Talk:African Americans/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Census bureau

The census bureau uses "African American" in two senses, both of which are ultimately based on self-reporting. One sense is historical, traditional and common in the real world, and the other is new, non-traditional and much less common [1]:

• Traditional usage: As a distinct native American ethnic group on the same sociological level as Nigerian and other immigrant populations.
• Non-traditional usage: As a broad, non-traditional synonym for "Black" or "Negro".

This wikipage was never on any putative, monolithic "Negro" racial group. Its content (particularly its admixture segment) clearly shows that it was and is instead devoted to the census bureau's traditional usage of the term rather than to its non-traditional usage. That is, the page is on the "African American" ethnic group. This is why, for example, the antiquated subset term "American Negroes" rather than just "Negroes" was once in its lede. Middayexpress (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The link provided, does not verify what is stated by the above user from what I can tell, I do not see this "traditional usage" and "non-traditional usage" at the source provided above. The link provided only shows the race and ethnicity questionnaire of the 2010 Census.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The link shows various self-reporting "race" entries according to the census bureau. Among them are two distinct "American American" labels: one is an actual "African American" ethnic group on par with "Haitian, Nigerian, and so on"; the other is a racial category for what the bureau terms "Black, African Am., or Negro" [2]. It's explained elsewhere therein that the OMB added the distinct "African American" ethnic group in the first place because many African and Caribbean respondents didn't identify as "African American". Consequently, they figured that the "Black, African Am., or Negro" box wasn't aimed at them, so they responded instead by writing their own actual ethnicity under "Some Other Race" [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you changed the link in the first link in this section from page 21 to page 23. The above, not referring to page 13, appears to be an assumption, and not something specifically stated on page 21 or page 23. As for page 13, what you state accurately reflects what is written in that source; however let us look at what it says on page 13:

There is a segment of the Afro-Caribbean and African population who do not identify with the term "African American,"...

This only verifies that this view exist, not that it is universal. This is but one of many views. For instance in this source, speaking of the new migration movement of recent immigrants, it doesn't state that these individuals are not African-American, but are part of the larger Africans in the United States narrative. This is also reflected in this source from the Library of Congress, where more recent immigrants are still present with, and a continuation, of the history of Africans here in the United States.

Perhaps the closest parallel, outside of the United States, to the view which Middayexpress advocates, is that of British Asians. In that in the context of the United Kingdom, unlike here in the United States, British Asians is not a catch all term for all persons whose ancestry comes from Asia, but specific to those from the Indian sub-continent.

I think what can be verified is that there are different verifiable points of view/definitions regarding the subject, and that there is an ongoing debate about which definition should be used as the common definition. However, this should be dealt in the body of the article, in the terminology section. And because there are different verifiable definitions of the subject of this article, the most exclusive definition should define the scope, while recognizing that there are other definitions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's right, I pointed the link to the correct page that I was alluding to. And that page certainly and plainly does show the census bureau's two, very different "African American" labels [4]. On the other hand, none of your links above are from the census bureau, so they're not particularly relevant here. Page 13, by the way, paraphrases the bureau itself [5]. Here is what the census bureau actually states on its two "African American" labels, including its non-traditional "racial" one that your links above are based on [6]:

"Examples were also added to the "Black, African Am., and Negro" category, which OMB defines as a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American" (OMB 1997). There is a segment of the Afro-Caribbean and African population who do not identify with the term "African American," and therefore may not report in the "Black, African Am., or Negro" category. Evidence from Census 2000 suggested that Black ethnic groups such as Haitian and Kenyan responded in the "Some Other Race" write-in line (Humes 2009). Therefore, the examples of "African American, Haitian, and Nigerian" were evaluated to see if these examples would help orient those of Afro-Caribbean and African heritage to the "Black, African Am., or Negro" response category."

Clearly, a great many people from Africa and the Caribbean are confused by the bureau's non-standard usage of "African American" as a synonym for "Black" or "Negro", and as a result they assume that its "Black, African Am., and Negro" entry is instead reserved for actual African Americans. The fact that so many of these individuals instead chose the entirely different "Some Other Race" write-in entry -- where they wrote in their own actual ethnic group -- empirically demonstrates this. So how does the bureau attempt to resolve this confusion? It establishes an additional self-reporting ethnic group entry exclusively for actual Africans Americans, one that is distinct from yet on par with "Haitian, Nigerian, and so forth" [7]. There is no parallel situation to this anywhere else in the census documentation because, unlike "African Americans", there is no native American ethnic group traditionally named "Asian Americans" or "European Americans" that could engender such confusion in the first place. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In a way there is, the American ethnicity. Also where is Middayexpress getting this "so many of these individuals"? How do we know if it's ten persons or a million persons?

Yes, those sources are not from the Census Bureau, but since the greater debate is the terminology of term African American, and as the above editor is advocating the exclusive use of a single terminology, I have provided sources that should that that terminology being advocated is not the only common usage of that word.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kindly stop writing in the third person; it's quite awkward since I'm right here. That said, while you did provide a few non-census bureau links, their non-traditional definition of "African American" is nonetheless ultimately derived from the OBM. You yourself indicated as much elsewhere. Further, the census bureau doesn't include any "American" entry; people who chose this wrote it in under "Other". What the bureau does have is an "African American" ethnic group. This ethnic group's traditional ethnonym is for some odd reason also used by the bureau as a non-standard racial label synonymous with "Black" or "Negro". This is where the confusion stems from. You ask how do I know that so many African and Caribbean people chose instead the entirely different "Some Other Race" write-in entry? Well, for starters, because the bureau itself states as much ("ethnic groups such as Haitian and Kenyan responded in the "Some Other Race" write-in line (Humes 2009)" [8]). That's entire immigrant ethnic groups – in plural – eschewing the "Black, African Am., or Negro" label in favor of their own actual ethnicity, not merely an individual here and there. Had it been only a handful of people, the census bureau obviously wouldn't have felt it necessary to devise an additional, separate "African American" ethnic group entry for actual African Americans just to try and resolve the confusion. Middayexpress (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Antebellum?

