Talk:African Americans

Previous discussions concerning the infobox in the top right corner of the article can be found at Talk:African Americans/summary.

Small typo

"Some of these were. Slavery, reconstruction, development of the African-American community, participation in the great military conflicts of the United States, racial segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement."

There should be no colon after "were". Could someone fix this?

You mean there should be *a* colon after "were", correct? I'm on it, if still pertinent. ==Mic Morose

Can someone also change all instances of African slaves to enslaved Africans? There is a connotation there. Slavery was a condition forced upon them, not a job occupation.

Spanish pronunciation

The very last paragraph expands on pronunciation in Spanish and Portuguese: "In Latin America, negro, which translates as black is the term generally used to refer and describe black people and, similarly to mulatto, it is not considered offensive at all in these regions. However, it is pronounced differently, with the e (a mid front unrounded vowel in American Spanish: [ˈneɣɾo], and a close-mid front unrounded vowel in Brazilian Portuguese: [ˈneɡɾu]) being closer to a sound that it is intermediate between phonemes found in English words such as pay and egg (in Spanish) or day, city and item (in Portuguese)." It fails to mention, however, that in Spanish the -g- is also pronounced differently, although this is indirectly indicated in the IPA rendering ([ˈne'ɣɾo]).

Book for further reading

*{{Cite book |last= Kilson |first= Martin |year= 2014 |title= Transformation of the African American Intelligentsia, 1880–2012 |location= Cambridge, MA |publisher= [[Harvard University Press]] |isbn= 978-0-674-28354-1 }}

"Black" and "Black American" vs. "African American" at the Viola Davis article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Viola Davis#WP:Citation overkill in the lead; also see the section started immediately below that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessarily crowding the infobox

As seen here and here, I reverted X4n6 twice, and X4n6 reverted me twice, with regard to images being added to the infobox. In my opinion, X4n6 has cluttered the infobox with a lot of unnecessary images. X4n6 has cited WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE for doing so. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE does not justify such an edit in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Flyer22 engaged in a lengthy, nonsensical "debate" on the Viola Davis talk. Then when I refused to continue feeding the troll there - and said as much - she attempt to retaliate by hounding my edits on this article here and here and here. As for WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, it speaks for itself and needs no defense from me.X4n6 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not having all those images in the infobox. Before you even added the amount to 60, there was discussion to lower the amount from 35 to 20. We definitely are not having 60 freaking pictures there. If one wants to exchange one of the current images with a different person, use Talk page from now on. Dave Dial (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I should tune out anything X4n6 states. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, take note that I made this edit before reverting X4n6 at the Viola Davis article; both articles are on my WP:Watchlist. And my prior edit history at the African American article is seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene in your argument, but I have to point something. If these additional people are notable enough for an infobox, shouldn't they also be mentioned in the text sections? Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does WP: IMAGE RELEVANCE apply here?

I added several photos to the template, per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. I don't find it particularly odd that a country with over 42 million African Americans living in the U.S., and however many more in its history, would have enough notable entries to at least extend the article's photo template to, the Contents box of the article about African Americans. That is exactly what I did here. But some editors have claimed that is "way too much." But they haven't explained why, or why [several lines of blank space] is somehow pre to relevant images? Also, no one has provided a policy or guidelines which supports that conclusion.

Finally, while I am generally loath to quote policies and guidelines verbatim, I think this section of MOS is pretty definitive:

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals.

In that context, I also welcome editors to offer which photos I included were too insignificant to merit inclusion. Because editors have arbitrarily removed, without referencing any policy or MOS guideline people like:

Michael Jackson

Paul Robeson

Serena Williams

Nat King Cole

Leontyne Price

Benjamin O. Davis

Shirley Chisholm

Althea Gibson

Barry Black

Walter Payton

Langston Hughes

Marian Anderson

Viola Davis

Maya Angelou

Sammy Davis, Jr.

