Talk:African American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the African American article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This is not a forum for general discussion of African American.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Archive
Archives
To the archives: /Archive - the directory of archives.
Ancillary talk archives
  • /Archive:West Indies (21 November 2004 - 14 April 2006) archive of several past discussions on Talk:African American about people in the U.S. of African ancestry via the West Indies and whether the label "African American" would apply to them
  • /Archive:White South Africans (creation - 21 January 2005) archive of several past discussions on Talk:African American about White South Africans on and whether the label "African American" would apply to them
  • /Archive:Do not feed the trolls


Contents

[edit] lead

People need to watch this page. Nothing about Hispanics should be in the lead. This article is about AFRICAN AMEREICANS..Period. African Americans are still the largest racial minority as opposed to hispanics who are the largest ethnic minority. If hispanics want to let it be known thier the largest ethnic minority it should be done on thier wiki page, not the African American page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule saying Hispanics can't be mentioned in this article. It is notable that Hispanics have eclipsed African-Americans as the largest minority group (albeit ethnic). I've reworded the passage to distinquish between ethnic and racial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the article in the lead. The lead could use some more information. Leads should be able to stand alone as concise summaries of their articles. (See WP:LEAD.) Misinformed editors sometimes delete additions to the lead because they're "redundant," but the lead actually should touch on the points covered in the article. So next time you see a lead that doesn't summarize the article, please build it up. Leadwind (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The page on the definition of African American can be greatly improved by adding a few major details about the people in the United States who are termed African American. These people as a group are descendents of the original natives of America, Africans, Europeans and in some cases Asians, to put it broadly. Adding this information will give a more truthful, accurate definition of the these people who range in physical appearance from having very fair skin with blonde hair and blue eyes, to a very dark brown complexion with kinkier hair and darker eyes. Most families under this term have members that vary in physical appearance from one extreme to the other and every look in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.124.126 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC) The Honorable Marcus M. Garvey was convenietly omitted from the list of great americans, though his accomplishments and leadership far surpassed the records of any of those "chosen". His UNIA claimed a membership in excess of 6 million members of the Negro race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.245.224 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oprah picture

I'm not sure what a better alternative would be, but Oprah (currently the only picture in the income section) is pretty unrepresentative of typical African Americans' income situtation. Where much of the African American community is struggling with issues of poverty etc. the picture of Oprah gives the impression that most blacks wear fancy suits and carry designer handbags. 71.233.79.11 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The image of Oprah is in the article because she is the richest African American. I don't believe an image of a black person in poverty belongs in this article. That would after all, just be feeding into an old stereotype. Not to say there isn't black poverty, but we shouldn't promote that stereotype. Yahel Guhan 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African-American or African American?

I've noticed an inconsistency among other articles that use the term and I think it needs to be clarified in this article. Anybody have thoughts? --Jophus00 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a broader hyphenated American issue. Since hyphens are often used indifferently one way or the other, and they've been considered offensive by at least a few people (especially in the organized Japanese American community), our Wikipedia standard is just to drop them.--Pharos (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Woods is not African American

Therefore, he should be removed from the list of most influential Americans who are African American near the end of the article.

Regardless of how the Discovery Channel might have identified him, Tiger Woods has said that he does not consider himself African American. And that should be respected.

Since racial identity is primarily a social construct, how one self-identifies racially should not be contradicted by others who would like to judge by phenotype. Many people that call themselves "African American," as the article states, have up to three different racial groups represented in their ancestry. Consequently, many people who consider themselves African American can be very "light-skinned" (so light brown as to be nearly yellow in tone) or very close to white. And these people are African American because they say they are African American not (directly) because of the one drop rule.

