Talk:American Descendants of Slavery

Deletion.

African Descendants of Slavery. The Me Too movement has a Wikipedia article and so does Black Lives matter. Which are similar to African Descendants of Slavery. Adjoajo (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

These are not the same movements and all need their own seperate pages. DeWente69 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Permanent change needs be made.

"One of its founders, Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform", described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group"

This page should only deal with the definition of the group anything controversial information both positive or negative to the group should be in a separate section with a neutral stance. Wikipedia should not be used to influence pro or con views of the reader.

Agreed. The SPLC comment seeks to bias readers and discredit their lobbying efforts by branding them a hategroup. Very obvious bias. Sociology In Action (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I read that as suggesting that ADOS is anti-immmigration, not a hate group. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is saying they are anti-immigration? Sociology In Action (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read the article to find who is saying that ADOS is critical of immigration. Your question shows that you haven't. Ok, you don't like the SPLC, but Wikipedia considers it a reliable source when attributed. This article is about the group, not about its definition. We avoid criticism sections and try to integrate negative and positive comments into the article, not in a separate section. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This article remains unnecessarily biased. Each time I attempt to edit and eliminate biased misleading statements, someone is re-adding the biased statements. Please maintain a NPOV. *If you hate ADOS, or view them as merely xenophobic black nationalist rightwingers attacking Obama and Harris unnecessarily, please stop editing. This is an informational encyclopedic entry, not an opinion piece. The entry barely includes any of the agenda of the ADOS organization as stated here: https://adosfoundation.org/black-agenda Random criticisms and tweets are the bulk of the entry. Why? The article will be edited to include all the tenets and unnecessary criticisms will be removed to maintain NPOV. If you have legitimate objections, please state them. Sociology In Action (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

African Descendants of Slavery.

All Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, Me too movement, Black Lives Matter movement they all have Wikipedia articles. Adjoajo (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic

Reminder that his is a page about an organization. It should not attempt to cover the borader topic of reparations for slavery, we have articles that do that. This article needs to be about this ORG and its notable activities. And it needs to be written using WP:SECONDARY sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

*Correction: This article is about a political movement centered around a specific ethnicity and a unique lineage. LineageFirst (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

During edits please remember to keep the history portion in tact. It describes the lineage which is the core of the org's advocacy. If we need to go full historical researcher mode and make a *separate* page to go in depth about the American DOS lineage (using hard facts heavily referenced) maybe that could be our next step. JupitersRedDot (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Reads like it's written by the organisation, fails to suggest it's anti-immigration.[1] More or less needs a complete rewrite. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This page is a direct smear and places no emphasis on the mission of ADOS. Any changes are reverted back to the original propaganda piece. ADOSFileG (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

There is Bias by editor this group isn’t anti immigration nor supportive of trump. See ABC ARTICLE https://abcnews.go.com/US/controversial-group-ados-divides-black-americans-fight-economic/story?id=66832680

People with agendas to paint this movement as right wing should not be allowed to edit this page and add bias. Both founding members are black life long Democrat’s. It is entirely omitted that Yvette Carnell worked for the DNC and was an aide to Congresswoman Boxer of CA. This page is highly inaccurate. Truthsayer21 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Via ABC Carnell denies his accusations.

“I voted for Clinton,” she told ABC News. “I voted for Obama, 2008. The idea that somehow I changed my psyche, became an ultra-conservative figure doesn’t make sense.”

Truthsayer21 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition Farah Stockman author of The NY Times article makes clear that there has been research and ADOS is not funded by the right. See here https://twitter.com/tonetalks/status/1192882005433733121?s=21

Literally this page is someone smearing rather than explaining. The group is nearly all made up of democratic voters. Why is there so much mention of Trump and the Right wing on this page? It has bias Truthsayer21 (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

First, you really need to read WP:AGF and don't attack other editors - if you are talking about me, I've probably blocked at least as many racists as any other Administrator here - the article has to have the negative as well as the positive. The ABC article looks good particularly since it's recent. My question is what would you like to see added to the article? I'd like you to write a paragraph or two (not long ones) showing what you'd like the article to say based on the ABC piece. Read WP:NPOV first though. Then there's this.[2], a bit of it might be useful, but of course attributed to the author, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC) @Truthsayer21: pinging, and can I remind editors here about WP:COI, if any of you are connected with ADOS you should declare your connection per WP:DISCLOSE. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MRHICK01:I respectfully push back at the initial, and ongoing explanations used as justification around maintaining the existing version (as of July 4, 2020) of this problematic Wikipedia article about ADOS. Being a member of this ethnic category as well as being a member of this organization should not in an of itself render responses, requests or even demands for edits compromised and/or illegitimate.

Framing is everything. My contention is that the first paragraph starts as an entryway of misleading arguments made about ADOS and about one of the co-founders, Yvette Carnell. These problems demand that the structure and framing of this entry have a near line-by-line deconstruction of the edits made on the original edits that I made December 2019.

My first concern is: This "American Descendants of Slavery" article frames this group in a pejorative light, and this Wikipedia entry should not do such a thing.

For example, this selection: "...calling for the descendants of slaves to be given priority over other African Americans and to have their own racial classification..." is a misleading statement lacking context and presents a troublesome appearance that the group holds dangerous positions that compromise its integrity or legitimacy. What is being called for is not an additional "racial" classification. If anything, it is an expansion of United States Census interpretation of ethnicity as it concerns Black Americans.

Next, "...to be given priority" is a selection that could be interpreted as asking for something this group should not and does not deserve. Such a wording poses a danger through not allowing objectivity nor understanding about the group. This is the durable problem the first paragraph presents to the entire Wiki entry about ADOS. If an argument is that an entry should not more or less be a propaganda piece arguing for ADOS, neither should it be one that frames the movement as one with sinister notions or illegitimate.

Let us examine another selection. "They believe that the differences are enough to establish different ethnicities between the groups and that descendants of slaves are disadvantaged compared to other African Americans." This is another troublesome sentence. As framed, there is a danger that it can lead others to react negatively to and about ADOS. The "differences" that ADOS have center around the problem of a people in America denied accurate redress for the atrocities they have suffered as a group since being brought to the shores of what came to be known as America in 1619, and what was the United States of America after 1776.

ADOS, as political movement, are a group of American citizens who assert legal standing whose ancestors were brought to this nation involuntarily, in chains, subjected to innumerable atrocities over the centuries that are yet not sufficiently addressed.

The ADOS political position is well described by authors William A. Darity, Jr. and A. Kirsten Mullen, authors of "From Here To Equality: Reparations For Black Americans in the Twenty-First Century":

"Racism and discrimination have perpetually crippled black economic opportunities. At several historic moments the trajectory of racial inequality could have been altered dramatically, but at each juncture, the road chosen did not lead to a just and fair America.

The formation of the republic provided a critical moment when blacks might have been granted freedom and admitted to full citizenship. The Civil War and the Reconstruction era each offered openings to produce a true democracy thoroughly inclusive of Black Americans. Had the New Deal project and the GI Bill fully included blacks, the nation would have widened the window of opportunity to achieve an equitable future. Passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s might have unlocked the door for America to eradicate racism.

However, at none of these forks was the path to full justice taken."

ADOS' very existence is because of the economic divide between black and white Americans. More from Darity & Mullen:

...Specifically, we contend, a suitably designed program of reparations can close the divide. Black reparations can place America squarely on the path to racial equality."