Douglas Wilder

Guion Bluford

Arthur Ashe

Dr. Dre

Ronald McNair

Joycelyn Elders

Ella Fitzgerald

Jesse Jackson

Joe Louis

Ben Carson

John Lewis

Jay-Z

John Conyers

Barbara Jordan

Whoopi Goldberg

Harry Belafonte

Ella Fitzgerald

Mahalia Jackson

Josephine Baker

Ray Charles

Billie Holiday

Louis Armstrong

and

Stevie Wonder

They're all apparently disposable in the article, despite their notability. Or, as one editor suggested, one could just "replace" anyone left in the article. But who in this list is so non-notable that he/she merits replacement?:

Frederick Douglass

Harriet Tubman

Booker T. Washington

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Rosa Parks

Hiram Rhodes Revels

Thurgood Marshall

Muhammad Ali

Clarence Thomas

Barack Obama

Jackie Robinson

Maya Angelou

Oprah Winfrey

Condoleezza Rice

Ben Carson

Denzel Washington

Chuck Berry

Mariah Carrey

Serena Williams

Whoopi Goldberg

Again, if someone can reference a policy/guideline or MOS which supersedes IMAGE RELEVANCE and argues in favor of empty blank space over notable photos, please let me know, so we can discuss it here. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Image relevance most certainly does not say to overload the infobox with 60 freaking images. In fact, on the very page you cite there is a link to the 'Dos and Don'ts' of placing images in articles. One such "Don't" states:

Don't overload articles with images.

So yea, don't do that anymore. Using the policy you are citing as a reason is weak sauce. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously I disagree. I've already quoted the guideline. More importantly, a supposedly "weak" policy is better than no policy at all. Do you have one you care to reference? Also, it's hardly "overloading" when I just filled blank space. X4n6 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What is proper number of photos for the template in this article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The current number of images (20) has consensus; several were against more, a few wanted even fewer, but all but two were satisfied with the current number. That's almost as good as we get around here. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the template contain more or less photos? X4n6 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Same or More: Images feel right in this article. Called here by the bot. I have no involvement in this article to date. I really like the template with the twenty photographs. Very good graphic design, makes a good visual point about the ubiquity and diversity of achievements of African Americans, and is quite powerful in that regard, in a very good way, in my opinion. SageRad (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The twenty seems representative/adequate. Soupforone (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Same - most of the most influential African Americans are pictured; it's good for the article, but don't add too many more. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Since this RfC is so poorly worded, this is what the basis of disagreement is about. Also, since the current editors who have weighed in already, the number of images in the infobox has been 20. So 'Same' equals 20.
  • For a stable period of time(years), the infobox had 12 images.
  • Then some editor more than doubled the number to 25 earlier this year(2015), and it stayed that way until recently.
  • Then in late August 2015, an editor(Mr.Bob.298) increased the number to 35 images.
  • Despite some discussion to decrease the size, the number stayed at 35 until September 28, 2015. When the editor who started this RfC(X4n6) increased the number of images to 60.
  • Relevant previous discussions are here and here.
• Also, please note that White Americans have 0 people in the infobox and Hispanic and Latino Americans have 12. There is no way this article should have more than 20 images in the infobox. Dave Dial (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Same - I think the article has just the right amount of pictures, too many might be overwhelming. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• A dozen is sufficient. Any more than that, and it's just a big visual blur. And don't include people who don't primarily identify as African-American; e.g., do not add Mariah Carey and other multi-ethnic people to make a point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• One Find one representative image. We're not picking the top ten or twenty or a hundred most favorited individuals here. The images are so tiny we can't see the distinguishing features of anyone. --Pete (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Current amount or less; more would be extremely cluttered. One can almost not appreciate all images currently displayed. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• 25 or less summoned by bot A consideration is that when the picture box intrudes into the text, it becomes excessive. I endorse a modified version of SMcCandlish's point, namely 'don't include people who don't clearly identify as African-American' . There seems a reasonable mix at present between 'public figures', sport, entertainment, culture. Long-term notability could perhaps be a criterion, over current fame (no Paul Robeson? No notable pre-rock+roll musicians?). I've no idea how you choose, how do you weigh Rosa Parks against a current huge star? What was done on the Black British page was to create a 'composite picture' with names listed below. It has resulted in a better image, if not necessarily a better 'sample'. To do that of course you have to settle on a 'fixed group', since it is harder to change. Pincrete (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

second-class citizens

"Believed to be inferior to white people, they were treated as second-class citizens." This is a lazy and meaningless sentence. Black slaves were not citizens of any class. They were legally slaves and were treated as slaves. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted views By Karenga and Shahadah

Some such as Maulana Karenga and Owen Alik Shahadah argue African-American is more appropriate, because it accurately articulates geography and historical origin. Thus linking a people to a continent as opposed to an abstract color Both Karenga and Shahadah (who are contemporaries and associates) hold this opinion. The statement is important to this article.--Inayity (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of Shahadah and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