Tiger Woods shouldn't be forced to be African American based on the one drop rule either and/or his phenotype either. Tiger Woods isn't African American because he says he isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TafkaInvisible (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, a person born and raised in China who's parents are Chinese and ancestry is Chinese would not be Chinese simply because they say they are not? Please example. Dumaka (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? African Americanism is a matter of race. People are African Americans because they were born into it, not because they choose to be so. Yahel Guhan 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiger Woods is of one-quarter African American ancestry. Apparently, he prefers not to be described as just "African American" [1]. But, he supports multiple identities [2]. BTW, I'm not sure why the Discovery Channel would be the ultimate arbiter on African American greatness anyway.--Pharos (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a good question. Do you know of a better example of what would be a better arbiter of African American greatness? Yahel Guhan 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha! You just inspired me to create 100 Greatest African Americans. I guess that's a more scholarly list, and one that's more on-topic (it's not ranked, however). Still, I don't really think we should be using any "official" list. Instead, I think in an article like this we should just mention "great" people as they happen to fit into the narrative (and we already have a collage of some of the "great" people in the {{African American ethnicity}} infobox anyway).--Pharos (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to add a link to the source of this list. Yahel Guhan 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The source is the book itself, as I've now explained on its talk page. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of this talk-page conversation, here's an interesting article on this subject of Tiger Woods being labeled black when he is "mathamatically" more Asian. http://www.tigertales.com/tiger/multi042197.html Kman543210 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Barak Obama "African American"?

He is half White and I have never seen any source call him "African American" or "Black" so why is he listed here as "African American"?

I shouldn't even be wasting my time explaining this to you but anyone who has ancestory from Africa in America is considered African American. Not to mention that Obama's father is African.Dumaka (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
By that same logic, anyone who has ancestry from Europe can be European American, so he is European American as well? It's not wasting your time, it was a legitimate question since the majority of the U.S. considers him biracial. Kman543210 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The guy is African-American. Years ago during Jim Crow and slavery he would have been considered black and would have had to go to the "colored" restroom. Almost every black person in America has at least some European blood running through them. If we were to take it into that context then there would be no African-Americans. There would only be Biracial-Americans. Who is to say what the dominate gene is when it comes to race? If a person can trace their ancestory to Africa in the U.S. then they are considered African-American. It does not matter how many other races they may be mixed with. His father was African his mother was American, so he is African-American. Dumaka (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Years ago during Jim Crow and slavery he would have been considered black and would have had to go to the "colored" restroom. Good thing we've moved past those days...or have we? I agree that he is considered black because of the predominant features and the fact that his father is African. You can still be biracial and African-American though. Not all biracial children have the same predominant features. My nephews' father is white and mother is black (from the Caribean), but they do not identify as "African American". Most people know they are "mixed" right away, and they had more problems in a predominantly black school in Louisiana then a predominantly white school in Oregon. My point is that I agree with you on Obama as he self-identifies as that, but I do not believe it to be as clear cut as some people state. Kman543210 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. Dumaka (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of the Term African American

This entire section seems to be supported solely by weasel words, especially the opening line: "To be African American, some argue that an individual would have to be born in Africa." I'm aware there is issue with the term in that sense among lay people on the internet, but unless there's actual academic debate over the label, I don't think that that needs to be reflected in an encyclopedia entry. I deleted the section in light of its lack of references to support it (the only cite in the paragraph was to an article describing an incident that amounts to a "fun fact" where the term was misappropriated). As it stands, African-American is the most official term to describe Americans of African descent, whether or not that pleases those uncomfortable with its etymology. Snackmagic (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is African American?

There should be something in this section about the racial status of Tiger Woods, and White Africans. Rds865 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More About (West-?)African Origins?

I'm not going to do it now (way too tired), but has anyone considered adding more info (stats, etc.) about *where* in Africa the majority of African-American slaves (or their ancestors, as the case may be) came from? It seems very significant to this entry and would be a great help to any African-American student (or anyone else) just beginning to think about African-American genealogical topics, even if just in a general sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seethaki (talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "survived" changed to "were freed after"

A Change from survived to were freed after is necessary. saying "survived" doesn't give a clear description of how slavery ended in history. And using words like "survived" can be taken as un-neutral or bias. This is what the statement say, with my revision added in italics and bold:

  • Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived were freed after the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are — or are descended from — voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, or elsewhere.