The ADOS argument for redress and justice draws a thick line from the nation's origins to the present. The ADOS argument for specificity is based upon three tiers or phases of injustice that afflicts Black American descendants of chattel slavery to the present: "slavery, American apartheid (Jim Crow), and the combined effects of present-day discrimination and the ongoing deprecation of Black lives."

This is the context that is lacking in the first paragraph, and the lack of such facts lead to the final three sentences of the first paragraph presenting biased, wrong conclusions and dangerous misinformation about both ADOS and Yvette Carnell. Who has determined that "Progressives For Immigration Reform" are an anti-immigration group? Second, what does wearing a red "Make America Great Again (MAGA)" hat have to do with anything concerning ADOS as a political movement? In the original YouTube video, the hat was literally used a prop, a plot device around a larger issue topic of whether ADOS as a group would be able to have its interests addressed from the Trump administration, as he had just won the November 2016 election and had become the president-elect. The hat was not a statement of any formal affiliation or affinity with the Republican Party or American conservatives, particularly white American conservatives, who harbor bigoted or even racist views about Black Americans or others. Third, where is the argument or evidence "the group has received support from conservatives" above or beyond an Ann Coulter Tweet? Ann Coulter's presence in this entry only exists to delegitimize the ADOS American justice claim because the structure of the first paragraph frames an argument of "Ann Coulter is a polemic and incendiary American conservative (who, by extension, should be shunned or dismissed by upright human beings), she posted a Tweet 'liking' the hashtag #ADOS, so there, #ADOS should be viewed in the same light as Ann Coulter." This is problematic and a fatal error for this Wikipedia entry. All of it needs to go. If Ann Coulter also likes air and breathing, should the rest of us stop doing so because a disagreeable person has an opinion?

Ann Coulter has never been, and is in no way affiliated with the ADOS political movement. As can be witnessed, her suggestion of "...but I think it should be #DOAS — Descendants of American Slaves..." has never been applied or even taken seriously by members who profess an affinity or affiliation with ADOS.

Other non-ADOS Black Americans who have had parents or grandparents emigrate to America after 1965 and whose children are born American citizens, have likely experienced individual acts of racism from bigoted individuals or even as representatives of larger institutions that may harbor some latent or even intention skin-color biases that cause harm to said Black Americans...however that is not the same argument of ADOS. The American Descendants of Slavery seek redress as a group of legal standing in the United States, American citizens, whose ancestors have been the burden-bearers of (and this is critical) slavery in this nation called America since its founding via the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

From my perspective, it seems that the contention of "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (December 2019)" has been used as a bludgeon to erase every and all subsequent complaints about the framing of this article. I have less interest in divining the "why" of this, as opposed to demanding that changes be made and such edits that change this problematic framing be allowed to remain as the official entry and not consistently reversed by one or two editors who have made wrongful assumptions about ADOS, whether they be accidental or intentional.

tl;dr Allow for a better explained Wikipedia article about "American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS)," because as constituted, this is not it. MRHICK01 (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC) MRHICK01 (talk)

I think it can be improved but the editors coming from ADOS don't seem aware or perhaps interested in our policies and guidelines. We can't use Twitter as a source, any context needs to come from reliable independent sources discussing ADOS (eg [3]), and we have to show the good and the bad. If you have independent reliable sources describing ADOS that aren't in the article, by all means bring them here. What we cannot do is depend only upon ADOS for a description of itself. ADOS is controversial (see sources in article and others such as [4] and that has to be reflected in the article. The controversy seems to have even reached Nigeria.[5]

@MRHICK01: how about writing a description of the movement that is reliably sourced with sources that discuss ADOS and shows all significant viewpoints. Start a new section here. Use Help:Referencing for beginners to cite. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Two more sources, [6] and [7] I also agree with the editor below that we can use the Vox source for "But this movement has also faced criticism — not for its call for reparations, but for how it discusses immigration and black identity. Critics have argued that some ADOS activists are openly xenophobic and that the movement endorses an unnecessarily limited definition of “blackness,” dismissing the ways slavery and colonization have affected other groups in the African diaspora. When I asked Moore and Carnell to respond to these criticisms earlier this year, they said that the movement was “seeking to establish that there was a specific debt to a specific group of people.”. This allows a response to the criticism. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/11/18246741/reparations-democrats-2020-inequality-warren-harris-castro] Doug Weller talk 12:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

User:MRHICK01 A submission being flagged and denied for a COI is unconscionable in this instance! The initial paragraph along with the editor guidance were all considered in the sourcing and resubmission! It is concerning enough that I was labeled as COI, fine, I understand...if there are references that have missing flags that need to be refined, understandable, those can be brought into compliance as well.

What appears to be happening here, however, is that "conflict of interest" concerns are being left to use as a bludgeon to silence critiques around a nakedly slanted misrepresentation of what an organization is versus what a public record actually states. What, specifically, in my revision, was especially problematic and what needs to be done to bring it into acceptance? As it stands, these COI concern trolling provides a convenient excuse. MRHICK01 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MRHICK01 It is both unfortunate and disturbing that I am being flagged for a "conflict of interest." My submissions can be, and should be judged on the veracity of its content and whether all sources can be properly traced. In our submissions on July 17 & 18, I strived to do so to the best of my ability.

I can accept that my submissions for this subject would have to be third-party reviewed before considering an update, but to have them rejected summarily out of hand because...reasons, is unacceptable. This is a touchy subject. This is much like you are telling Black Americans that they cannot add or delete or edit information to a Wiki article because they're Black American creating a "conflict of interest." Moreover, those that render and judge such decisions have to be non-Black American, because...how could they possibly be objective?

That may not be the intent, but the optics are horrible. MRHICK01 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@MRHICK01: please don't start a post with your username, it looks as though it's addressed to you and it's only when you read down to the bottom that we find out it's from you. The COI suggestion is because you describe yourself as " Co-facilitator of #ADOSLouisville. #ADOS Ambassador." No one should reject a suggestion from someone with a conflict of interest just because of that conflict, and I certainly haven't. If you read WP:COI, and I hope you do, it's very clear about that: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." Doug Weller talk 16:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: there is a massive amount of form and process in the management of this platform that I have yet to understand. There is a...not small amount of information that has to be absorbed about how to do things on this medium.

That said, any errors to date have not been any rooted in ill intent. It is the basis of that concept, "not rooted in ill intent," that formed the crux of my edit wishes. My challenge has been in understanding how to properly do all of this.

As a person who happens to be African American, a member, if you will, ethnically of "American Descendants of Slavery," I have been aware, and made aware, of durable criticisms that have been made about the political movement. I absolutely understand that this medium is an online encyclopedia that does its utmost to have the highest of standards and objectivity. It is that understanding, in part, that guides my motivation to edit the critical selections around ADOS, not for the purpose of removing negative information merely for its sake, but for the fact that the charges of right-wing affiliations are simply not true, and they can be verified from two sources: an ABC News article that covered Yvette Carnell and the ADOS movement in January 2020 as well as a source directly from the reporter who covered an inaugural ADOS conference in Louisville, Kentucky for a story that published November 8, 2019...but it was commentary via Tweet where Farah Stockman explicitly stated that she had no evidence of conservative or right-wing affiliations that drove the ADOS political movement. That matters.