I removed this word from the lead[9]. I´m reading it as "pre-civil war" and if that´s right, it excludes at least one of the guys on the right, and seems to narrow the definition to much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be sourced, so I would agree with that especially in the lead sentence. It may be part of a defnition, but that is not necessarily the most common definition. HelenOnline 15:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ledes are reserved primary meanings; the primary meaning of "African American" is descendants of people from Africa from the antebellum period. Gomez (1998) explains the ethnogenesis of the distinct African American identity in the New World. Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but as the sentence stands, it´s to definite, and I´m not sure that postbellum african americans falls outside "primary meanings". Also, to a non-US reader such as myself, the meaning of "antebellum" in this context is far from clear. The next section goes into detail with "Most African Americans are..." and I think that´s good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The African American/Afro-American identity was formed long ago. African Americans have a unique history, culture, language and genetic profile that was shaped in the New World. It is distinct from that of modern West/Central Africans, with whom African Americans share the Africa-derived portion of their ancestry [10]. Besides Gomez (1998), which explores in depth this ethnogenesis, please see the Library of Congress' African American History Month [11] and Afro-American Genealogical Research [12]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The lead sentence should provide a concise definition meaningful to a nonspecialist. HelenOnline 07:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The concise, standard definition of "African Americans" is citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial antebellum ancestry from Africa. Antebellum is not a specialised term. At any rate, it is linked now for any lay reader that doesn't already know what it means. Also note that the second paragraph already explains that "some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations, and their descendants, may be identified or self-identify with the term". Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Then there is a problem because just to the right of your definition, there is a picture of Barack Obama, who doesn't fit that definition. Aesma (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See Public image of Barack Obama. Middayexpress (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Barack Obama's black father was born in Kenya, then moved to America. This means he does not have any antebellum ancestry, because his father moved here long after the Civil War. His mother is white. So, that makes him a second-generation African immigrant. (67.253.24.78 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC))

This has to be one of the least intelligent wikipedia articles I've ever seen. The very first sentence of the introduction is in direct opposition to the last sentence of the same section: "antebellum ancestry... Obama the first African-American President." I'm aware of Obama's supposed "John Punch" ancestry connection but the primary antebellum ancestry he has is from slave-owners. So any black person who came to America post-1860 is not an African-American? What an imprecise, faulty definition. Why would anyone trust anything else the article has to say when it's internally self-contradictory from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36DA:9C70:BDC6:FD0D:3C9F:DE4 (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The John Punch ancestry notwithsanding, Obama is an exception, and largely because he is President. Had he been an ordinary office worker with the same parental background, this wouldn't be difficult to understand. The fact is, the distinct African American/Afro-American identity was formed long ago in the antebellum period, including African American culture, African American Vernacular English, African American names, and especially African American genealogy and African American genetics (which btw isn't the same as that of West/Central Africans; African Americans have West/Central African, European and Native American ancestry in varying degrees, and this diverse ancestry will only continue to rise with the passage of time) [13]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment as an uninvolved editor who came here looking to find out something else, I was initially confused by the lede. "Antebellum ancestors"? I read it as having African ancestors who lived prior to about 1860, but anyone who has any African ancestors would have some from that era - no humans have been created ex-nihilo in the last 150 years to my knowledge. So I was quite confused by the lede and only after reading the discussion here did I realize it means "having African ancestors who were living in the US prior to the US Civil War." If that's the standard definition then fine, but I think it would help with comprehensibility if it were worded in a less terse manner.

Also agree that it seems odd to start with that definition and then have the article contradict itself and say Barack Obama is African-American. Is he or isn't he? I think most reliable sources would say he is, and that the narrow definition that begins the article is hair-splitting academic-ese. No argument that some writers choose to define it that way, but is it really representative of all the reliably sourced material available? I don't have the time or interest to determine if Gomez is an outlier or not, but even if it is standard within academia I question whether it's standard outside academia. If not, the article should take care to distinguish the two. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: A quick Google search for ["african american" definition] pulls up definitions from many reliable sources. I looked at the top 20 hits and only one of those contained the term "antebellum": http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401802653.html and this was a link to the Gomez article. All the others basically had some variant on "an American who has African and especially black African ancestors" without qualifying on recentness of emigration. I think if we are going to ignore all the other reliable sources and use Gomez's your preferred definition there needs to be a clear rationale for doing so. Middayexpress, the ball is in your court. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gomez (1998) actually isn't an article, but rather one of the most comprehensive academic treatises specifically on African American ethnogenesis. Random Google hits also don't really demonstrate anything (see WP:GOOG). That said, the term "antebellum" is explained in the link through for anyone who doesn't already know what it means. It refers to the period in the United States before the civil war, and is often encountered in history classes on the U.S.. As such, the expression is necessarily restricted to the U.S. and within a specific time period. It doesn't refer to all world populations as per the prehistoric recent African origin of modern humans. The fact is, the African American identity was formed long ago; it isn't something new. African Americans aren't simply transplanted West/Central Africans, with identical histories, cultures, languages, names, genealogies and genetics. On the contrary, African Americans are very much products of the New World. They thus possess their own African American history, African American culture, African American Vernacular English, African American names, and especially African American genealogy and African American genetics (the latter of which is actually defined by multiple ancestries i.e. varying degrees of West/Central African, Northwest European and Native American heritage). This is undeniable. Another aspect that is central to the distinct African American identity is citizenship and nativity since an American in general is by definition a native or citizen of the United States (including Obama Jr., who by the way has some antebellum West/Central African ancestry via John Punch). However, the vast majority of African immigrants to the United States are not U.S. citizens either. The opposite is also true: when abroad, actual African American expatriates retain their identity. When, say, in France, they are thus African Americans in France, not African immigrants in France. This is because African Americans were and are already a distinct population, one that was historically formed in the New World. Middayexpress (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that a collection random of google hits does not carry much weight. However, that search provides at least fifteen reliable sources that define the term differently than this article. I'm sure there are many more. The question then becomes: is the definition as provided by the article representative of the topic as treated in reliable sources? I understand that Gomez defines it that way; how widespread is that definition, both within academia and outside? In particular, when I look up the term in various dictionaries I see something different than what's in this article. Are the dictionaries wrong? Or (more likely) is the term used differently depending on context? If that's the case then the article should present it that way. Anything else would be pushing a particular WP:POV. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:GOOG, random Google hits indeed don't really demonstrate anything. That includes whether results are reliable or true or why something is mentioned at all, nor do they guarantee that results reflect the uses one means rather than other uses, or that nothing key is missing or that little-mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant. That said, there are many other far more reliable and comprehensive resources linked to above establishing the antebellum formation of the distinct African American identity besides Gomez (1998) (which by iself is among the most comprehensive academic treatises specifically on African American ethnogenesis). A few one or two line dictionary explanations that contradict their own definitions of what an American in general is are not comparable. The actual, distinct history, culture, vernacular language, names, and especially genealogy and genetics of African Americans is likewise undeniable fact. Besides the foregoing, I also recommend having a look at the National Park Service's African American Heritage and Ethnography program [14]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