--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: User:Malik Shabazz, judging by your username and profile i can assume this may be a sensitive topic for you, as is I. But please do not make up lies and false pretenses to revert my edits. Like you did by saying : Reverted 1 edit by Cooljuno411; Rv edits that are imprecise and becoming disruptive. (TW) [3] --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
When your changes have been reverted by two different editors but you insist on making them a third time, that's disruptive editing. So don't accuse me of lying when I've accurately described your actions.
Second, your description is incorrect. African-Americans are descended from Africans who were enslaved, but not all of them "were freed" at the end of the Civil War (an expression that makes them passive objects in somebody else's drama). Some had freed themselves, whether through escape or by purchasing their own freedom. But all of them had, in fact, survived the slavery era.
PS - If you have a personal comment about my Username or my User page, make it on my Talk page. Don't presume what is or isn't a "sensitive topic" for me, and I won't presume that your subsitution of Michael Jackson's mugshot for his photo indicates that you're a complete jackass. Instead, I'll assume good faith. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Exsume me, NO, This is not how it's going down. How dare you be through'n insults my way, Sorry that i actually follow the whole concept of Wiki by trying to implement "UP-TO-DATE" content. Maybe if you read a talk page or two you would see that we already agreed to use another picture of Michael Jackson. Sorry, out-dated pictures from 1984 just don't fly up with me. And back to the topic at hand, duh they weren't freed after the civil war, i have been in a high school history class, last time i checked it was this lovely thing called the hmmmmm...... what is again, OH YEAH, The Thirteenth Amendment. And the sentence has a great precursor "Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans...", and how did the majority of slaves become free, from that amendment. By saying survived it doesn't even empliment any historical reference. All i see is someone trying to "get back at modern white people for actions by past white people" through a sneaky bias statement, i believe slavery is wrong but we can't hold grudges from over 100 years. If you don't like my idea of what should replace that portion, then maybe instead of being aggressive you should be proactive and suggest something else. I'm sorry to tell you but that word "survived" is going, it highly un-neutral and doesn't have any historical value, and personally it very offensive to modern white people. So be a leader and suggest another snippet to replace it. Would you like this phrase, "Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who were freed after the emplimation of The Thirteenth Amendment...". And i think your part about buying their freedom or running away can also fit in the statement as well, i am fine with historical truths but hiding the truth through bias word such as "survived" doesn't fit in my boat. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Your attempt at "Black English" is just too, too precious. There was no discussion here about replacing Jackson's photo. And there is absolutely no consensus, except in your overheated imagination, to replace the word "survived". (And by the way, maybe you should read an article before you link to it. According to Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "Prior to its ratification, slavery remained legal only in Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey; everywhere else in the USA slaves had been freed by state action and the federal government's Emancipation Proclamation.") — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah i know about that, the slaves states that remained with the union (border states) were permitted to keep slaves and basically the Confederate states were subject to the Emancipation Proclamation. Yeah i know, like i said I've been in a High School American History Class. And how i type is irelavent, the subject at hand is replacing "survive" with a more in depth description. So unless you suggest a replacement sentence that goes into much greater detail then "survive", i will take into my own hands and you will be in contempt if you try to revert it. I am trying to collaborate with you but you are sure making it difficult. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll "be in contempt"? Ha ha ha. Why don't you brush up on WP:3RR, Mr. High School American History. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep... cool... 3 reverts got it. So are you going to collaborate or not. Through out this whole talk you have not yet tried to even to collaborate. So are you going to express your opinion of a replacement or continue to be ignorant. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a nerve, ignorant, i specifically remember you saying over at the michael jackson page, "I can just about handle your black pride but...." , ha , im not even black, but ignorant people suck as yourself cant realise that its ok to like and support other races, im hispanic, i think black people are cool, it doesn't make me black though. Such ignorance. Realist2 (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Fclass (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno411, please be advised that Wikipedia works by consensus. If you are unable to persuade a change in consensus, do not attempt to "take it into your own hands" with edit warring or you will be in violation of Wikipedia policy (even if you are not guilty of breaking WP:3RR). About your arguement, as a white person I see nothing personally insulting to white people and find Malik's arguement that the description of African Amercians simply being freed "makes them passive objects in somebody else's drama" and not descriptive of the whole story quite persuasive. Also, you have given no evidence that this is "someone trying to "get back at modern white people for actions by past white people" through a sneaky bias statement;" how did your mind even link the present to the past for this statement anyway? Lastly, inserting a police mugshot of all things into a section about those voted to be the 'greatest African Americans'[4] and then complaining that the article is not neutral and somehow biased against whites reeks of hypocrisy. Don't be ignorant of your own prejudice. Cigraphix (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He tries inserting that mugshot picture where ever he can, i expect to see it on the Cup cake article next. Realist2 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CoolJuno411, I am also a "modern white person" and "survived" seems like the appropriate word to me. I fail to see how it is biased. "We're freed from", on the other hand, implies that some unnamed third party released the African-Americans from slavery, which does not strike me as accurate - it denies the role and agency of African-Americans in their own emancipation, which has been documented, it is vague about who did the freeing (if the African-Americans had no part in it), and it is grammatically confusing. You mentioned earlier that the fact that not all slaves "were freed" is covered by the word "most". But "most" refers specifically to the phrase "captive Africans", in which the exceptions to "most" are "voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, or elsewhere". It does not refer to "were freed", in which the exceptions to "most" are "slaves that weren't freed". Readers will not assume that "most" applies to "were freed" because that's not how the whole sentence is structured. And please be civil and assume good faith. --130.63.128.248 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