African-American architects

I restored this article, got rid of the most obvious copyright infringement and began to fix the references. This article needs more work and I'd welcome any help to get it in Wikipedia shape. I think there is much that can be preserved here but the overly promotional language has to go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Afro-American"

I know "Afro-American" (vs. "African-American") has largely fallen out of use; I wanted to cite for it having been current as recently as the mid-1980s, but I don't see an appropriate place in the article to place such a footnote. Anyway, if someone sees a place to put it, that's the usage by Cornel West throughout his essay "The Paradox of Afro-American Rebellion", p.44-58 in The 60s Without Apology (1985, edited by Sohnya Sayres, Anders Stephanson, Stanley Aronowitz, Fredric Jameson), University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 0-8166-1337-0. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

How the hell is Mariah Carey African American?

Really, isn't there some better example Outedexits (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree Outedexits, I've been wanting to change that. She's a quarter African American at best judging by her biography. Its ridiculous that there is a serious push to include her over the African Americans above or over the 100 Greatest African Americans. I vote to remove. This isn't a popularity contest. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please change this, makes it looks comedic and peavish. Lope181.50.106.49 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Carey identifies as African American, is part African American, and a variety of WP:Reliable sources state that she's African American; that's how she counts as African American. Similar can be stated of Vanessa L. Williams, whose "race"/ethnicity has been debated times over at Talk:Vanessa L. Williams. Flyer22 Reborn (talk)

I don't know what reliable sources say, but I don't care what she identifies as given she is not a reliable source; she could identify as a unicorn but that wouldn't make her one. Given it's arguable "what she is" and we have limited space, I say remove and only include clear-cut cases. --LjL (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Identity counts on Wikipedia (not always, but enough), as is clear by WP:BLPCAT and somewhat indicated at WP:ETHNICRACECAT. My point was that it doesn't matter what we think about her "race"/ethnicity, especially given the subjective nature of it. What matters is what the person identifies as, and what WP:Reliable sources state, just like it does in the case of the Halle Berry article. Furthermore, "African American" is defined as "total or partial ancestry" in the lead of this article, and, as the scientific community generally agrees, we are all out of Africa anyway. I don't feel strongly on whether or not we should include her image in the infobox, but I will note that this infobox has been used by editors to show the diversity of the African American community. That diversity includes people like Carey, Williams, and Wentworth Miller. Outedexits asked, "How the hell is Mariah Carey African American?" I answered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to know Carey's views on the matter, you can watch this clip of her on the George Lopez show (starting at 1:04), where, like Halle Berry, she essentially states that she considers herself black/African American because of the one-drop rule (though Berry has also noted other reasons for personally identifying as African American). I see that, in the #RfC: What is proper number of photos for the template in this article? section above, SMcCandlish thinks that Carey doesn't primarily identify as African American and stated that we shouldn't include her to prove a point. Pincrete agreed that we shouldn't "include people who don't clearly identify as African-American". Per what I've stated above, I don't think including Carey is a WP:POINTY violation, but I'll leave this matter up to others. On a side note: Outedexits is indefinitely blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry. Longtime abusive editor; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark/Archive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

endorsing Flyer's comments, I think self-identification is the only viable basis and, as she says, with regard to African-Americans, the 'one-drop' principle often applies. The situation I am more familiar with is an ethnic group claiming someone as 'one of us' when they become notable, even though the individual may feel no connection or wish to disown any connection to to their distant roots. Were ethnicity rational, Obama would have the same right to claim he was a WASP as to claim to be an African-American. I don't have an opinion on Carey, beyond endorsing 'what does she say', 'what do RS say'. Pincrete (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no qualm with "what do RS say", but I have a bit of a problem with "what does she say". How much more are we going to stretch BLP-ism to accomodate for whatever the living persons in our articles want to be claimed about them? Maybe they can have their own website to make their own arbitrary claims about themselves instead of having Wikipedia make them for them, just a thought. LjL (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Just another instance of LjL spouting off out of complete ignorance of a subject. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:4DAA:D779:8046:F1B3 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Please add the king of pop to the infobox. What other African-American (or any American artist for that matter) has gone certified double diamond? Obviously, there are a finite number of spaces but let's start from most notable. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)