<outdent>Let's try this again, ignoring Google for the moment. There are multiple definitions of the term presented in reliable sources. Let's look at some examples:

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/african-american "an American of African and especially of black African descent "
• http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-changing-definition-of-african-american-4905887/ The Changing Definition of African-American - How the great influx of people from Africa and the Caribbean since 1965 is challenging what it means to be African-American
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/African-American "A Black American of African ancestry."
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/african-american "a black American of African descent."
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html (hard to summarize, but there's no discussion of how long ancestors have been in America)
• http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf “Black or African American” refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican..."
• http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/African%E2%80%93American "an American who has African and especially black African ancestors"
• http://www.yourdictionary.com/african-american "an American having ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; black American"
• http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/African-American "an American whose ancestors were born in Africa"
• http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP/definitions.html "People having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. "
• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/african-american " an American who has at least some family members who were from Africa"
• http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/African-American "someone from the U.S. who belongs to a race of people that has dark skin and whose family originally came from Africa"
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/African-American "black American."
• http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/african-americans/ "African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry."

None of these say anything about antebellum ancestry. My take is that the mainstream definition of the term includes more recent emigrants, although I do understand that as a cultural entity newer emigrants do not share the same experience as those with antebellum ancestry and that defining it as the more restrictive group may be useful for some purposes. But does anybody other than this article define it that way?

I've now looked at Gomez (http://books.google.com/books?id=tfHU4mOPMmMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) and I see no definition of "African American" on page 12 (or any of the other pages I've read). Perhaps you could provide such a reference, including the exact text? Unless we can find some source for the inclusion of antebellum in the definition we have no choice but to remove it. If we can find one, then we need to evaluate it in conjunction with all the reliable sources and present a fair representation of what all the reliable sources say.

And this is all orthogonal to the fact that the first sentence of the article is unreadable as it currently is written. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE - I've now looked through the article history and I see that the word antebellum was added by Middayexpress on April 15th. It was removed twice by two different editors and each time reverted immediately by Middayexpress without providing much in the way of reasoning. Finding no reliable source to back up the inclusion of that term, and seeing that it contradicts the rest of the article (e.g. Census data) I'm removing it. Please do not restore without discussing it further here on talk page and providing citations to reliable sources to back up the inclusion of antebellum in the definition. BTW, I would be happy to hear the views of any editor on this matter, not just Middayexpress. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've provided ample explanation for "antebellum". However, dictionary definitions like the ones above are a dime and dozen and are no substitute for actual academic work on African American ethnogenesis (see WP:RS). They are also easily refutable (e.g. "There's 42 million or so African Americans (defined as having some possibly slave and black antebellum ancestry)" [15]; "African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are citizens of the United States who have total or partial antebellum ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" [16]). The fact is, there is no academic work specifically on African American ethnogenesis that suggests that the distinct African American identity was established after the civil war. This is because African history, culture, language, names, geneology and genetics were all formed during this foundational period. I've already linked to several governmental resources whose entire raison d'être is built around this basic reality, such as the National Park Service's African American Heritage and Ethnography program [17]. Notice they are exclusively devoted to actual African Americans. No comparable government websites asserting a different ethnogenesis for African Americans exist since of course there is no other ethnogenesis for African Americans. That said, the second paragraph already explains that "some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations, and their descendants, may be identified or self-identify with the term". However, ledes are reserved for primary meanings, and the primary meaning of "African American" is descendants of people from Africa from the antebellum period, so that's what is indicated. Middayexpress (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the cite to http://www.google.com/books?id=DF5wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT147#v=onepage&q&f=false which I see actually does support the antebellum criteria. It appears to be a "Cliff Notes" study guide, which doesn't exactly preclude us from using it but it's not the highest quality RS. And in any case, it just shows that there are multiple definitions - the question remains: why should we favor your preferred version over the other much more common version? You have repeatedly claimed that the antebellum restriction is "standard" but have offered no evidence of it. Other than the e-study guide every reference you've offered is basicly an exercise in synthesis as far as I can determine. The Gomez book, which was the previous "cite" contains no such support, at least as far as I can tell.