This process has been extremely, and in my opinion, unnecessarily frustrating. I acknowledge that there is much about this platform that I need to come to understand, and I'm willing to learn it. However, my interactions with this process are not positive. MRHICK01 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV: The article seems biased - moreso viewing ADOS ideologies as MERELY xenophobic vs recognizing that these arguments developed during the civil rights movement. This movement has had to make an ethnic distinction due to differing histories & experiences. Also of note is immigrated groups seeking to further oppress Amerindians/ADOS vs understanding their political discourse with US Govt. ADOS civil rights movement begins with slavery, immigrated groups wouldn't share this trauma and that aspect can be clarified. Sociology In Action (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

User:MRHICK01: Please change the entire first paragraph of the American Descendants of Slavery article to:

American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) is a lineage-focused political movement that advocates for the specific justice claim held by the descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States from its colonial period to the present. "ADOS…sets out to shift the dialogue around the identity of what it is to be African American in an effort to move the discussion from melanin, and properly center the discussion around lineage.” ADOS as both an identity and a political movement developed out of a necessity for targeted policies to address the cumulative injustices committed against ADOS, of which the wealth gap that exists between their group and other population cohorts is that legacy’s most vivid expression, in tandem with an comprehensive black agenda as detailed in their “New Deal For Black America”. As American citizens, ADOS assert that the numerous injustices committed specifically against their group have never been sufficiently addressed. The argument for specificity is based upon three tiers or phases of injustice that afflicts Black American descendants of chattel slavery to the current moment: "slavery, American apartheid (Jim Crow), and the combined effects of present-day discrimination and the ongoing deprecation of Black lives.". Therefore, in order to highlight the need for targeted, comprehensive repair, their political interests suggest a reconsideration of the U.S. Census definition of ethnicity to individuate their group from black. The ADOS argument for redress reveals a thick line from the nation’s origins directly to the present.

The ADOS movement has also faced criticism — not for its call for reparations, but for how it discusses immigration and black identity. Critics have argued that some ADOS activists are openly xenophobic and that the movement endorses an unnecessarily limited definition of “blackness,” dismissing the ways slavery and colonization have affected other groups in the African diaspora. For #ADOS activists, though, the question is not about “blackness.” “This whole argument…is really ridiculous,” Yvette Carnell, a cofounder of the #ADOS movement, said in an interview (in February 2019). “We’re saying there is a difference in the justice demands for people who are descendants of slaves in this country and those who were enslaved (elsewhere).” Antonio Moore, also a cofounder, responded to the critique as follows: “To say that is to ignore the ... struggle that undergirds this group from slavery to Jim Crow to mass incarceration. Our families built America and now suffer because everyone wants to ignore that reality.”

There have been additional criticisms of ADOS that the hashtag is linked to posts spreading disinformation and political division ahead of the presidential election. In a January 2020 web news and video article, ABC News found "no concrete evidence that the ADOS movement is part of the disinformation campaigns that plagued the 2016 election.” Farah Stockman, New York Times reporter who covered the inaugural #ADOS Conference, said in a November 2019 Tweet on her account of these accusations: “As much as I love a good conspiracy, I also know black women are fully capable of making up their minds without funding from white men. Unless I see evidence, I accept Yvette Carnell as a true believer in what she is saying.”

MRHICK01 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@MRHICK01: it wouldn't be right for me to decide on this because I'm involved. First, this is an article, the word Wiki refers to a website. The material from ABC news is a copyright violation which I'll leave temporarily although technically I should delete it. We'd need page numbers for Derity and Mullen and since there's no preview, could you please quote the text from the book which backs the text you wish to add. We need secondary sources for some of the material from ADOS itself - this is standard - I'm not saying this is true of ADOS, but some organisations and people try to present a public face which is there to make something not so good look good. I don't see sources for the criticisms or at least some of them, and we don't use Twitter as a source.

Finally, the WP:LEAD needs to summarise the main points of the article (which is where most of the sources should be, backing up those points). Does yours? Doug Weller talk 11:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I should also note that given that you call yourself an ADOS Ambassador, you have a conflict of interest so making proposals here first is a good idea. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

User:MRHICK01On Farah Stockman: "Twitter as a source" is relevant here because it was commentary about her New York Times article that she did not include in her primary piece, and/or was edited out of the article that is particularly relevant to the ADOS article and the criticism against it and Yvette Carnell in this online encyclopedia. This would appear to be a circumstance that would demand an exception.

Why would quotes from an ABC news article be a copyright violation if you are referencing commentary directly relevant to answering critics? If you are acknowledging where the source comes from? Fair use?

The page numbers that reference the Darity/Mullen parts from the book are included in the references.

Certainly this article must meet Wikipedia's demanding standards. It is concerning, however, that there appears to be a level of pushback that leans favorable to critiques of ADOS as opposed to citing, acknowledging them and presenting an accounting of facts. The main points of the article...well, there was an original entry that I submitted in December 2019, but nearly all of it was taken apart and replaced with a Frankenstein of an article.

A number of the references in the current iteration of the article references realities, as I must be honest, have nothing to do with American Descendants of Slavery as neither identity nor political movement. ADOS is an American politically self-interested group as well as ethnicity. "Supporters of ADOS push the issue on social media with the hashtag #ADOS, a hashtag which the New York Times reported has been used by Trump supporters." This was written by Stockman in the New York Times article. However, so what? Critics have said such things, but those criticisms are not factually accurate. Moreover, it is problematic that the rules that this digital encyclopedia requires are being used as a bludgeon to legitimize these right-wing critiques. That is particularly troublesome.

In that Stockman New York Times article, there is also this: "But Mr. Moore, 39, and Ms. Carnell, 44, say they are not scapegoating black immigrants or trying to lead black voters astray. They say they are merely demanding something tangible from Democrats in exchange for votes and trying to raise awareness around the economic struggles of many black Americans.

Ms. Carnell said she learned of the huge disparities in inherited wealth that left black Americans with a tiny share of the economic pie by reading reports, including an Institute for Policy Studies report that predicted the median wealth of black families would drop to zero by 2053. Mr. Moore had been talking about some of the same studies on his own YouTube channel. The two joined forces in 2016 and coined the term ADOS, which spread as a hashtag on social media."

I must continue to respectfully assert: if this article in Wikipedia cannot be and is not a press release (and should not be) for the American Descendants of Slavery article, neither should it be allowed to legitimize critiques that about right-wing alliances or harmful other positions that do not exist. I find that especially problematic. MRHICK01 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The ABC material seems to be missing a beginning quotation mark, and I missed the end one. As for Stockman, you want to use some of what she wrote but not other bits? And so far as I've seen, not all or even most of the criticism has been right wing. And we still need quotes from the book, page numbers aren't enough. No disrespect but new editors often don't understand our sourcing policy. A source can be very good but not used correctly. I don't have time to keep responding. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've notified the three Wikiprojects mentioned above, asking for someone uninvolved to help. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done ADOS as both an identity and a political movement developed out of a necessity for targeted policies to address the cumulative injustices committed against ADOS in the voice of WP seems to be POV. Also, the lede would become too long in relation to the article. Since MRHICK01 (talk · contribs) is an ADOS ambassador (as he honestly tells us on his user page) and all his contributions so far are connected with ADOS, WP:COI applies. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

MRHICK01Unacceptable. My position does not give me a "biased" point of view if this section is rewritten as a neutral lede. Given that this is a topic on a matter of race and race in America, this argument leads to a slippery-slope of who can and cannot edit and or submit suggestions, and that is highly problematic. As it stands, nothing about the lede of this Wikipedia article as it stands currently is neutral. MRHICK01 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MRHICK01: Please change the entire first paragraph of the American Descendants of Slavery article from:

