so he calls has an culturally assimilated African American identity, not ethnic one. This is what so many ppl have written about. Kobe Bryant was AA and yet he has a partial cultural assimilation to Italy. He grew up there. Ask him if he is ethnically, he would have said no.

Encyclopedia Britannica:

What is an Assimilated Identity?

assimilation, in anthropology and sociology, the process whereby individuals or groups of differing ethnic heritage are absorbed into the dominant culture of a society. The process of assimilating involves taking on the traits of the dominant culture to such a degree that the assimilating group becomes socially indistinguishable from other members of the society. As such, assimilation is the most extreme form of acculturation. Although assimilation may be compelled through force or undertaken voluntarily, it is rare for a minority group to replace its previous cultural practices completely; religion, food preferences, proxemics (e.g., the physical distance between people in a given social situation), and aesthetics are among the characteristics that tend to be most resistant to change. Assimilation does not denote “racial” or biological fusion, though such fusion may occur.

This last sentence… “it does not denote, or be a sign of or indicate, racial or biological fusion”.

This is why I added it so there be no confusion. Black immigrants when they assimilate are not changing their race or ethnicity (as the sentence currently stands). They have an “assimilated cultural identity” which is fine. They aren’t actually ethnically AA.

But hey… if ppl can do what they want, then any ethnicity can change with the weather, and that’s simply not factual. Facts are the goal of Wikipedia and even Wikipedia has a whole page on cultural assimilation which I linked to so it is not irrelevant as u suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WayMaQueen (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your comments tend to be very long, but still I don't find any source that directly supports your claims. Everything else is called "orginal research" and is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant guidelines, e.g. WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, ... Rsk6400 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I found plenty. You admitted you didn’t look at them all. This means you have no interest. I purposely cited various sources, from newspapers to thesis to even the institute of population research and indigenous African scholars plus, including a link in Wikipedia. The fact is that you “personally” don’t want the words there. No source will be good enough for you even if I found twenty from different regions of the earth, no matter the scholar, scholar defined as “ a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic…having MASTERY in the subject”. Even the scholars I cited in said topic weren’t good enough for you. Oh well. Have a nice day. Be well. Just a difference in thought. It happens.WayMaQueen (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Erick Holder, Colin Powell are all considered to be racially black. However, they are not members of the African-American ethnic group. In order to be a member, you must be a descendant of people who survived American chattel slavery.

All black people are not the same. Are you suggesting that any black person in the world can be an African-American if they simply choose to identify as such? KobieSmith (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There are thousands of WP:reliable sources calling Obama "African American". WP is based on reliable sources, not on your individual ideas. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The notion that ethnicity is immutable is incorrect and outdated academically. Ethnicity is a malleable social construct. As our article Ethnicity says, By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption, and religious conversion, individuals or groups may over time shift from one ethnic group to another. This definitely applies to African and Caribbean African immigrants over a few generations. Blended ethnicity and multiethnicity is also a thing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity definition: the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.

From this, we can and do gather that Ghanaian American is an ethnic group, Nigerian American is an ethnic group, African American is an ethnic group. All of this are compound worded ethnic groups, each with a common cultural background of their own and descent of their own.

This same thing is true of Igbo, Yoruba, Zulu, Maasai.

This same is true for Afro Latino.

If in fact over time an Afro Latino and an African American marry and have children, these two ethnicities have a child of two ethnic backgrounds. Same if an Igbo marries a Zulu, the children will know and learn of two ethnic backgrounds.

Different histories, tho of the same continent or country, different foods, different dances, folklore, even languages and dialects, different schools, social organizations etc… all of which are different in each ethnicity. WayMaQueen (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Example: If you scroll down to the several ethnicities of Nigeria, one will be Nigerian American. Why? Because Nigerian Americans have now have a distinctly different perspective etc and way of doing things than those who have never left Nigeria such as the celebration of National African Immigrant Heritage Month which becomes a custom for Nigerian Americans, not ethnic groups in Nigeria.