I see you have already edit warred it back to your preferred version - your third revert of the material BTW. Note that every other editor who has weighed in on this disagrees with you. Consensus is fairly clear. But I'll leave the edit-warring to others. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you asked for a citation for antebellum, and provided it was. Regarding whether an "African American" in the popular sense is more frequently an American citizen with antebellum ancestry from West/Central Africa (e.g. Oprah Winfrey) or a recent naturalized citizen originally from the same part of Africa (e.g. Angelique Kidjo), it is certainly the former. This is the crux of the matter and what is meant by "primary meaning" of African American. This is also why there are academic departments around the U.S. on African and African American Studies, such as at Harvard University i.e. because the two are simply not equivalent [18]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a rather amazing piece of sophistry. Because most African Americans are descendents of antebellum ancestors, it follows that only those can be considered African American? It's obvious that we are talking past each other, so let's get some other editors involved. I'm happy to review RS material that supports your claim, but so far you have provided only the e-Study guide and your interpretation of academic writings. The article deserves more than that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for editing help at the Talk pages of the parent projects for this article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Kindly don't quote me out of context. I clearly wrote above that the primary meaning of "African American" pertains to people like Oprah Winfrey rather than Angelique Kidjo. That is, to American citizens with antebellum ancestry from West/Central Africa rather than recently naturalized citizens originally from the same part of Africa. This is a given, as the National Park Service notes [19]. Here's more on the difference between the two from an actual naturalized African immigrant to the United States, Jacob Conteh [20]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary according to whom? As near as I can tell, the only support you have offered for this assertion is an e-Study guide. I can find no passage in any of your other citations that support it. Maybe I just can't see it. Could you please point to a specific passage to verify the assertion? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've provided multiple resources establishing the basic fact that the primary meaning of "African American" is U.S. citizens with antebellum ancestry from Africa (i.e. Oprah Winfrey rather than Angelique Kidjo). The National Park Service website alone notes that "within sixty-five years, almost all enslaved adults would be American-born, or as referred to here, African Americans" [21]. See below for more. Middayexpress (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Good intro

African Americans constitute the second largest racial and ethnic minority in the United States.[8] Most African Americans are of West and Central African descent and are descendants of enslaved blacks within the boundaries of the present United States.[9][10] However, some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations, and their descendants, may be identified or self-identify with the term.

I think the above is quite good and I hope the editing has stabilized. It addressees the issue that some African immigrants do not want their experiences "disappeared" into a larger label of African American. Though, what is more common is that people recognize more than one experience as their own. So one can be both African American and Jamaican etc. futurebird (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it is a very good second paragraph. What do you think of the opening paragraph?

African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are citizens of the United States who have total or partial antebellum ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Seems to me that it would be clearer and more in line with what the reliable sources say if the word "antebellum" was removed. Your take? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "antebellum" is key, as without it the two first paragraphs basically assert the same thing. That is, that "African Americans" are citizens of the United States who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. However, this completely obscures the reality that "African American" in the popular sense does not refer to recent naturalized immigrants from Africa (like Angelique Kidjo), but rather to American citizens with total or partial antebellum ancestry from West/Central Africa (like Oprah Winfrey) [22] [23]. Indeed, on pretty much every wikibio for individuals from both groups, they are identified accordingly in the lede by their actual heritage (viz. Kidjo as of Benin descent, and Winfrey as African American). Similarly, removing "antebellum" ignores the reality of the historic Back-to-Africa movement espoused by many African Americans who wanted to get in touch with the West/Central African portion of their ancestry [24]. West/Central African immigrants generally don't adhere to the modern offshoots of this movement because they haven't experienced the same history as African Americans and since they are already from West/Central Africa. Groups descended from African Americans who migrated to West/Central Africa include the Americo-Liberians and Sierra Leone Creole, both of whom ruled Liberia and Sierra Leone, respectively, as dominant minorities. Middayexpress (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Futurebird: Many African immigrants indeed do not want not only their experiences, but also their very identity to be "lost" within a broader "African American" label. This is due to a variety of reasons depending on the population. For certain groups, it is largely because they don't share any significant ancestry, culture, language and history to begin with the West/Central Africans that African Americans trace the African portion of their ancestry to, nor do these immigrants come from the same part of the large, multiracial African continent. It's like asking Jordanians, Indonesians and other immigrants from Asia to the United States to accept a "Native American" label simply because actual Native Americans historically trace a portion of their quite different ancestry to the same continent. Similarly, most African immigrants, whether from the West, South, East, Horn or North, do not identify as "African American". African American expatriates in Liberia and Sierra Leone are likewise generally not considered by locals as simply natives nor do they regard themselves as such. Middayexpress (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed compromise language

According to the definition used by the US Census African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are residents of the United States having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Some authorrs restrict the definition to include only those individuals who are descended from ancestors who lived in the United States prior the the American Civil War. As a compound adjective, the term is usually hyphenated as African-American.

We can change "Some" in the first sentence to "Many" or "Most" if we can find a reliable source supporting that. Other language changes cheerfully accepted. Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That is unsatisfatory. For one thing, the census is based on self-reporting, as the census bureau itself notes ("For the 2010 Census, the question on race was asked of individuals living in the United States[...] An individual's response to the race question was based upon self-identification" [25]). It has also changed many times over the years, and is apparently about to change again in the 2020 census with the inclusion of a new category aimed at individuals from the Arab world and MENA regions [26]. That said, the first two paragraphs of the intro, however they are phrased, must remain two-part: the first paragraph noting that "African Americans" are first and foremost American citizens with some ancestry from Africa that dates from before the civil war [27] [28]; the second paragraph noting that this ancestry was mainly derived from West/Central Africa, and that some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations, and their descendants, may be identified or self-identify with the term. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (Heard about this discussion via WP:USA); As most sources will fall within the definition used by the Office of Budget and Management, which in turn is used by the United States Census Bureau, perhaps that is the definition that defines the scope of this article. As the definition that specifies those individuals whose primary ancestry are those who were previously from African and brought to what is now the United States via the African Slave Trade, those with "antebellum" heritage, would limit this article to exclude more recent African immigrants (or those with partial more recent African immigrant heritage (such as President Obama)), who may also consider themselves African American. Let the different definitions be well cited, neutrally worded, and given equal weight in the terminology section where it belongs.