American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) is a lineage-focused political movement that seeks to advocate for people who are descendants of the enslaved Africans in America from its colonial period onward. It focuses on the difference between African Americans whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were not, calling for the descendants of slaves to be given priority over other African Americans and to have their own racial classification. They believe that the differences are enough to establish different ethnicities between the groups and that descendants of slaves are disadvantaged compared to other African Americans. Their skepticism concerning immigration has attracted criticism and the suggestion that they are dividing African Americans and targeting Democrats. One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform", described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group.[1] The group has received support from conservatives including Ann Coulter who weeted "I like #ADOS, but I think it should be #DOAS — Descendants of American slaves. Not Haitian slaves, not Moroccan slaves", and criticism from the left.[2]

to:

American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) is a lineage-focused political movement that advocates for the specific justice claim held by the descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States from its colonial period to the present. "ADOS…sets out to shift the dialogue around the identity of what it is to be African American in an effort to move the discussion from melanin, and properly center the discussion around lineage.” As American citizens, ADOS assert that the numerous injustices committed specifically against their group have never been sufficiently addressed. The argument for specificity is based upon three tiers or phases of injustice that afflicts Black American descendants of chattel slavery to the current moment: "slavery, American apartheid (Jim Crow), and the combined effects of present-day discrimination and the ongoing deprecation of Black lives.". Therefore, in order to highlight the need for targeted, comprehensive repair, their political interests suggest a reconsideration of the U.S. Census definition of ethnicity to individuate their group from black. The ADOS movement has also faced criticism — not for its call for reparations, but for how it discusses immigration and black identity. Critics have argued that some ADOS activists are openly xenophobic and that the movement endorses an unnecessarily limited definition of “blackness,” dismissing the ways slavery and colonization have affected other groups in the African diaspora. For #ADOS activists, though, the question is not about “blackness.” “This whole argument…is really ridiculous,” Yvette Carnell, a cofounder of the #ADOS movement, said in an interview (in February 2019). “We’re saying there is a difference in the justice demands for people who are descendants of slaves in this country and those who were enslaved (elsewhere).” MRHICK01 (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @MRHICK01: I think the current lede is pretty neutral and based on WP:RS. Regarding bias: I'd suggest that you read WP:CoI, in particular this sentence: That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith, meaning that nobody has doubts about your integrity. And please remember that WP editors are voluntarily sacrificing part of their time in order to build a quality encyclopedia. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MRHICK01 And Rsk6400, I have invested two weeks of my time inquiring, engaging in rewrites to comply with Wikipedia standards, and being repeatedly, summarily rejected. So I am voluntarily sacrificing my time as well, and my time is every bit as valuable as yours. Or Doug Weller's.

What does "pretty neutral" actually mean? What about this selection of the lede is "pretty neutral?"

From what source did this selection in the first paragraph, "One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform" come from?

I understand that the rest of the sentence, "described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group" is cited from the article at https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/01/31/workers-organization-shares-staff-cash-anti-immigrant-groups, but Yvette Carnell's name is not in that article. Why is it there? Why is the Carnell affiliation uncited? Where did this selection come from, what source? Why has this selection been allowed to remain on this Wikipedia article for months and every request to remove this manipulative text denied?

Moreover, there should be an opportunity, and it has been recorded in nationally recognized, public sources, that the implications assumed around such connections (PFIR) be explained, but you are not allowing for that explanation. You are allowing an undeserved value judgment to be made about the American Descendants of Slavery, and I find that disgusting. This is not an example of a "quality encyclopedia."

Next, what's the relevance of an Ann Coulter Tweet to the ADOS political movement? Why is this even in the lede? Yes, NY Times reporter Farah Stockman included that about the inaugural ADOS Conference in her November 8, 2019 article, but why would a subsequent Stockman Tweet, specifically referencing the article that she wrote for the Times, disavowing Carnell's links to the right-wing and shadowy affiliations be repeatedly disallowed? Challenge! Objection!

"Pretty neutral" my eye. The Coulter sentences must be removed. As soon as possible. Immediately.

My respectful contention is this: an article does need to be balanced, and for an encylopedia's purposes, it has to deal with many facets of a subject in limited space. The problem is the links and suggestions of right wing associations are erroneous. They are not true. And repeated attempt to contend with that issue have been rejected—at first, for reasons of form and process bordering on pedantry, but it has unfortunately evolved to rejection because of "conflict of interest." Such conflict should at worst, if one is not operating in bad faith, be subject for peer review, but we cannot ever garner that, and it is not just. MRHICK01 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: I can't tell what the hell is going on with the template usage. Whatever it is, I'm closing the request since there seems to be no consensus for the change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Page Errors

There are a several issues with this page. It is being used to smear rather than explain ADOS American Descendants of Slavery. 1) It fails to mention that cofounder Antonio Moore wrote for several years for left leaning economic think tank Institute For Policy Studies through their site Inequality.org Link https://inequality.org/authors/antonio-moore/ All while having information about Carnell that is both incomplete and inaccurate.

In addition it cites to NY Times article by finding every negative claim but omits the overall content of the article and any positives. It should include both positives and negatives or none.

As an example the page says Ann Coulter supports ADOS. When the text of the Times article only says she wrote a tweet. That has no place on the description page as if she funded, promoted or is in leadership of ADOS which she does not it was one tweet which says the name should be changed. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/slavery-black-immigrants-ados.html Here tweet was a direct attack and request to change our name and was only this single tweet. Why would it be on a wikipedia describing the group. Full Coulter Tweet Tariq: I like #ADOS, but I think it should be #DOAS - Descendants of American slaves. Not Haitian slaves, not Moroccan slaves, etc. Truthsayer21 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the tweet. "Like" surely means support, but I've changed the text to show the full tweet. This WAPO article from last year[8] looks like a good source as it's making the point about the distinction between those whose ancestors were American slaves and those who were not. It calls Moore part of a group of liberal activists, which I think is part of your argument. Of course it also says "Carnell once wore a “Make America Great Again” hat in a video, later saying it was a joke. The ADOS website, maintained by Carnell and Moore, says data support Trump’s assertion that black voters have “nothing to lose” by seeking an alternative to the Democratic Party. Carnell and Moore attack prominent liberals who have advocated a public study of the reparations issue, including author Ta-Nehisi Coates, calling the notion of a preliminary study a “cop-out” and criticizing Coates’s past support of Obama. Tweets carrying the ADOS hashtag regularly raise the possibility of supporting Trump in 2020 or otherwise punishing Democrats if they don’t endorse a lineage-based reparations program." which gives some balance. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This response shows that the person editing is making there own message on This page. Saying I’m a liberal activist cleans nothing up. I Wright for a left wing think tank for two years it needs to be corrected. Also Carnell worked for the DNC, voted Democratic her whole life and worked for two democratic congressmen as a political aide. You need to correct this or we can simply elevate it to a have a 3rd party review. What was Addis’s five little to no balance. Also a random singular tweet from Coulter has no place on our description page. We had Cornell West and Marianne Williamson as speakers at our conference. What the editor Weller did was attempt to paint a group made up almost entirely of Democratic voters as right wing. carnell has 200 shows he basically took 20 seconds of a clip to paint her as wearing a hat daily. This must be changed. It is a description page. Truthsayer21 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo I wrote for a left wing think tank for two years on wealth inequality inequality.org. This whole page needs to be corrected. Truthsayer21 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Coulter is not supporting ADOS as a movement she’s saying the terminology should be changed but peaked her interest. Why is her tweet on this description page as if she’s on a board, contributes money or was a keynote speaker. Literally this editor has no mention of Cornel West and this inappropriate add of Coulter and Carnell wearing a hat. Truthsayer21 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

American Descendants of Slavery is a reparations and black agenda movement, with a specific lineage as a qualifier.