(Culture definition: the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group)

————-

Nigerian American is a compound worded ethnicity just like African American is a compound worded ethnicity. Separating the words makes it not an ethnicity. Sunglasses. Two words that make a new thing. Sun is one thing, glasses is another. Putting them together, it is a whole new thing.

This is the same for ethnic group, singular word or compounded. WayMaQueen (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, assimilated cultural identity is widely known as someone who adopted several or all of the aspects of another’s ethnicity. This is why it is called assimilated, not original.

“Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a society's majority group or assimilate the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group whether fully or partially.” - from Wikipedia

Also another definition here

Many ppl have an Assimilated Cultural Identity, and this means simply that those with assimilated identities are not the original ppls. There is a clear distinction. Assimilated AA identity explains itself if one understands the definition. It means that the the assimilated adopted partially or fully the culture of the ethnic majority that was already there, aka the originals.

example of this would be an African American going to Ghana to live. The African American would eventually have to partially assimilate to the people there and if they choose to, could completely assimilate. However, the AA is not an original Akan etc. due to so many ethnic differences. WayMaQueen (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

All the above is WP:OR. We need good reliable sources that directly support the statement you want to include. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you have been well. I understand all you have requested. However, I provided citations from scholars that were tossed as well as African PhDs and Wikipedia itself. Assimilation is already defined and it is the direct support along with the others because it is a definition.

When any person moves into a country, they can become a citizen of that country. In the case of the USA, American. They don’t become African American because that is an ethnic group inside the country since the days of slavery, having been documented since the 1700s as such.

This is why Nigerian American, Ghanaian American etc are used as their ethnic groups, even on Wikipedia. African Americans are a completely different ethnic group BEFORE the modern African countries were formed and the ppl who are African American can’t call up an aunt or uncle of a singular particular ethnic group as Nigerian Americans etc. African Americans forefathers who were enslaved were STRIPPED of their cultures of Africa almost entirely and formed their own. Whereas Black immigrants have their ancient customs, tribal apparel, festivals and more along with language.

African Americans developed all of what they have culturally nearly from scratch. When Black immigrants come o er to the USA or AA go to Africa, it’s a whole new culture(s). I posted an African man speaking about it and a scholar writing about the assimilation process, but it is rejected so…

It’s not an idea. It’s reality. I’ve lived in many places. I know and have assimilated several times. LOL

take care WayMaQueen (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is a great example of what ethnicity is at this link to further deepen understanding.

“Ethnicity is more than skin color or physical characteristics, more than language, song, and dance. It is the embodiment of values, institutions, and patterns of behavior, a composite whole representing a people’s historical experience, aspirations, and world view. Deprive a people of their ethnicity, their culture, and you deprive them of their sense of direction or purpose.”

This comes from this link at Brookings.

Any immigrant cannot simply “relocate” into another ethnicity and become it and their history. Ethnicity isn’t nationality. They don’t share common history of that ethnicity in that nation., perspective, and original language. When a Black immigrant moves into America, they become American, not African American. Instead, they become Jamaican American or Nigerian American etc.

They can definitively assimilate into various cultures unlike their own original one but they will at that point have an assimilated cultural identity or have become cross cultural to the dominant ethnic culture of that nation. This is why the lede needs to state “due to culturally assimilating”. WayMaQueen (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, African American genetics are different as well. Any Black immigrant can’t waltz into genetics and claim it. Again this is why African American is an ethnicity of the African Diaspora and isn’t all inclusive for all Black immigrants. That lede sentence about Black immigrants should not even be there or should include “due to cultural assimilation”.

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-12-r141 WayMaQueen (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If a person is called "African American" by reliable sources (e.g. the best U.S. president this century), WP has no right to deny that name to them. See my reply of Aug 13. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Under every single ethnicity then, one should put something like that. For instance, under Han Chinese, add “immigrants call themselves Han” if they want to. ????

The category is about ACTUAL African Americans. It isn’t about people who “want to” call themselves African Americans. And those “reliable sources” are sourcing events, not information biological and ethnicity. Those who wrote those articles are wrong as they may assume every black person original African American which is false.