Perhaps per WP:LEAD, as the lead section is to summarize the entire article, the different definitions can be briefly touched upon (without giving one definition more weight than an other).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, as a third opinion, I believe that the wording by Mr. Swordfish as proposed on 22 October, is satisfactory, it includes both the Census Bureau definition, and that being supported by the reliable sources emphasized by Middayexpress.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast: It is unsatisfactory because the census bureau definition is based on self-reporting, as the bureau itself notes. The bureau's definition was also different in the past, and is about to change again with the 2020 census. Likewise, in the majority of instances, whether in the local media or on the street, when folks speak of "African Americans", they obviously mean individuals like Oprah Winfrey, not recent naturalized African immigrants like Angelique Kidjo. Most of the immigrants weren't even born in the United States, nevermind within an African American family. This needs to be made clear in the intro, however it is phrased. I think basically the confusion stems from the term "African American" itself, which gives the misimpression that it was originally conceived to allude to all citizens of the United States who emigrated from Africa. In actuality, the term replaced earlier terms for the same American ethnic group and was meant to simply indicate that the enslaved and indentured servant ancestors of African Americans originally hailed from Africa, but that it was uncertain from which exact ethnic groups ([29]; please see below for more). Given this, I think a brief explanation in the lede of the term's genesis is necessary; perhaps in the second paragraph alongside the census' own separate definition. The first sentence should be reserved for the primary meaning of "African American" i.e. what most people understand by that term (there's a quote below from Ben J. Wattenberg to that effect [30]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the antebellum definition

We have been having trouble locating reliable sources to validate the antebellum definition. A few days ago one turned up, which was the exact definition used in this article. The resource is here, It's an online e-Study guide copyright 2015. The definition of "African American" is verbatum copy of what is in the article. So is their definition of "Government", "Civil Rights", "Title IX", "Public", and "Constitution" at which point I stopped checking. It's a Wiki-clone and we cannot use it as a source here.

Here is the closest I've seen: "The term African American refers to those individuals who were born in the United States and who are descendents of African slaves." http://www.google.com/books?id=W5I14RO5yq4C&pg=PA286#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have checked the other candidate sources suggested by Middayexpress and have found nothing in any of them that can be used as a source for inserting "antebellum" into the definition. Perhaps there is supporting language, but I can't find it. At this point, here is the status:

• Only one reliable source has been found to support inserting antebellum into the definition (and it actually says something a bit different). UPDATE: here's a second one.
• Multiple reliable sources are there to support the definition without the word
• A clear consensus has formed to present the definition without "antebellum"
• There may be consensus to present an alternate definition that includes the antebellum restriction. (I haven't seen any oppsition
• It is not clear how to weight the two defintions
• Given the multiple RS that present the non-antebellum definition, I don't think we need to single out the US Census as the only source.

With that in mind, I propose the following modification to the proposal above:

African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are citizens or residents of the United States having total or partial origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. The term is sometimes meant to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves. As a compound adjective, the term is usually hyphenated as African-American.

Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I read on this talkpage somewhere that "having origins in" can be read as "having origins only in", so a qualifier like "total or partial"/"at least partial" may be worth keeping. "Some authors" don´t sound good to me, but I´m not that certain who should be "allowed" to have a say in this. "The term is sometimes meant to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves." could perhaps work, if it is expanded on in the body of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with these improvements and have edited the proposal as suggested. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading again with hyper-critical eyes...

• "Black populations" may be preferable to "Black racial groups".
• "citizens or residents" may be preferable to "residents". I´m not that clear on the difference between citizen/resident here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Many eyes make for a better article. Regarding citizen vs resident, my understanding is that the census counts both - a non-citizen resident would be counted, as would a citizen living abroad. So including both terms is probably best. "Black racial groups" was the exact phrase used in the OMB/Census definition so that's why it's written that way. But if we are geting away from the "According to the census..." construction there's no need to stick with that wording and looking at it again I think what's in the current article effectively captures it once the word antebellum is omitted. I've edited the proposal above to reflect these changes. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the current proposal quite acceptable, well done. As I understand it, "native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa"/"black populations of Africa" means the same thing, and I have no preference for one over the other. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's now live on the main article. Thanks for everyones help. I think we may want to do a small tweak to the second paragraph to make it better align with this intro. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mr Swordfish: I have restored the antebellum reference (without the study guide, which I've replaced), as I was not given a chance to respond to RightCowLeftCoast and demonstrate in the same way you attempted to just how ubiquitous and perennial the antebellum anestry for African Americans indeed is. To start, it is untrue to suggest that only one source has been cited establishing the fact that "African Americans" generally refers to individuals born in the United States with ancestry from Africa dating from the antebellum period (i.e. people like Oprah Winfrey rather than Angelique Kidjo, as their wikibios show). Besides government websites like Afro-American Genealogical Research, I've linked to at least five already:

• "African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are citizens of the United States who have total or partial antebellum ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" [31]
• "There's 42 million or so African Americans (defined as having some possibly slave and black antebellum ancestry)" [32]
• "within sixty-five years, almost all enslaved adults would be American-born, or as referred to here, African Americans" [33]
• "African American refers to individuals born in the United States who are descendants of African slaves or have African ancestry in the United States prior to emancipation" [34]
• "The term African American refers to those individuals who were born in the United States and who are descendants of African slaves" [35]

As I wrote, I could easily produce more since this is the primary, traditional meaning of "African American":

• "African American refers to any person who is a descent of Black American slaves or Black indentured servants" [36]
• "African American refers to individuals born in the United States who can trace his or her ancestry to an enslaved African in the United States" [37]
• "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Africans brought to the United States" [38]
• ""African American" refers to descendants of African slaves who have lived in the United States for generations" [39]
• "the term African American refers to an ethnic group, most often to people whose ancestors experienced slavery in the United States (Soberon, 1996)[...] Thus, not all Blacks in the United States are African American (for example, some are from Haiti and others from the Caribbean)" [40]
• "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States[...] The reason we use an entire continent (Africa) instead of a country (e.g., Irish American) is because slave masters purposefully obliterated tribal ancestry, language, and family units in order to destroy the spirit of the people they enslaved, thereby making it impossible for their descendants to trace their history prior to being born into slavery" [41]
• "African-American refers to the ethnicity of people who were taken from Africa as slaves. The reason they get a continent and everyone else gets a country — Italian-American, Japanese-American, Irish-American — is because African-American cannot say with any certainty where their ancestors came from" [42]
• "Of course, in general usage everyone knows that "African American" refers to American blacks of slave descent" [43]