Although lineage is the qualifier, it is unnecessary to mention it in the paragraph lead as an ethnic distiction or comparison to other groups while omitting the MAIN purpose of ADOS, which revolves around a black agenda and reparations in reponse to a lineage/racial wealth gap sourced from leading economists.

The following below is a misrepresentation. 

"It focuses on the difference between African Americans whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were not, calling for the descendants of slaves to be given priority over other African Americans and to have their own racial classification."

ADOSFileG (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I mentioned in my prior response that a black agenda and reparations in response to empirical linrage/wealth gap data are the central focus of American Descendants of Slavery with it's distinct lineage as a qualifier. The source below from Vox Media, reflects this same stance with the ADOS founders.

"'Antonio Moore and Yvette Carnell, the co-founders of and most prominent voices in the current ADOS movement, explained that they believe that ADOS should be seen as a specific identity.

On its website, the movement says that it “seeks to reclaim/restore the critical national character of the African American identity and experience, one grounded in our group’s unique lineage.”

When it comes to reparations, Moore says, “we’re not having an abstract conversation about what whiteness and blackness makes you feel. We’re having a very detailed conversation about what the data means for black people.”

“We are talking about repairing black communities,” he adds.

On Twitter, and through online radio programs and YouTube channels, Moore and Carnell have argued that policy — and politicians — need to focus more on specific issues affecting black Americans descended from slavery in the US. They call for reparations as part of a larger “black agenda” that looks at things like ending mass incarceration, investing in historically black colleges and universities, and increasing federal investment in small businesses.'"

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/11/18246741/reparations-democrats-2020-inequality-warren-harris-castro > ADOSFileG (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

ADOSFileG (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Truthsayer21: you haven't responded to my request in the section above to suggest some wording for the article. You also appear to be saying publicly that you are Antonio Moore ("I wrote") - ah, you've said something similar on your talk page a few days ago, but you still haven't complied with WP:COI. Your colleague User:ADOSFileG is smearing me on Twitter. This doesn't make me inclined to help, but I have improved the description of you and Carnell. Comply with COI and suggest some text as asked for above and I may be willing to help more. Meanwhile you can go to WP:NPOVN if you wish. User:ADOSFileG you also appear to have a conflict of interest here. And your opinion isn't a "3rd opinion" as you've already edited. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok I’ll suggest text in coming days. Truthsayer21 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Truthsayer21: 4 months later and you haven't done this. And by the way, if you want me to take you seriously, retract the lie about my edit making it look as though she wore a hat daily. An edit I've deleted anyway by the way. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem in retracting that red hat statement and thanks for the help but again this page still has issues above the fold. How do you have this Ann Coulter tweet to neither Cofounder on a page about Black activism because she felt like tweeting? But you have omitted both Cornel West and Marianne Williamson coming on my show for hrs and coming across the country to attend the ados conference. This Coulter tweet has no place on an about us. Again please remove it. I have no issue retracting the hat comment. In addition If your going to mention Yvette and the Pfir board in the top fold you have to mention me and inequality.org in the top fold. You can’t pick and choose. Or you can cut both out and move that section down where you discuss us individually. Look at the 2hrs with Cornel West I did with just yesterday Tonetalks Youtube. I don’t know anything about that Coulter tweet.

User:MRHICK01Query: From what source did this selection in the first paragraph, "One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform" come from?

I understand that the rest of the sentence, "described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group" is cited from the article at https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/01/31/workers-organization-shares-staff-cash-anti-immigrant-groups, but Yvette Carnell's name is not in that article. Why is it there? Why is the Carnell affilation uncited? Why has this selection been allowed to remain on this Wikipedia article for months and every request to remove this manipulative text denied?

Next, what's the relevance of an Ann Coulter Tweet to the ADOS political movement? Why is this even in the lede? Yes, NY Times reporter Farah Stockman included that about the inaugural ADOS Conference in her November 8, 2019 article, but why would a subsequent Stockman Tweet, specifically referencing the article that she wrote for the Times, disavowing Carnell's links to the right-wing and shadowy affiliations be repeatedly disallowed? Challenge! Objection!

The Coulter sentences must be removed. As soon as possible. Immediately. MRHICK01 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone keeps editing this page with an Agenda. Ados was on the cover of the NY Times in print. And has chapters across the country. Please block the person adding this to our page. Or just remove the page if you cant monitor it properly. This is the inaccurate line: "It is a group of about 60 people in the Atlanta, Georgia area, as of early 2020" --

The source they are using is a local Atlanta news site piece on one single chapter in Atlanta which is 60 people. That is not ADOS nationally. Our movement didn't start in Atlanta its nationally in cities across the country. There has been coverage of ADOS from the print cover of the New York Times, ABC and CNN. Marianne Williamson and Cornell attended our conference.

The source clearly says it this is just that single chapter remove this immediately. Lawson describes ADOS as a loosely formed confederation of people interested in reparations and political advocacy that has grown to about 60 in number in Atlanta.

I removed the line and they add it back. Please remove it permanently. It is inaccurate.

  Truthsayer21 (talk) 01:19, 07 September 2020 (UTC)

A local Atlanta newspaper wrote: "Lawson describes ADOS as a loosely formed confederation of people interested in reparations and political advocacy that has grown to about 60 in number in Atlanta." To deduce from it that the ADOS members are ONLY found in Atlanta region, seems to me a grave misrepresentation of the source. That's why I restored the earlier version. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue with the earlier version is it is biased toward the bottom the prior editor is selectively adding material. In the section they add a blurb about Yvette Carnell in my view too early butkeep removing the next blurb about Moore. You add both or neither but can not have just one to present bias. One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform", described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group.The other founder Antonio Moore wrote on liberal think tank Institute for Policy studies site Inequality.org on economics and race for several years.

Please add both sentences on the 2 co-founders or omit both the latter is likely proper to omit both that high up as that there is a section lower that it can be added.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Please link the following categories: African-American society Ethnic groups in the United States History of civil rights in the United States People of African descent African-American culture ADOS MMXX (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@ADOS MMXX: I've done this to the best of my ability, not all had articles although in one case I found a substitute. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Error in About Us

The entire section with Ann Coulter should not be on this page she has no contact with this group and made a tweet telling us to change our name to a person that is not a founder and you included it in our description. That is offensive at worst inaccurate at best. By what right is this woman on our page because she did a tweet. Please remove that section immediately. That is not a about page for Wikipedia. Why would someone’s random tweet to some one that is not not even a founder be on our about us is this a smear page?

It's not your page, it's an article in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That’s the point it is not your page to put random ideas and selectively choose. Why is Ann Coulter in here like she is on a board for ADOS OR came to our conference. This is craziness that this is in an about us and everything that actually occurred is omitted. She sent a tweet to neither of the founders about another term and it was rejected by the founders. How is someone’s random tweet on the about us? That’s not the way you tell our story. All this while Marianne Williamson who was a Presidential candidate and came to our conference is omitted. WHAT IS THIS PAGE? There are several errors similar to this here.

The IP is out of line, but I think it's a bit weird to have this discordant information about Ann Coulter in the lede, which is meant to summarize the contents of the article—Ann Coulter is not mentioned in the body of the article. It's jarring, and doesn't belong there. Carlstak (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carlstak: yes, I think the issue here is how to use the Stockman source.[9] Doug Weller talk 14:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Their skepticism concerning immigration has attracted criticism and the suggestion that they are dividing African Americans

"Critics had argued that some ADOS activist are xenophobic." What critics and do they have an agenda? ADOS have been called bots with no proof, please include  this smear by MSNBC-Joe Reid  in the article. It highlights ADOS is oddly attacked without any proof. 