A Lion is a Lion. If a Tiger wants to call himself a Lion just because it is in the CAT family, well, that will be incorrect. The category is about Lions…actual Lions. WayMaQueen (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

But are you okay with denying actual African Americans their reliable sourced information provided about who they are as a distinct ethnicity?

The article isn’t about Barack Obama. It is about African Americans. WayMaQueen (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023 (2)

Black Americans have a increasing rate of mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety. Blacks are 20% more likely to experience serious mental health problems, such as Major Depressive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Many African Americans develope anxiety from discrimination. Black Americans comprise 40% of the homeless population, 50% of the prison population, and 45% of children in the foster care system in the United States. Add this important information to the mental heatlh section.

Source: https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/addressing-mental-health-black-community 2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:A18B:CCFA:3C30:D93D (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

Why isn’t there a discrimination section? Add a discrimination section to the article.

80% of Americans say there is discrimination against Black Americans in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/03/18/majorities-of-americans-see-at-least-some-discrimination-against-black-hispanic-and-asian-people-in-the-u-s/

Black men are less likely to get a job due to discrimination: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-are-employment-rates-so-low-among-black-men/

71% of Black Americans felt discrimination against and treated unfairly by other races: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/06/27/5-personal-experiences-with-discrimination/ 103.164.138.55 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You're probably looking for the section Social status - the reason for the lack of detail in this article is that it's too complex a topic to cover well here. The article Racism against African Americans, which expands on the topic in far greater detail, is linked multiple times throughout the article. Tollens (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I just changed the headline to "Racism and social status". Feel free to revert and / or discuss. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable change to me – I see no reason not to clarify a heading that's clearly confusing. Tollens (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kananstark (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Isha0323 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

New York City black population in comparison to other cities in the world

The image legend reads: "New York City is home by a significant margin to the world's largest Black population of any city outside Africa, at over 2.2 million". This is not true by a significant margin. São Paulo is home according to 2022 estimate of 4.25 million black people. See https://censo2022.ibge.gov.br/panorama/indicadores.html?localidade=3550308 and https://www.nossasaopaulo.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Mapa-da-Desigualdade-2022_TABELAS_23.pdf

Both Rio de Janeiro and Salvador I think have more black people than New York too. Brazil's black population is overall much larger than the US's. El Chemaniaco (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Genetics of African Americans Ethnic Group

This fact in quotes below was removed despite the accuracy. (I can add more sources).

-”Ancestry.com also states that although they utilize African countries in their genetic results, it is to be interpreted as the regions where those modern day countries are located that hold their genetics since the modern day African countries were not formed until after the slave trade was over. This leads to why the ethnic group is called African American - their African ancestors are from mostly the entire West Coast and Central Africa, not from different countries, but several ethnic groups.An individual African American person can have over fifteen African ethnic groups in their genetic makeup alone due to the slave trade covering such vast areas.”-

This is common knowledge that African Americans are from several ethnic groups and not modern day countries, both by Ancestry and more sources. Modern day African countries didn’t exist until after TransAtlantic slave trade ended. See this link (2nd paragraph)

And this one at Quartz

African Americans’ ethnic genetic history started prior to the formation of modern day countries. see 1500s map of West Africa at the start of the slave trade.

I can add these citations. This is important because it shows how the genetics are so vast in the African American ethnic group when they were sold into slavery. Most African ethnic groups who remained on the continent didn’t have this type of huge variety of genetic mixing because they remained mostly within their respective groups. This is why African American genetics are quite different and a wider variety according to the government here.

This paragraph should be included in as it breaks down the background of the genetics and it’s sourced well. WayMaQueen (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

WayMaQueen, thanks for taking this to talk. My problem is that our judgement of what is important and what not, should be informed by good secondary sources. Of course, the kidnapping and enslaving of the ancestors of most African Americans predates the formation of modern countries. But to stress that fact needs IMHO secondary sources that stress that fact. Also, since countries (different from today's countries) existed in Africa, the claim that they were not taken from "several countries" is wrong. And the claim that African Americans are called so because of the genetic diversity of their ancestors seems so strange to me that I consider it a WP:REDFLAG. The name is much older than modern genetics. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede paragraph states exactly that

“African Americans, also known as Afro-Americansor Black Americans, are an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa.”