What's especially telling is that all of the major academic books exclusively on African American identity formation, such as Sullivan et al. (2012), are based on this reality. This perhaps shouldn't come as a surprise since African Americans did after all already exist as a distinct ethnic group with their own history, language, culture, genealogy and genetics long before the recent arrival of African immigrants to the United States. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Much of that is discussed in the article, the lead should reflect the easily understood version of the majority of sources. Not exclude many of the understood meanings of the term "African American". The compromise version is best. Dave Dial (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The lede is now misleading. In particular, the second sentence which claims that "the term is sometimes meant to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves". This is a gross understatement. In actuality, the term "African American" was a) originally conceived for said peoples (not for recent African immigrants to the United States), and b) is still overwhelmingly reserved for said peoples (not just sometimes). Former presidential advisor Ben J. Wattenberg states this outright too ("Of course, in general usage everyone knows that "African American" refers to American blacks of slave descent" [44]). This factually inaccurate sentence must at the very least be corrected. Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing sources. The antebellum version had no citation until today's edit, so we are making progress. Lets examine them one at a time:

• "African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are citizens of the United States who have total or partial antebellum ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" [45] As noted upthread, this is a wiki-clone and not usable for anything on wikipedia.
• "There's 42 million or so African Americans (defined as having some possibly slave and black antebellum ancestry)" [46] Agreed that the author decided to define the term that way and I have no problem with that. But the fact that he had to parenthetically include the definition implies to me that it is not the standard definition.
• "within sixty-five years, almost all enslaved adults would be American-born, or as referred to here, African Americans" [47] I've read this ten times now and still can't see how it supports the antebellum claim.
• "African American refers to individuals born in the United States who are descendants of African slaves or have African ancestry in the United States prior to emancipation" [48] The full quote begins with "For the purposes of this paper..." indicating to me that it's not the standard definition.
• "The term African American refers to those individuals who were born in the United States and who are descendants of African slaves" [49] Used as a source in the current article that the term is sometimes defined that way.
• "African American refers to any person who is a descent of Black American slaves or Black indentured servants" [50] Part of a list of terms under the heading "The following terms are used operationally in this study" Again, this indicates a departure from standard meaning.
• "African American refers to individuals born in the United States who can trace his or her ancestry to an enslaved African in the United States" [51] Full quote: "In this chapter, African American refers to individuals born in the United States who can trace his or her ancestry to an enslaved African in the United States." Why the selective quoting?
• "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Africans brought to the United States" [52] Full quote: " In this chapter, African American refers to descendants of enslaved Africans brought to the United States."
• ""African American" refers to descendants of African slaves who have lived in the United States for generations" [53] It's from a section with the heading "A Note on Terms" wherein the author makes it clear what she means by each term as it might diverge from the standard meaning.
• "the term African American refers to an ethnic group, most often to people whose ancestors experienced slavery in the United States (Soberon, 1996)[...] Thus, not all Blacks in the United States are African American (for example, some are from Haiti and others from the Caribbean)" [54] This is perhaps one of the best sources to inform us about how to weight the two definitions. If I may quote: "A further complication...is the lack of agreement on the terminology used to iidentify groups... Although no clear, unabmbiguous definitions of these terms exist, race primarily refers to a group whose members share a genetic heritage(Curran & Renzetti). Ethnicity primarily refers to a group whose members share a common cultural heritage and sense of belonging(Yetman 1991)." It goes on to describe "Black" as a racial group and "African American" as an ethnic group. IMHO, this is the crux of the disagreement detween the two definitions. Are we talking race or ethnicity?
• "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States[...] The reason we use an entire continent (Africa) instead of a country (e.g., Irish American) is because slave masters purposefully obliterated tribal ancestry, language, and family units in order to destroy the spirit of the people they enslaved, thereby making it impossible for their descendants to trace their history prior to being born into slavery" [55] Further up on the page: "Throughout this chapter the term African American is used because it is consistent with terms used to describe other groups."
• "African-American refers to the ethnicity of people who were taken from Africa as slaves. The reason they get a continent and everyone else gets a country — Italian-American, Japanese-American, Irish-American — is because African-American cannot say with any certainty where their ancestors came from" [56] Here the author is clear that he is speaking about ethnicity.
• "Of course, in general usage everyone knows that "African American" refers to American blacks of slave descent" [57] Ok, he's entitled to that opinion, but maybe someone should tell the OMB what "everyone" knows.

My take is that this indicates that these authors understand that the term has multiple meanings and they are careful to make sure that the reader understands the working definition used in their book or paper. I see nothing to indicate that the "descendents of slaves" requirement is 'standard' or even more common. I do see that many academic works, especially on ethnicity, define it that way. So perhaps "sometimes" can be changed to "often" or something similar to indicate that defining it that way is common, at least in academic works on ethnic studies. But this probably belongs in the "Terminology" section not the lede.

Other than Wattenberg's opinion, I still see no evidence for the claims: "...the term "African American" was a) originally conceived for said peoples (not for recent African immigrants to the United States), and b) is still overwhelmingly reserved for said peoples (not just sometimes)" I'd be happy to review any such evidence. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The antebellum ancestry was already sourced, but you took umbrage at the study guide in question, as is your prerogative. Now at least it's clear that there are many other similar works. That said, the last two italicized passages above Wattenberg explain why African Americans are today called "African American". It's because it is uncertain which specific ethnic groups their African ancestors hailed from, so the continent of Africa as a whole is alluded to instead. Since you suggested that Wattenberg's assertion is an opinion, here's another that asserts more or less the same thing: "African American generally refers to people of African descent from the lineage of African slaves in America" [58]. Given this, I think the second phrase should at the very least be changed to "the term generally refers to those individuals who are descended from African slaves" or some variation thereof. Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We would need to find a reliable source establishing the fact that the term "generally refers" to something. We can't put unverified material in the article. Right now the article says some authors use one definition and some use another; there's plenty of sourcing for that. To say one is more "generally" used than the other would require at least one cite, probably several.