"Dividing African Americans" We are not a monolithic group, nor is any other ethnic group in America/U.S. This line implies a monolith is expected.

We are pro immigrations , but note a distinction is necessary to have correct data. Most current data place anyone Black in ONE  group.  Africans have 2 passports and often have duel  citizenship.  The Africans that were able to move to the U.S. are also distinct from poor Africans that are financially not able to move from county to country. 

The are also financially better off than ADOS. When their data is lumped with ADOS data, it paints a FALSE picture.

They also have tribes and carry that tribal pride here in the U.S. ADOSJoy Mary Lee (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC) is affirming, we  too are connected, but not to an African flag. The very people that are proud of their homeland/ national flag and heritage are upset we are now proud of ours. 

Lastly, reparations is a LEGAL claim. With any legal claim a distinction must be made to identify the injured party. Some immigrant are upset with this. This envy is not our fault, and we hope they will support our legal claim, even though they are NOT a part of it. I support any redress or reparations of any African or or Caribbean nation.

Joy Mary Lee (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Joy Mary Lee (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joy Mary Lee: there's no way to question the source and we don't need to. The only issue is whether a source passed WP:RS criteria and is used in accordance with WP:NPOV criteria. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say about them, and your knowledge or mine can't be used. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

After the weeks of discussion, I place this here for review after conversation with multiple editors around best practices and coming to an editing proposal that can work for multiple parties while maintaining the high standards of this web encyclopedia. I want to thank the Wikipedia editors for their input and patience.

Please change from:

American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) is a lineage-focused political movement that seeks to advocate for people who are descendants of the enslaved Africans in America from its colonial period onward. It focuses on the difference between African Americans whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were not, calling for the descendants of slaves to be given priority over other African Americans and to have their own racial classification. They believe that the differences are enough to establish different ethnicities between the groups and that descendants of slaves are disadvantaged compared to other African Americans. Their skepticism concerning immigration has attracted criticism and the suggestion that they are dividing African Americans and targeting Democrats. One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform", described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group.[1]

to:

American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) is a lineage-focused political movement that advocates for the specific justice claim held by the descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States from its colonial period to the present. According to their website, ADOS wants "...to shift the dialogue around the identity of what it is to be African American in an effort to move the discussion from melanin, and properly center the discussion around lineage.” ADOS describes itself as both an identity and a political movement aimed at targeted policies to address injustices committed against its members, including the wealth gap between their group and other populations. Their agenda is detailed in their demand for reparations along with a "New Deal for Black America". ADOS asserts that the injustices committed against their group have never been sufficiently addressed. They assert that there have been three phases of injustice that afflict ADOS members: “…slavery, American apartheid (Jim Crow, and the combined effects of present-day discrimination and the ongoing depreciation of Black lives." As a way to differentiate this specificity, they have suggested an addition to the U.S. Census that would add an ethnic classification for their members other than black. The ADOS movement has also faced criticism — not for its call for reparations, but for how it discusses immigration and black identity. Critics have argued that some ADOS activists are openly xenophobic and that the movement endorses an unnecessarily limited definition of “blackness,” dismissing the ways slavery and colonization have affected other groups in the African diaspora. For ADOS activists, though, the question is not about “blackness.” “This whole argument…is really ridiculous,” Yvette Carnell, a cofounder of the #ADOS movement, said in an interview (in February 2019). “We’re saying there is a difference in the justice demands for people who are descendants of slaves in this country and those who were enslaved (elsewhere).”

MRHICK01 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Note: I've changed this to a COI edit request based on the statement made on your user page. You really should use the standard {{Userbox COI}} use {{edit request}} to make any COI-based edit requests. Please see WP:COI for more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

MRHICK01, Considering the length of the article, I don't think a lede of this size is appropriate. I would suggest that much of this be incorporated into the body, as the lede is meant to summarize the body of the article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Sorry,but giving the co-founder the opportunity to call the criticism "ridiculous" is not neutral, see WP:NPOV. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In this section, am I allowed to amend my request with something acceptable to the editors around this matter of neutrality? MRHICK01 (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, on a talk page everything is allowed, as long as you follow the rules stated at the top of this very page. I personally feel a bit overwhelmed by your suggestion of a complete new lede. That's why I only reacted after seeing that nobody else had answered to your last request for nearly two weeks. So I'd suggest looking at one problem after the other, maybe starting with the last sentence, One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform", described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group. I think that sentence is relevant for the reader, because for understanding politics it is important to know a group's (or person's) allies. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@MRHICK01: I agree with the above users that the proposed edit would not be appropriate for the article. It contains info that would be better in the article's body and I'm concerned with using quotes from ADoS members in the lede. Since I am the third editor to decline this edit and no one has commented for almost three months, I am going to close this ticket. If you would like to propose new changes, please open a new ticket by following the instructions at Template:Request edit/Instructions. If you have any questions or comments, please post below or feel free to message me on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of "African American"

@Writefactsonly: The online edition of the Oxford Dictionary gives this definition of an African American: "A black American". Our article African American explicitly calls Barack Obama the first "African American" president in the last sentence but one of the lede. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Even more of an NPOV mess now, eg no mention of attacks on Kamala Harris or other political controversies

Yesterday. "Similar tones could also be heard at the other end of the political spectrum: from voices who consider Harris' origins to be privileged and say that they do not share the discriminatory experiences of many African Americans. While Harris' father was writing his dissertation in the midst of the civil rights riot of the 1960s, "we were shot at with water cannons in the street," tweeted Yvette Carnell of the American Descendants of Slavery group, which campaigns for reparations for the descendants of slavery"[10] - an English media source also.[11] Also [12] and [13]/ Doug Weller talk 14:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Preventing people from spreading misinformation and passing opinion articles as factual.

The following addition is not factual information and opinion based and shows one sided bias Since theirs a conflict among editors a discussion needs to happen to resolve this issue..Since this page has had numerous disagreements on rather addions and deletions are justifiably changed all changes should discussed first. The following change is one sided opinion and should be removed.

Hubert Adjei-Kontoh of The Outline wrote that "#ADOS has managed to synthesize the black left-wing critique of America’s origins with a right-wing belief in the inherent superiority of those who were born in America."[14] Robjwev (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robjwev: That's not how Wikipedia works. Per Wikipedia:Criticism § Approaches to presenting criticism, the “Reception” section of an article is supposed to present biased viewpoints rather than neutral ones:

With this approach, the article contains a section dedicated to positive and negative assessments of the topic. The section should not use a negative title like "Criticism" or "Controversies" but instead should use a more neutral term such as "Reception", "Assessment", "Reviews", "Influence", or "Response". This approach is often found in articles on books or other works of art.

So, while it's not permitted for you to simply eliminate anything critical of ADOS from the article, you can make an argument for renaming the section if you like; or even better IMO would be if you brought in some examples of positive biased reception of ADOS. (The source of such commentary still needs to follow Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines, though; reception on social media, for example, is usually only admissible if a journalistic outlet or a published book on the subject or something along those lines has written about it, though in this sort of situation an opinion piece from a journalistic outlet that passes other sourcing requirements, even an ideologically biased one, works too.)