It says “any” “groups” not countries. It’s is incorrect to say modern day African countries as far as ancestry for African Americans since their country of first existence is the USA. Their African ancestry literally in even just one individual AA is several groups of African ancestry because there was no one type, border etc. during that time which started the ethnic group’s history. It was all over West and Central mainly, not even speaking of those taken from east and possibly traded into the West then to the trade.

For instance, Nigerian Americans have definitely ancestry out of the bordered modern day country of Nigeria, no matter what the ethnic group is. Chinese Americans have definite ancestry out of the bordered China, no matter the various ethnic groups.

African Americans can never, when it comes to the continent of Africa, clearly define with borders what country their distant or ancient ancestors were from because the defined countries didn’t exist. There were ethnic kingdoms like Dahomey and several other smaller ethnic groups surrounding the larger. It was like this up and down the West and Central Africa.

The specific group, or ethnic group, of the African Diaspora is and has been called African American since the 1700s. How is that a red flag when it is defined as such??? AAs African ancestry, excluding their Native Indigenous American and European ancestry for now, were several groups spanning not one country but several vast and overlapping areas. This diversity increased drastically when in the USA.

The links provided are legitimate sources and there are also centuries old documentation of what it was like. I’m not certain what is red flaggish about what is the exact definition.

Arent we speaking about the same ethnic group? It’s undebatable with several historic accounts of AA genetics, history etc. I feel like we are crisscrossing somehow. I’m talking about AA, not any other ethnic group in the African Diaspora or in Africa. WayMaQueen (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure of the reliability of the sources. Looking at what was reverted, these include https://blackdemographics.com/african-american-ethnic-heritage/amp/ which seems to be self-published and includes a disclaimer at the end though it does seem to contain useful information. https://blackentrepreneurhistory.com/definitions also seems to be self-published. For that matter I consider Ancestry.com as somewhat weak as a source (though it does contain sources that can be useful). I note one question is why 'ethnic groups' versus 'countries' or perhaps 'nations' The areas of Africa that were raided for slaves did usually have their own well established nations before colonization took its toll. Erp (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

To the question “why ethnic groups”,African Americans are specific group of people who are made of several ethnic groups from up and down Africa (mostly West and Central). Each individual who is AA is made up of several spanning that whole vast region, and it’s even more when adding their European and Native Indigenous ancestry.

An “ethnic nation” would be made of only that ethnicity of ppl (ethnic group). African nations back then were defined in terms of their ethnicity. More explained in detail at the source below

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ethnicity-an-african-predicament/

Africa’s modern day countries are made up of several ethnic groups that are being made to have ONE government. Back then, they all, from smaller to larger ethnic nations (ethnic groups) had their own governments and if they weren’t at peace, they were at war, living side by side and sometimes intersecting. Modern Day countries consist of hundreds of ethnic groups under one government, and Africa simply wasn’t set up like that during the centuries of the slave trade. As a matter of fact, the continent of Africa continues to have issues with several items and ways of doing things due to the newer system of modern day countries being placed upon them. It’s very new, even many of their country flags are only less than 100 years old.

Now the other links that you didn’t mention that I provided from the government on genetics, quartz etc are also very good links that explain this. When thinking about “ethnic kingdoms” in those times past and the way we all see “countries/nations” today is two vastly different things when speaking about Africa.

For the ethnic group AA, their specific history starts at the points of no return during the TransAtlantic Slave Trade where all those ppl stolen from a vast number of ethnic groups on the continent were stripped, hair and all, while they all spoke different languages, placed on ships for over two whole centuries, forced to mate etc. and forbidden to speak native tongues which were many and continuously had babies split up. These are the people who became AA in the USA… made of too many ethnic groups to count in each individual’s dna. Some of the ethnic groups inside AA are actually extinct right now as well due to another African ethnic group going pillaging and completely wiping them out while taking some into the slave trade to Europeans. These were the smaller groups.