I also can't believe you are still taking the Cram101 e-Study guide seriously. We cannot use sources that reference Wikipedia and that publication is just a re-packaging of ledes from various Wikipedia articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually replaced the study guide like I said I would above, but another user re-added it for some reason. Anyway, I've fixed it again. Regarding the second wikiphrase, it is ironically itself a statement on frequency ("the term is sometimes meant to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves"). It is, however, misleading since the links don't assert that. It must therefore be corrected. To this end, several of the links above beside the italicized statements already discuss the antebellum ancestry of African Americans in relation to recent immigrants from Africa, and they make it clear that "African American" commonly refers to the former (e.g. [59]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish: The phrase "the term is sometimes meant to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves" is original research. As such, it makes no difference whether one or more editors think it's great. Here's what the source actually states: "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States. The reason we use an entire continent (Africa) instead of a country (e.g., Irish American) is because slave masters purposefully obliterated tribal ancestry, language, and family units in order to destroy the spirit of the people they enslaved, thereby making it impossible for their descendants to trace their history prior to being born into slavery" [60]. So how do you want to fix this original research? Or do you not want it corrected at all? Middayexpress (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is perfectly appropriate to say "some authors say X" when there are examples of authors saying X. That said, I've changed the language from "is sometimes meant" to the more neutral "may also be used". Now, please stop the edit-warring. Propose your changes on Talk and see if anyone agrees with them. that's the way we arrive at consensus. Currently, the consensus is to include both forms of the definition; consensus can change but you have to get buy-in from the other editors and so far you haven't. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course "sometimes" is original research since it understates what the source actually asserts, as shown above. The source says that "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States", not just "sometimes". By that logic, "sometimes" should be added to the first line too. Yet you haven't added it there, but instead only reserved it for the second line. I see you've now also unilaterally added other original research to the effect that the term "may also be used to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves." Unfortunately, this too doesn't jibe with what the source actually states: "In this chapter, African American refers to individuals born in the United States who can trace his or her ancestry to an enslaved African in the United States" [61]. That "may also be used" phrase also conflicts with the first wikiphrase since African Americans are already "citizens or residents of the United States having total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa". Either we state what the links actually assert, or it's original research. We can't pick and choose where to add original research qualifiers like "sometimes" or "may also be", while avoiding them for other competing statements. Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the consensus reached above was to treat both definitions briefly in the lede without giving more weight to one than the other. I think the current text accomplishes that. There needs to be wording to indicate the definition is X OR Y - we can't just state it as X in one sentence and then state it as Y in the next because we don't want to contradict ourselves. That's where "may also be used" comes in. I am happy to consider other transitional language. As per RightCowLeftCoast, the definition used by the OMB better reflects the scope of the article so it should come first. I'm not wedded to that, so if there is consensus to place the other definition first I will go along. But we need to reach consensus on that here on the Talk page before changing the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, "sometimes" is ruled out because it is original research and when placed beside the second definition yet not the first, it has the effect of subordinating it to the first. "May also be" appears to put the two definitions on equal footing, suggesting that the second is an alternative to the first. However, this qualifier is also inadequate because, as you pointed out above, the definitions seem to refer to two different things; this indeed appears to be the crux of the disagreement. The OMB definition alludes to "African American" as a race, whereas the antebellum ancestry definition is the traditional definition of the actual "African American" ethnic group and is tied to the term's etymology [62]. Given the disambiguatory hatnote at the top as well as the page's content, particularly its history section, it is clear that the page has always been about the actual African American ethnic group. I don't see how it could be on the OMB's definition when the latter is based on self-reporting, has changed over the years, is about to change again, and is readily rejected by most African immigrants and many Caribbean and Latin and Central American immigrants too. Given this, I think either a) the OMB definition should be removed altogether since ledes should summarize a page per WP:LEDE and the page is already clearly devoted to the ethnic group, or b) the first two sentences should be put on equal footing, with no qualifiers, faithfully stating what the existing sources actually indicate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To change this article be about an ethnic group severally alters the scope of this article, and I would be opposed to that. Rather than using "sometimes" how about "Several sources specify that the term African-American is exclusive to an ethnicity of those who in whole or in part can trace their ancestry to those who arrived in what is now the United States by the Atlantic slave trade."
The consensus is to treat both definitions equally. As of present I don't believe that there is a consensus to change the scope as suggested by Middayexpress above.
Perhaps the best thing to do, given that there is a difficulty to accept consensus is to open a RFC asking What should the scope of the article be?
This is the underlining difference that is leading to the editing in-pass that is above. Allow both sides to provide their reliable sources, as both definitions can be verified by multiple reliable sources, and after a period when a clear consensus has been created, move forward. If the consensus after the RfC is opposed to one view point, I suggest WP:DROPTHESTICK, and move forward.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that "the page has always been about the actual African American ethnic group." Large portions of the material are based on US Census data which uses the definition currently first in the lede. To only have the other definition in the lede would imply that the census data is based on that definition when it is not.