Our presentation of negative versus positive commentary should be balanced per WP:BALASP and related policy, and the overall article should be as neutral as possible (but note that WP:NPOV is defined as neutrality relative to the consensus of Wikipedia-compliant sources, not necessarily neutral in terms of positivity or negativity towards the subject.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That is NOT how Wikipedia works...This article is opinion based article that dose not follow a neutral perspective. It makes accusations with no information to back it up. Have you read this article. WP:NEWSBLOG The artical is self serving, according to you this is acceptable but not according to WP:EXTRAORDINARY and NPOV States “Avoid stating facts as opinions” , “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts” This is a direct quote from the source, no original research was conducted. Wikipedia guideline for NPOV assumes that the writer is posting original content backed up with reliable sources. WP:SUBJECTIVE The news source “The Outline” has no external link on its website for this article. The Author doesn’t advertise this article on their SM the only link to this article is this page. The Author @Enervation has never posted on relate topics in the past although that in itself doesn’t prevent them from contributing to any topic, adding fly-by negative un original in research topic with a reference that has not external link to the public is suspicious. I’m all for allowing all points of view but this is not it and it violates the spirit Of Wikipedia’s intentions. Robjwev (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BIASED "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Your comment about The Outline (website) having no external link for this article makes no sense, perhaps you could explain it? And what in the world does "The Author doesn’t advertise this article on their SM the only link to this article is this page." mean? Please don't use names, not "author". I don't see any problem with using The Outline and the author is an editorial fellow for The Guardian US[14] so both author and source seem fine, and it's attributed. Your comment about User:Enervation shows a lack of good faith and I'll give you a warning on your talk page about that. You know, maybe 33 edits doesn't make you an expert on NPOV or how Wikipedia works. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robjwev: I'm sorry, but I don't think you're fully understanding what you're reading in our policies and guidelines, or are not applying it properly. WP:NEWSBLOG says If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." which is what's happening here. It's called an WP:INTEXT citation.

This opinion is not being stated as fact; that's why it's in a section called "Reception" and why I suggested that you could propose a new name for the section if you wish, to even further emphasize that it's an opinion. Any reader can click on the link to our article on The Outline and see its description as liberal news and analysis as well. The Outline is not an unreliable WP:DEPRECATED source and is not a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source as you seem to be trying to portray it as; there's editorial review of the publication.

When you say I’m all for allowing all points of view but this is not it you seem to be claiming this description of ADOS is not a point of view; you will have to elaborate on that. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

First off by tagging the author I was attempting to invite them to participate in the discussion. I will follow up with the rest of this later. Robjwev (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I don't have much to add here beyond what Doug Weller and Struthious Bandersnatch have said about Wikipedia policies. I've changed "wrote" to "opined" to clarify that the quote from The Outline is an opinion. If you would like to add some viewpoints from other reliable sources to the "Reception" section, you are more than welcome to do so. —Enervation (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I've been lurking the above conversation and I agree that the text should not be reverted. However, I also acknowledge that having a "Reception" section with only one person's opinion is perhaps WP:UNDUE. To rectify my concerns, I propose the following text be added to "Reception":

Extended content

Hubert Adjei-Kontoh of The Outline opined that "#ADOS has managed to synthesize the black left-wing critique of America's origins with a right-wing belief in the inherent superiority of those who were born in America." Kevin Cokley from the University of Texas at Austin is critical of the organisation's desire to separate the descendants of slaves from African immigrants and encouraged the two groups to be united under an African American identity. Malcolm Nance characterised supporters as trolls, calling them "a mix of [African American] proTrump racists [and] nuts.” Talib Kweli is critical of the group because he believes they are aligned with the Republican party against immigration and Shireen Mitchell stated the group was making it easier for black voters to justify voting for Donald Trump. Farah Stockman questioned in Novemeber, 2019 whether the movement was large enough to warrant discussion on a national level but decided to print an article about the group in The New York Times. Alvin Bernard Tillery, Jr., an associate professor at Northwestern University, states that the issues ADOS raised on who should receive reparations will have to be reflected upon by the black community. William A. Darity Jr. believes the ADOS' premise is based on a distinctive ethnic identity that exists among the descendants of American slaves. He defended ADOS against nativism claims and believes they are supporting people who have not benefitted in the current American system. Cornel West stated at an ADOS conference in Louisville, Kentucky that the ADOS movement was resuming the work started by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. References

Since this is a controversial area, I would like to hear your opinions on this inclusion in the article. Please comment below if there are proposed changes or if you support the text. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable addition to me. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It’s more balanced I can live with it. Robjwev (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I will withdraw my content resolution request. I would recommend that all controversial edits to be more transparent in the future..I am not demanding it, I’m asking nicely for transparency...I will do the same. Robjwev (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, I am leaving this open until 01:50 on 18 November 2020 (UTC) to give interested editors time to comment. I will add the information if there are no objections at that time. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I have added this information to the article. Please post below if there are any concerns with this text. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

Change "group" to "movement" in section Political Movement for Reparations, paragr 1. , 2nd sentence. Frack Wells (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

FBA Added incorrectly

FBA or Foundational Black Americans has been added to this page incorrectly. There is no affiliation between ADOS and FBA and it is listed there is no affiliation on the ADOS Homepage = ABOUT US https://ados101.com/about-ados

In addition the citation source for the recent major change is one blogger that has clearly stated his blog is only his perspective. That is not a source for changing the About US or having any mention of FBA or Tariq Nasheed on the wiki pageof ADOS. https://honestmediablog.com/2019/11/12/whats-the-difference-between-fba-and-ados/

All of the below in the about should be removed:

The term Foundational Black American (FBA) is a synonym with the same meaning in referring to the sub-set of African Americans, coined by Tariq Nasheed. The main difference is that the term "Foundational Black American" is described as more apolitical than "American Descendants of Slavery" and its corresponding movement with the same name, in that it is seen more as an ethnic identifier rather than a political movement.[3]

and this entire subsection removed

ADOS and Foundational Black Americans as an ethnic group

African American Descendants of Slavery or Foundational Black Americans, can be described as an ethnic group within the larger African American community separate from that of the various ethnic groups that make up the modern group of Black African immigrants to the USA and Black immigrants from the Caribbean that are considered African American today.[4]

The page itself calls ADOS a "term" rather than a "group" or "movement", which suggests that Nasheed's term "FBA" should also be discussed here, as it's effectively synonymous. Unless ADOS is a group or movement, in which case this article should be re-written to describe it as a group or movement. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Page error added in edit

This page has now been changed today and inaccurately reflects the group as right wing. It took a biased Washington Post article from 12 months ago and centered the about us on that one article.

The cited article was also misquoted and altered in this wiki page as well. In the added article under this pages citation 5 the washington post writer clearly says “they” with out specificity of who is the source in an assertion of Harris as Jamaican American or African American. The editor of this page added their own statement that it was by Moore and from a video that should be omitted it’s not in the Washington Post source.

This page now reads as just one long version of that single biased post article. Even adding a one line section framing the group as tiny because the same post article said it with no clear relation.

The page should be reverted to last week or more relevant material added. As of now it has basically misrepresented the group. The editor omitted Moore writing for left-leaning think tank ips on their inequality.org site and added inflammatory accusations that are not sourced by the post or sourced inaccurately by the editor. The source for Moore’s cite to inequality.org was the site itself. https://inequality.org/authors/antonio-moore/ If you omit this you should also omit Carnel and the Southern Poverty Law information together not one as the editor saw fit.

The request is to revert the page to how it looked in March 21 and add much of any additional critique in the reception section.