This is why it says from “any of the groups”. African American individuals are an ethnic group from a tumultuous time period of vast mayhem in the African continent and in the USA. It wasn’t a clear cut selection of people to enslave it was random and this contributed to AA vast genetics.

I can add several more sources as this is documented historical knowledge about AA. WayMaQueen (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

[1]https://www.cfr.org/blog/origins-african-states-and-their-names#

[2]https://qz.com/africa/1722919/how-many-african-countries-got-their-names?utm_source=Media+Review+for+October+8%2C+2019&utm_campaign=Media+Review+for+October+8%2C+2019&utm_medium=email

[3]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/#

And this goes even further into genetics and several African & European ethnic groups that make up the ethnic group African American. [4]https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-12-r141

I can simply add all these citations and more but the citations will go on and on and on and on.Lol WayMaQueen (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Genetics

Copying a comment over from my user talk page:

What you removed wasn’t complicated nor confusing. It actually added to and didn’t rehash any information that was already there. It also utilized a a credible source which is already being used but for different information. WayMaQueen (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Which was in reference to this removal.

I don't disagree that Zakharia is a credible source. We're already using and citing it. I don't think we should use it to reiterate that African American genetic populations differ from African genetic populations, as this is already mentioned. I don't think we should introduce the term "architecture" without explanation. I'm not sure what you meant with "This is due to the mating patterns brought about through the TransAtlantic slave trade", but it's hard to read it in a way that doesn't duplicate existing info, which mentions European admixture and intra-African sexual contact. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The “mating” patterns was sourced, meaning reproduction and who they reproduced with or had sexual intercourse with resulting in children, or offspring and how the genetics were broad, not narrowly structured, from groups the entire west and central as well as Europe etc.

Actually citations were left for all the information. That word architecture was literally used in the article and it pertains to the structure of something.

The information adds to African American is its own distinct ethnicity in the Africa Diaspora and this information provides genetic evidence (as the rest of a body should provide to the lede or thesis statement). The category is genetics and this adds to the genetics of African Americans.

Nothing was reiterated. This was addition information. You stated “I don't think we should use it to reiterate that African American genetic populations differ from African genetic populations, as this is already mentioned.” This was not stated in the Wikipedia article already unless I missed it. The paragraph you removed, neatly included all points backing up genetics of AA.

As you stated, the source is credible. Your opinion is that it shouldn’t be there, yet it is fact. Does Wikipedia allow removing facts just because?

WayMaQueen (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The source uses "genetic architecture" once, and that's after a lengthy description of genetic structure. To pull it out of its context and remove "genetic" is unnecessarily underinformative. That African American genetic populations have European, Central African, and West African ancestry is abundantly clear from the existing content.

Every paragraph in the status quo talks about the non-African ancestry of the African American population. This does not mean that literally every African American has non-African ancestry, as we're talking about broad (and loosely defined) populations here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Broad also comes from broad as in African ancestry as well. At every point it’s broad. But no need to debate.

It’s on record in official medical journals, government etc, and the source of the information in its totality and completeness is in the original sources which Wikipedia pulls from. Wikipedia states in this link that it may not be accurate. I assume this is why people should refer to the original, official source because of disagreements like this over actual facts.

No need to go any further. Have a nice day. WayMaQueen (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

African American vs African-American

Is there reason to use the dash or not? I noticed use is mixed through this article (and also throughout other articles) and I don’t have a preference one way or the other, but it should probably be consistent, no? — HTGS (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's supposed to be "an African-American woman" but "an African American", no? Adjective vs. noun. That was my understanding at least. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 21:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah thank you! I guess if you don’t ask questions, you don’t learn. It appears there used to be a remark in the lead suggesting the same: [5]. Maybe it would be worth a footnote for confused souls like mine?