This phrase in the beginning sounds a little strange: "descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era". Just as if the captive Africans survived that era. Im German, my English is not good enough to correct it. --Tocca (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Ivey

Won award for Toyota poker player of the year, 9 WPT final tables (a WPT record), top 10 money earning poker players of last 8 years, and is called the "tiger woods" of poker and he is VERY noteable. I'll leave the decision to you guys, hope this info helps. He is a outstanding culmination of some of the heart of african american qualities. His wikipedia page has even way more stuff, and every list of "5 best poker players" no matter which list, always have Ivey. Sentriclecub (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama image

An editor removed the photo of Barack Obama from the article with the edit summary that the image is "irrelevant". I restored the image and invited a discussion here.

I'm curious why the editor feels the picture of a prominent African-American is irrelevant, and I'm interested in the views of other editors. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the photo is very relevant--Obama is one of the most famous Americans of African ancestry in history. Could we vote to have it re-added, or...? Seethaki (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it may be because he is not an African American in the strict sense of the term: Descended from slaves originating in "undifferentiated" Africa, rather than a recent immigrant from a modern country in Africa. His father is Kenyan and his mother is a caucasian American. Roger (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If a person can trace their ancestory to Africa in the U.S. then they are considered African-American. It does not matter how many other races they may be mixed with. The majority of black people today are mixed with so many other races but still are considered African-American. It does not matter if his ancestors were slaves or not. His father was African his mother was American, so he is African-American. Dumaka (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many black women actually take car eof their children?

I asked here because of the statistic saying that 70% of black children are abandoned by their father. If a child is raised by their grandparents but custody of the child is given to the mother doe sit still qualify as a mother raising her own child? What about the actual time the mother spends with the child? These are important to the statistics.YVNP (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

This article should contain a section that describes the large amount crime that african americans perform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodyhurts01 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a valid issue even if Mybodyhurts01 stated it rather inelegantly. The disproportionate involvement of African-Americans in crime is one of the most serious current social problems in the US. Even if it shouldn't get an entire section, a single phrase is inadequate. Roger (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless the article is going to discuss the criminalization of Black life — i.e., the disproportionate attention paid by lawmakers and police to African-Americans — I don't see why it should mention the "fact" that African-Americans are responsible for a disproportionate share of crimes. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black & White pictures in the infobox

Is there any reason the photos in the infobox are all black & white pictures? I know these photos are old but why not adding some pictures of more contemporary African Americans? 16@r (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Can we take this to the talk page, rather than putting in that greatest list // taking it out // putting it in again // taking it out again.... and so on for more boring times. --Dumarest (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been a part of the edit war, but I'm assuming you're talking the removing and restoring of the "Greatest African Americans" poll from Discovery/AOL. Personally, I think that it adds value to the article and should stay. I know that it's only one poll, but if you look at the results, I think it goes along the lines of which black Americans are most notable in the U.S. It's at the end of the article, so I don't think it interrupts the flow. Kman543210 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that a pool by Discovery Channel and America Online is not notable to the overall subject of African Americans. It already have its article at The Greatest American. Singling out the African Americans sounds like pushing some interpretation of the results. Also, the gallery breaks the prose ("The following four African Americans were considered..." <GALLERY/> "The following African Americans were also among the 100 " <GALLERY/>). --Damiens.rf 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo Historical Theory

...although there is a pseudohistorical theory of Pre-Columbian African presence. I know that it says that it's pseudo historical, but just by definition of of the word, I don't think it should even be mentioned. This theory is generally accepted as beyond a fringe theory, and I didn't think those even deserve a mention in the article. There is another theory that a European culture was in North America pre-Columbian as well, evidence by DNA and spear heads; however, even this with evidence is fringe enough not to be mentioned in main articles about Europeans. If no one objects, I would like to remove this sentence. Kman543210 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Influence in the United States or list of black inventors?