The page if it would like can also be unbiased by adding additional content there’s hundreds of pieces. There is no mention of John Yarmuth the congressman who sponsored the 1.9 trillion dollar American Rescue Plan as being at their conference. Please fix this page ASAP. Source: https://www.wdrb.com/news/new-justice-movement-with-eyes-on-slavery-reparations-brings-national-conference-to-louisville/article_3b55731a-e6dd-11e9-85a2-b395fa097341.html Johnways21145 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you are unhappy with the Washington Post coverage, then you should contact the Washington Post. The article is a reliable source and the article properly included content cited to it. Neutrality^talk 03:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There are 2 issues the first is the cite doesn't say what you placed in the Wikipedia. And second, now the whole article is a reflection of this one source. There need to be additional sources I have added one above. This is a protected page and has been altered to reflect one source that was heavily biased.

As to the first issue, the Washington Post cite used specifically says in a separate paragraph to mentioning Moores video. "They say calling Harris “African American,” when her parents were born in Jamaica and India, effectively erases the history of most black people in this country, whose ancestors were American slaves and who have suffered for generations as a result." That is a very specific line and a general source for that line. It is not Moore referenced as Moore has a direct quote separately. In another paragraph. The editor changed this to be coming from a Moore video when that's not in the Post article or it would say Moore said it specifically not "they".

In addition, the editor's specific text isn't accurate to what the source article stated. Editor wrote "In one video, Moore criticized Kamala Harris and asserted that she was not "African American"" WHich isn't what is in the Post as a line. They are different statements a direct quote would be accurate if left. What is written oversimplifies what the reporter wrote and creates confusion and also bias. Please correct both issues by just quoting the article.

Second I am asking to add more content here is 1 piece that can be used. The page as it's written relies too heavily on one source. There is no mention of John Yarmuth the congressman who sponsored the 1.9 trillion dollar American Rescue Plan as being at their conference. Source: https://www.wdrb.com/news/new-justice-movement-with-eyes-on-slavery-reparations-brings-national-conference-to-louisville/article_3b55731a-e6dd-11e9-85a2-b395fa097341.html Johnways21145

---

Thanks for the change but this is still very biased again I ask 1) the information showing Moore wrote at Inequality.org part of progressive think tank IPS be readded. https://inequality.org/authors/antonio-moore/ 2) More sources such as the one suggested above showing Democratic congressman Yarmuth as being the first of 3 guest speakers at the ADOS conference. With clearer acknowledgment, there were no Republican speakers. And 3) lastly a more thorough assessment of PFIRS lack of funding the ADOS group as found by New York Times writer Farah Stockman.

Information is omitted like this from NY Times writer of a national piece on ADOS that's in the citations of the article. This must be added if 50 percent of the page on ADOS is about PFIR and their issues with Southn Poverty Law Center and not ados https://twitter.com/fstockman/status/1192845852689227776 & https://twitter.com/fstockman/status/1192845852689227776 Two follow up tweets by writer Farah Stockman on her looking into funding from PFIR for ADOS:

#10 This has led a lot of people to conclude that the group is a puppet of the right. Citizen investigators have tried to prove that ADOS is funded by conservatives. So far, I haven't uncovered or seen any proof of this. No one I spoke with who said they had proof really did. Although Carnell served on the board of Progressives for Immigration Reform, an anti-immigration group, the IRS paperwork lists her salary as zero. The executive director told me she "never received a dime other than reimbursement for expenses" for attending meetings.

This line was added but has no real context around the statement. it should be removed immediately. Moore has criticized a CBS News report written by a reporter with a Hispanic surname, asserting that the journalist "clearly has a conflicted interest to write the story."[5] It is misplaced and provides an interpretation from the editor. The line doesnt say anything about the conflict by placing it here it implies one. This should be omitted because it is not a proper source for a Wikipedia. An about page like this one is omitting that Moore wrote at a liberal think tank for several years and adding very poorly sourced material from a single source.

This is not the authors opinion the author is referring to a video posted by Moore. It’s part of the article and should not be removed. We cannot cherry pick out parts of an article we don’t like and leave in what we like. Theirs a lot of regurgitated misinformation in this article but because it’s from the Washington Post it’s allowed to stay a useable source on Wikipedia. If you delete one part of the article the whole should be removed.

Some information needs to be deleted

Parts of this article does not follow WP:RS standards because it's based off tweets I will be removing them. If you are having concerns you are welcome to look though this article and remove them before I do. Robjwev (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Parts in question: Reception Edit

New York Times writer Farah Stockman called ADOS "the most polarizing subject I've ever covered"[9] and wrote: "Supporters of ADOS spoke of it with spiritual emotion. Critics were equally vehement about its dangers."[10] Robjwev (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Parts in question were removed. Robjwev (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

tweets are not reliable sources....If they are now reliable why are we deleting positive statements and keeping negative ones? NPOV

@Robjwev: You removed the quote cited to a tweet but left part of the next citation intact, as well as a hanging date parameter and ref tag. I restored a very similar Stockman quote but it comes from the cited NYT article, not a tweet. Not that it matters here, but FYI: there's no blanket rule against tweets as a source. The relevant policy is WP:RSSELF, with tweets counting as self-published sources. We should only use them if the author is an expert published in the relevant field. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay I see what you did Thanks for the fix sorry for causing the error. Robjwev (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-black American Propaganda

This is an bigoted entry against native black Americans. It’s also full of errors. The first being the inability to edit the entry which proves its nefarious intentions. Secondly, the ADOS term was created by Dr. Norris Shelton who is longtime Louisville KY resident, Reparationist, community, and political activist. Don’t trust this bias content! We are not a “tiny” group and our advocacy for black American 🇺🇸 justice (i.e., reparations) is expanding greatly under several terms but on cultural and ethnic identity in the country our ancestors built. Lrbrown214 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lrbrown214. The article is semi-protected because of persistent disruptive editing in the past. The threshold for editing is very low - an account at least four days old that has made at least ten edits. Why would you think that protection against vandalism is evidence of "nefarious intentions"? If you believe that the protection is unjustified, you can ask for it to be removed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You have had an account for five years but have only made six edits. You can use a formal Edit request until you are eligible to edit the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Lrbrown214 Dr.Norris started DESCENDANTS OF AMERICAN SLAVES(DOS) not American Descendants of Slavery(ADOS). I'm not saying that one is more or less important than the other, and yes DOS was created before ADOS, but this page is about the ADOS movement. Adding DOS to this page would be WP:COATRACK. Robjwev (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Americans (ethnicity)

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Add the United States portal to the see also section.

201.71.0.220 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Pan-ADOS groups NADOS & ADOS by definition

Theoretically, the ADOS ethnic group could be expanded to include others whose ancestors were brought to the Americas during the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, including those outside of what is now the USA. There is somewhat of a shared history and shared experiences among various groups (to various degrees,) even if that among those from what is now the USA is somewhat distinctive (e.g. jim crow laws, the one drop rule etc.) Also, what about the term "NADOS" for North American Descendants of Slavery? 2603:6011:A600:46:249A:2E0:13A8:4BAC (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

We need reliably published sources discussing ADOS for any of that. And they aren't an ethnic group. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That all depends on how you define "ethnic group." 2603:6011:A600:46:7478:7D4C:4173:3331 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it all depends on what reliably published sources say, see WP:VERIFY. That’s basic policy. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

no you say?

Here is one definition:

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/ethnic-group

I believe that ADOS counts as an ethnic group given that definition. 2603:6011:A600:46:7478:7D4C:4173:3331 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve let muself get sidetracked. Until the movement itself is thus classified, we can’t. So we need sources for that. Your other suggestions are irrelevant unless you can find sources using “NADOS”. I out of here unless you start discussing this at WP:RSN. I don’t have time as cancer has given my body a use by date. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)