And, just to confirm, I presume African American history should be hyphenated? — HTGS (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's convoluted. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite an unexpected quagmire to walk into when your base presumption is that it’s just an arbitrary style difference. I have just moved African-American history (and African-American history of Nebraska) to the hyphenated forms for consistency to the same rule all the other pages are following (African-American music, African-American culture, African-American literature, African-American hair, etc). Obviously reversing that should be discussed and a whole big thing can be made of moving all of them if anyone wants, but that’s really not my goal here. — HTGS (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Multigeneral American origin

@MonsenorNouel: Your additions about "Black Americans of multigeneral [multigenerational ?] American origin" seem to be your own interpretation of the American census and the term itself seems to be unsourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There are many issues with the newly added content, so I'm just listing the most quickly apparent.

1. Needs some copyediting: "multigeneral American", "those who solely as black"
2. unsourced content: "the vast majority of Blacks in the United States, estimated at about 75–85%", "most Blacks of multigenerational American origin may have identified as ..."
3. misuse of primary sources for original analysis
4. surprise link to American Descendants of Slavery

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Multigenerational Black American families usually descend from enslaved Africans bought to the US in as early as the 1600s, due to that the accurately created term "ADOS" can be used to describe the people group. It's no secret that they represent the vast majority of US blacks when dividing the black population by sub-groups, African, Caribbean etc, but I will look for sources for that. I'm adding more sources now, clarify wording and misspelling. MonsenorNouel (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the content to the article. As I said, these were just the most apparent issues. Feel free to propose a new draft here on the talk page for review. ADOS is not a neutral term, but one championed by a particular movement. Unless there's some compelling reason to link and explain it, based on some body of reliable secondary sources, it's best covered where it is, with context. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@MonsenorNouel, please self-revert your re-addition of the material. Rather than edit-warring you should be seeking affirmative consensus for your disputed changes. You still haven't addressed the above concerns. I'm also concerned that you've added sources that do not support the content. Which of the Pew sources you added explicitly supports "Black Americans of multigenerational American origin, Americans of distant African origins whose families been in the US since as far back as the 1600s, make up the vast majority of Blacks in the United States, estimated at about 75–80%"? Could you quote the source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources I added behind that sentence clearly backs up that claim, especially the third source where it says "79% are native born, and third generation or higher". MonsenorNouel (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

First source, all the way down "The Black immigrant population has grown in number and share... Immigrants are a part of the nation’s Black population that has grown over time. The foreign-born Black population has nearly doubled since 2000, [b]rising from 7% then to 10% in 2019[/b]. In numbers, 2.4 million Black people were born in another country in 2000, and by 2019, that had risen to 4.6 million.

Second source, after first graph "Black population growth stems from both those born in the U.S. and those born abroad. [b]While 90% of the U.S. Black population was born in the U.S.[/b] – a number that has risen by 25% since 2000 – there has been a more dramatic increase among the foreign-born population. More than 4.6 million Black people in the U.S. were born outside the country as of 2019, meaning that 10% of the Black population was foreign born. This is an increase of nearly 90% from 2000, when the foreign-born population stood at 2.4 million, or 7% of the overall U.S. Black population. Most Black immigrants (88%) were born in African or Caribbean nations."

May be adding more sources, LOOK for the wording, I can't read these articles for you word for word. MonsenorNouel (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

But third-generation immigrants are not "distant African origins", and we can't tell what percentage are. Also, if that's the only source that gives an estimate, why say 75-80%? This sort of problem is common when you insert unsourced content and then go hunting for sources to support it, rather than finding quality sources and then summarizing what they say. There remain other serious issues with your content, including other misrepresented sources and unsourced content. It's now been reverted by three editors, and it absolutely should not be restored, even with tweaks, until there is consensus for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, agreeing with you. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@NotPeterParker: wanted to make sure you can find this section. Can you please self-revert? My removal of this newly-added disputed content was not vandalism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be a responsible party.

As for the article, I've made 2 - maybe 2.5, edits that should get a consensus: (1) immigrants are not and can never be "African American",

(2) race and ethnic group are different things altogether.