I think many of the inventions listed in this section shouldn't be listed here as they are not related to the cultural influence of African Americans in the United States.

For instance - improving filament in a light bulb, or self lubricating engines is a technical innovation or improvement but not a cultural shift. If an inventor is noteworthy enough to this article, they belong in a section called Noteworthy African Americans etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.185.32 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

American Negroes are American, not African. I believe the article should be named either Black American or American Negro. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also notice the article on whites is called White American, not European American or anything like that. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
African American has just become the more politically correct term, but Black American is fine acceptable. Negro is a term that is absolutely not used in the mainstream U.S. (except in the United Negro College Fund), and it can even be offensive to some. All the hyphenated-American (and sometimes not hyphenated anymore) denote ancestry and not current status, so everyone who says African American in the U.S. is well aware that it doesn't mean that someone is from Africa but that their ancestors were. Same with European American, Mexican American, German American, etc. Whether it's logical that one article is "White American" while this one is "African American doesn't matter as much as common use. Kman543210 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree Doctor Bojangles, many people, especially non-black consider A-A very derogatory, and it is unfortunate that Wikipedia has taken the use of A-A to the extreme to even using it in their categories, because they think it is the overall conesus to be the politically correct term and not illogical or derogatory. Black American or Afro American would make more sense. I think the word Negro is considered dergatorey and offensive to a lot of black people, even more so than African American. I guess until for now Wikipedia is going to continue the usage of A-A, hopefully in the near future that would change.--Sugarcubez (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The consensus view, over hundreds of articles and categories, is that African American is Wikipedia's naming convention. If you think this article's name is wrong, you should probably start a centralized discussion about all articles and categories with "African American" in their title. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, like I said. It is sad and proably not going to change anytime soon, but hopefully one day people would see just how degeratorey it is to call all blacks and only blacks AA. One small step, can go long ways.--Sugarcubez (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
From the first paragraph, “Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era ..., although some are — or are descended from — voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, ...” I'm sorry; I seem to have missed something completely. Does this paragraph indeed state that persons descended from Caribbeans or South Americans are in fact in the category of African American? If so, I'd like an explanation for that catastrophic contradiction. Could someone please explain the motivation? The linked “size and regional distribution of the black population” page clearly uses the terms “black population”, “African American”, and “Afro-Caribbean”. Additionally, it confuses me that Black Americans redirects to a page about African Americans. That article should be about black Americans, not redirect to African Americans simply because that is the majority of the complete population of black people of America. I am reminded, shamefully but seriously, of an article by Maddox, from which I quote, “the [black] person [pictured] is African (because it's inconceivable that black people could come from Haiti, India, Trinidad, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Australia, or Jamaica). Nevermind that; BLACK PEOPLE ONLY COME FROM AFRICA.” It is a good point. I agree with Bojangles, that “American Negroes are American, not African,” and with Kman, that “negro”, although valid, carries connotations that needs no debate that we agree are offensive. One could argue that an Encylopedia should inform, not pander to feelings; however, “black” is equally as descriptive and meaningful as “negro” (and “negro” is no longer in technical use), thus I do not have a problem and fully support “black people”, and the renaming and restructuring of the article to “Black Americans”. I am keen to hear your opinions. Perhaps we could correct this issue. Thank you. (I hope I did not make any Wikipedia faux paus in this message.) — Chrisdone (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You all are stupid. The term African American means "a black American of African descent; a black person descendant of African slaves that were victims of American slavery." It doesn't mean we're technically African. And it does not apply to black immigrants from the Carribean or anywhere else. What about Italian-American? It means "a white American of Italian descent." Russian-American "a white American of Russian descent." Irish-American "a white American of Irish descent." What about Asian-American? I don't see you people questioning those ethnic terms. I think you're all racist. I have no problem with the use of the term black American or black. I just know they're not real ethnic or racial designations because black is a skin color. Most people in India are black-skinned. Most Australian Aborigines are black-skinned. Does it mean they're of African ancestry? No. Fclass (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fcalls, please refrain from name calling and personal attacks. It's also not appropriate to delete someone else's comments on the talk page. I reverted your recent deletion in the article because African American does not always just refer to the descendants of black American slaves. According to the American Heritage dictionary: A Black American of African ancestry. By your narrow definition, Barack Obama would not be an African American because his father is from Kenya and did not descend from American slaves. The article does explain that most black Americans descend from slaves, but there have been several African immigrants as well as black immigrants from other countries. Their children born in the U.S. would be considered African American as well. I agree with what you said that all the hyphenated terms (Italian American, Russian American, etc) indicate your ancestry but that you're an American. Kman543210 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself to be an excellent judge of character. Personal attacks removed. Calling a black person the word negro is racist and offensive, just like the other n-word, nigger. IF ANY PERSON OF ANY COLOR CALLS ME A NEGRO OR NIGGER, THERE WILL BE REPERCUSSIONS. I am an African-American or black American and I know the definition of it. It means "a black American of African ancestry; a descendant of African slaves that suffered through American slavery." Any black person that equates that with nigger is a stupid piece of shit modern day slave that hates his or her own heritage and history. Or in the words of Carter G. Woodson, the person is a "miseducated negro." Personal attacks removed. Why do you care? Why do some Caucasians care about what blacks do?. What about Asian-American? Italian-American? Russian-American? Arab-American? We have a right to self-determination. Also, the term is widely used and widely recognized and widely known throughout the U.S. and the world. Personal attacks removed. Fclass (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:No personal attacks, WP:Civility, and WP:Assume good faith. Further attacks such as the ones you've made may result in a block. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest african americans