At this point I don't know that continuing to argue is going to be productive. You seem to want one and only one definition to be used when the source material is not so simple. So far you have not persuaded any of the dozen or so editors here of your viewpoint. Perhaps the next step if you want to pursue the matter is to file a request for comment or investigate some other avenue of dispute resolution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I am not proposing changing the scope of the page. What I am saying is two things: 1) The census bureau's definition of "African American" is based on self-reported race and is interchangeable with "Black", while the pre-civil war definition is based on an ethnicity. This was pointed out to me by Mr. Swordfish, and it appears to be right (e.g. [63] [64]). 2) The page's scope is already largely about the actual African American ethnic group, not recent immigrants; especially its history and admixture sections. There doesn't appear to be much if any material therein asserting otherwise. At any rate, I'm satisfied with your compromise wording above RightCowLeftCoast (viz. "Several sources specify that the term African-American is exclusive to an ethnicity of those who in whole or in part can trace their ancestry to those who arrived in what is now the United States by the Atlantic slave trade"). I would only simplify it to make it less long-winded and redundant as: "According to various sources, the term is exclusive to the descendants of African slaves, who form a distinct ethnic group." Works? Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Question, the first source states Soberon, 1996. Please provide this initial source, and why that source should be given significant weight?

I am OK with either phrase, which ever has more consensus backing it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Soberon (1996) is "Latino, Hispanic, both, neither?" published by the University of Florida, Gainesville. It is bibliographed in Martin and Fabes (2008) linked to above [65]. Mr. Swordfish described the latter as one of the best sources we have for proper weighting, which also appears to be correct since it discusses the crux of the definition issue. That said, as you are okay with either phrase, I'll reword the second sentence per the suggested simplification above. Middayexpress (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Second sentence of lede

It currently reads: "The term may also be used to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves." This wording makes it clear that there are two different ways that the term is used. A recent edit (since reverted) changed it to "According to various sources, the term is exclusive to the descendants of African slaves." which is much less clear that there is a divergence in the definition amongst sources and can be read to imply that their is only one way to define the term. I think we need to make that divergence clear. Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and that's why I reverted the change. The previous wording much better reflected the content of the article and let's readers know there are different ways the term is used. Dave Dial (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish: The phrase "according to various sources, the term is exclusive to the descendants of African slaves" is but a slight modification of compromise wording that RightCowLeftCoast proposed yesterday for the second sentence and to which he said he was okay (viz. "Several sources specify that the term African-American is exclusive to an ethnicity of those who in whole or in part can trace their ancestry to those who arrived in what is now the United States by the Atlantic slave trade"). I think his phrasing is preferable here, as it doesn't subordinate the other, ethnic-group based definition to the census bureau's one. But this can be resolved later. Right now, we need to decide between Brigade Piron's first sentence (he changed it in good faith a little prior to my edit), or the one from yesterday that you originally proposed. I think both have merits. However, at present, the first paragraph indicates that a) African Americans are an ethnic group, and that b) that ethnic group may also include descendants of African slaves. Clearly, this is not what the census bureau indicates nor does the first part resemble your original compromise wording. Given this, I think we should either 1) go back to your first sentence from yesterday, and add to RightCowLeftCoast's suggested compromise wording for the second sentence, or 2) retain Brigade Piron's first sentence from today, and add to that RightCowLeftCoast's suggested compromise wording for the second sentence. Thoughts? Middayexpress (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fresh here and it is impossible for me to read all of this and my wife is calling me for dinner. But let me strongly express something, at all cost avoid refering to people in Africa as a black race. It is total nonsense. I see suggestions of black racial people of Africa. what a derogatory construction. seems no other people of any other continent are refereed to like this. --Inayity (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No prob Inayity. There's a straw poll below which summarizes the whole thing. Should take but a minute or two of your time. Middayexpress (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiracial American section

Due to another article, Multiracial American, having a considerable amount of text regarding the issue being discussed I have tagged that section, and informed the page of this discussion, to centralize discussion regarding this issue, as not to create contradictory content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Problematic term "race"

This is not at all my area of specialism, so please feel free to chuck this back at me if you like.

I notice, in particular, that the term "race" is several times in the text. I personally would recommend that this is removed. "African Americans" are clearly not a "race", nor thus a "racial minority". It seems to be used here as a clumsy banner for "black" which is still, in itself, problematic.

I'd also draw your attention to the article on Race (human classification), which adds that "there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable". Frankly, few modern scholars use the term at all as it is closely traced to the Race Theory nonsense of the 19th century. They are, however, certainly an "ethnic group" however.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Brigade Piron. Middayexpress (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the wording "few modern scholars," it depends on how one defines "scholars." And like I recently noted at the Race (human classification) talk page, "Yes, the article is clear that '[t]here is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined.' The lead is also clear about that without driving home the 'sociopolitical construct' angle in the first sentence. The article is also clear that '[s]cholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately. Accordingly, the racial paradigms employed in different disciplines vary in their emphasis on biological reduction as contrasted with societal construction.' So the Race (human classification) article is clear about the biological debate of race, and this talk page has been subject to much debate about it." Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, as plenty of WP:Reliable sources in the African American article show, the term African American is commonly used to mean "race," and is used interchangeably with the term black in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but that usage is much less common in the real world than the ethnic group usage. The racial usage is also based on the census bureau, which itself acknowledges that "African American" is first and foremost a distinct ethnic group of its own [66]. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "race" means "group with shared ancestry vis a vis other groups". Does ancestry "not exist" or something. It's amazing what people will swallow under the liberal PC regime, because "scientists" said it. Lysenko is back. 121.133.79.235 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS I like how you establish the invalidity of applying standard taxonomy to humans by referencing your own wikipedia article. Have fun in your sandbox. 121.133.79.235 (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who or perhaps what this Lysenko is, nor did I allude above to any wiki page. At any rate, the Africa-derived portion of the ancestry of African Americans is most similar to non-Bantu Niger-Congo populations from West/Central Africa [67]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lysenko was a Soviet pseudoscientist who said "genetics does not exist". Opponents were gulaged. Do you agree race meaning ancestry group is valid concept? 121.133.79.235 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Terminology section - requesting minor addition

Change 'Surveys show that the majority of Black Americans have no preference for "African American" versus "Black,"' to 'Surveys from 1991 to 2007 show that...' because that section refers to terminology history as far back as the 1960's, so it would be nice to clarify that those surveys were a bit more recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.209 (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)