-- Whites have varying ethnic groups (as many will tell you in the United States) in their population (e.g. Irish-American, Polish-American, etc.), whereas 'Hispanic' is not an ethnicity, only a classification. The African-Americans, on the other hand, ARE a separate ethnic group. In fact, they are the largest ethnic group in the USA (vying for the top spot with German Americans, each with roughly 13-15%, going as far back as the 2000 Census), and

(2.5) Rocky Johnson (the father of Dwayne Johnson) comes to mind as an example of said ethnicity. He was from Canada, but the Black Nova Scotians are people historically of the African-American ethnicity. That is why I proposed using 'North America' instead of just 'American' when talking about those of such descent.

None of these above points can be argued, we just need better sources.

@MonsenorNouel is correct, the ADOS/FBA or whatever the settled-on term will be is real, and can't be ignored. The groups of people are different and that needs to be acknowledged, especially in the lede of an article as frequently edited as "African Americans". NotPeterParker (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think ADOS should be ignored, and there's a mention of the movement/term in the Terminology section. I just don't think a neutral coverage of this topic would present those views as facts. Since race and ethnicity are both such loosely defined, controversial, debatable, and just generally made-up terms, trying as Wikipedia editors to decide on hard boundaries is a losing game. If Americans of recent African origin are calling themselves African American, and (more importantly) if reliable sources are calling them African American, we should not be stating that such a description is mistaken. We can and do present the alternative view, but it's a view held by a minority of sources, as far as I'm aware.

A little bit of content on African American immigrants to other countries, including Canada, and their descendants would be a good addition to the article. Are you aware of a source that talks about those as a group? Just the link change in the lead is unhelpful, especially if readers are surprised by the article they land on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

But the whole point is that race and ethnicity are not the same. Also, lumping all people of a certain 'race' into 'African American' is offensive. Just like calling Elon Musk 'African American' because he is from South Africa with American citizenship. Nobody is thinking that he fits the description/definition presented in the first sentence of the article as it stands.

The first African slaves arrived in Virginia from Angola in 1619, predating the Pilgrims. It is fair to say that that factoid is a useful determinant in claiming that many blacks in America has evolved differently from the modern immigrant. In fact, those people and their descendants are the only people in the United States that arent't immigrants.

Further in the article, there is a genetic analysis claiming such absurdities as all blacks in America have between ~10-25% European blood. Even if that were true, then the immigrants and their children can't be of the same people, just by that fact alone.

I contend that the ADOS/FBA term needs it own article, especially if Wikipedia is going to dump a specific phenotype together and call it "African American", but turn around and use 'Nigerian-American', 'Jamaican-American', etc.. It's pure rubbish. NotPeterParker (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The only relevant question here, as always, is: What do reliable sources (WP:RS) say ? Rsk6400 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

One, you're not American. Two, you're an ethnic German who is pro-Russian (according to your page), so you have neither a cultural investment or real comprehension of this American affair and should probably refrain from making further idiotic edits on here.

Barack Obama is not an African-American/ADOS/FBA or whatever you want to call it, that the 'reliable sources' you keep referring to say. His wife, Michelle Obama is however, and thus, their kids can be considered such. These are the rules (that were at one point written into the Constitution of the United States) according to racist lineage that started in the USA during the hundreds of years of slavery that established why black Americans are their own ethnic group. To think otherwise is to hold onto an obstinate bias. NotPeterParker (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

reading of the first two paragraphs

I'm going to rewrite the lede so that its first two paragraphs read:

"African Americans, also known as Afro-Americans or Black Americans, are an ethnic group consisting of descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States. Because of intranational migration (or lack thereof), there are varying tribes which may determine how the ethic group self-identifies (for instance, the Gullah).

African Americans constitute the third largest racial group in the U.S. after White Americans and Hispanic and Latino Americans, and depending on the census, the largest ethnic group (vying for the top spot with German Americans)."

-- There are 3 (@NotPeterParker, @MonsenorNouel, @WayMaQueen) against 2 (@Rsk6400, @Firefangledfeathers) here on getting the required 'consensus' that a specific editor keeps making a fuss about. NotPeterParker (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)