I see that this topic has already been discussed, but I feel compelled to ask the questions: can the word "greatest" even possibly be considered subjective and NPOV? Is such a section suitable for an encyclopedia? Is such a concept quantifiable under any existing standardized system? Is the basis source for this section peer-reviewed or scientific in any way? I would answer each question as simply and definitely no.

An utterly unscientific poll of television viewers is basically meaningless in the first place and could never carry any academic weight. Added to this, the list itself seems to imply that blacks can only be great if they aspire to positions of fame and power, which I think many would find offensive in and of itself.

In any case, this section couldn't possibly meet the criteria for being encyclopedic, and could (and should) be deleted on that basis alone. It is simply based on a poll of popular opinion, and isn't useful to anyone researching American history or to most any other academic pursuit.

This is not to say that the persons named here are not of importance or shouldn't be mentioned, but to appoint them to this page as being "the greatest" of any group is simply ridiculous and damages the integrity of the article.

Claimed popular opinion is not fact.

Kst447 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any feelings about it one way or the other, but I would point out that the "Wikipedia community" feels the contest was notable enough to warrant its own encyclopedia article, The Greatest American. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The article to which you are referring is on the source television program itself. Its existence born out of the Wikipedia community's will alone does not lend the program more or less credibility according to the rules.
See Wikipedia's Verifiability article: [5]
Kst447 (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine if someone were to include a Greatest White People section in the White people article. By crikey there'd be an uproar. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a fair comparison. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that I understand that poll better, I can see why people might think that it doesn't belong. Greatness can't really be measured and is totally subjective; however, that was the name of the poll. The other concern that has been brought up is that it was just a "greatest Americans" poll, and someone just took out the black Americans and inserted them in here. I don't have a strong feeling either way if people want to keep it or remove it from the article, but I would say that it's definitely subjective. Kman543210 (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Warren G. Harding? Should he be included in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.198.78 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your comment was meant as sarcasm, but I'll address it seriously. No, he shouldn't. First off, he was not among the 100 Greatest Americans poll winners. Also, The idea of him having a black great-grandmother was put forth by William Chancellor, and most historians agree that this was probably political mud slinging and dubious claims. Kman543210 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if his great-grandmother was black, you'd have to be pretty high to even consider him black now. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not African-American?

Judging by the US Census' standards for being African-American and White-American, would one who has direct Jewish ancestry (from the father), recent White-American ancestry (from the mother), direct Caribbean ancestry (from the father), and zero African ancestry be considered a white man or a black man? It really is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.243.42 (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)