User talk:WayMaQueen

African American is its own ethnicity in the African Diaspora. See Proven Sources:

Citation: https://ipr.osu.edu/becoming-black-african-immigrant-integration-united-states

“Immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa constitute the fastest growing group of immigrants in the United States today, yet we know less about their processes of assimilation and integration than other groups of immigrants. Research on black immigrants from the Caribbean suggests that the immigration experience of African immigrants will look quite different from many previous groups of immigrants, largely because assimilation for black immigrants risks exposure to the many forms of discrimination and inequalities faced by native-born black Americans.“

“African- Americans have rightly laid claim to a unique identity” Smithsonian Scholar at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-changing-definition-of-african-american-4905887/

Also see first paragraph at this link: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cfssr_publishedwork

Even genetics can point it out: “Our results also indicate that the genetic architecture of African Americans is distinct from that of Africans” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812948/

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

The government and social studies has even noted how Black immigrants can HIGHLIGHT their own ethnicities to get ahead in some cases, meaning that Black immigrants do in fact have their OWN ETHNICITIES. “Several authors suggest that black immigrants’ ethnicity gives them an advantage over U.S.-born blacks in dealings with whites (Bashi Bobb and Clarke 2001; Foner 1985; Waters 1994). If this holds true, black immigrants may improve their residential outcomes by highlighting their ethnicity to distinguish themselves”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8713952/

Also see this link on assimilation: https://sociology.princeton.edu/events/black-immigrants-use-african-american-strategy-mobility-through-higher-education

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, WayMaQueen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Tweedle (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kool DJ Dee

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kool DJ Dee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kool DJ Dee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kool DJ Dee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kool DJ Dee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hi WayMaQueen! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of DJ Kool Herc several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:DJ Kool Herc, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! All that was added was well sourced information by veteran credible reporter and journalist from a veteran newspaper. I didn’t know that adding citable, credible information was considered a war. I assumed, maybe erroneously, that the purpose of Wikipedia was to add credible reliable information because my aim isn’t “war” just because I add to good content that’s already there, never removing another’s content. I’ve had someone add to my content and I received it well because it was the truth and never once thought they are warring. However, if that is what is considered a war, I’m too mature for that one. I used to work with legit editors on legit newspapers a long time ago, and it’s literally not that deep nor is it a competition. It’s news, reporting and facts and everyone is fine with factual additions. My concept of additions is different from the rules here so thanks for letting me know it’s considered a war. Lol! Have a good one. WayMaQueen (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph should tell the reader why the person is famous. Information about how the fame may be diluted should be placed in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, the additional information I added would be accepted with citations in the body and not considered war? Previously, I’d added quotes from Herc to the body and it was taken down so at this point, I’m not certain.

Like here is the link to the veteran reporter and veteran paper and there are more, but I’m not here to add good info and then get called a “warrior”.LOL That’s odd to me. But tanks anyway. Take care. WayMaQueen (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WayMaQueen, I went back and looked at your earlier edits to the article and I see where you going but I also see why Binksternet reverted you. The paragraph starting with "DJ Kool Herc is known for telling his story...." was sourced to a YouTube interview with him which is a primary source so not the best source to use (it depends). Stating things like "is known for" requires secondary authoritative sources and none of it belonged in the lead. With that said, I think most of what you added belongs somewhere in the article. A start might be to include his influences in the Early life sub-section which you can use interviews because he is the authority about his own influences. I think the structure should be improved because everything is slapped under Biography and I think a Legacy section is warranted. Just some things to to think about. I don't want you to be discouraged. S0091 (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time out and giving your thoughts and input. I love how you communicate. Respect to you. WayMaQueen (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about National African Immigrant Heritage Month

Hello WayMaQueen, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, National African Immigrant Heritage Month, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National African Immigrant Heritage Month.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|BillHPike}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, WayMaQueen, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work expanding Wikipedia, particularly your contributions to topics traditionally underrepresented here!

Here are some important links:

I know it's frustrating when your article is nominated for deletion. Help:Your first article has steps you can take to ensure your hard work sticks around.
Wikipedia has some rules to ensure that our articles have citations to reliable sources. Please review WP:Reliable sources and try to follow it when adding content.
You probably have lots of questions. WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask.(I have over 10k edits and I still stop by the Teahouse when I need help)

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

You're fighting the good fight, but keep in mind that these people are naturally oppressive.

Rsk6400 writes under an alternative account as Robert Sandrock. Their contibutions show that they are obsessed with controlling the narrative of racism against Black people, particularly in the United States (one way to do that is to re-define what the victim actually is). They are also fond of the African Diaspora. Any foreigner with this much investment and no endgame is simply suffocating the cause.72.174.131.123 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best bet - since you have enough edits cred - is to just start/begin a new article titled something else (idea: "Soul people") since "them folks" (Wikipedians) refuse to acknowledge that Black Americans are entirely distinct. What cannot be denied is soul music, soul food, etc., and the people who are the driving force behind all of that are deserving of their own article.

Those other editors are literally de-facing Black heritage. Sad.😔 72.174.131.123 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a just-in-case, I would strongly suggest that you copy-and-paste your contributions (with all citations included) to your Talk page so that you have a reference point. Accounts/Users have been known to be blocked and/or further banned from editing, and someone may erase a thread without first 🔒archiving it. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, the alternate account your reference IP is declared and has only edited two days back in May 2021 so nothing nefarious as far as that is concerned. As for rest of it, I am not involved so cannot speak to it other than I see at Talk:African Americans Firefangledfeathers has popped in, who is an experienced respected editor and based on what I have seen of them is quite fair so if they offer advice, take it. WayMaQueen, I suggest creating a sandbox rather than using your talk page to house sources/flesh out things. You have a default one underneath the person icon at the top right of the page. Just click Sandbox, type something and hit publish to create the page (User:WayMaQueen/Sandbox). You can also create multiple sandboxes also referred to as User subpages (see WP:User pages#Creating a subpage).

Other than that, if you ever want a "quite" place to work, there are several African American politicians during the Reconstruction Era who are lacking articles about them or the existing articles could use expansion (see African-American officeholders during and following the Reconstruction era.) and many other topic that are yet to be covered. That includes you too, IP. Oh, and one more thing, though it seems you do have access to sources you also have access to the WP:Wikipedia Library as access is automatically given to accounts that are six months old and have over 500 edits which you meet. That excludes you though, IP but is one of the benefits to having an account. S0091 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information WayMaQueen (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure what "respected editor" means when it comes to Wikipedia anymore. The fact that a thorough/long article such as African Americans is having extreme difficulty arriving at a simple conclusion for its lede, and all because of a likely partisan editor shows nothing more than them being intentional.

Those other articles that you mention can wait. Right now, the literal root of all of that needs to be determined, and the only correct answer is to let the references speak for themselves, which other editors like the one you endorsed are failing at.

'African Americans' are not a story that is continuous just because of immigration (i.e., natives versus later-day immigrants are not the same people; one is of the other, but not the other way around). Just about every Black American knows this - and certain African/Caribbean immigrants will vouch for this - but Wikipedians are blatantly ignoring facts, figures, citations (the encyclopedia's own rules), and even the voices of those very people. No other ethnic group is afforded the same level of disrespect, which is why I made the suggestions to @WayMaQueen to operate in stealthmode until this is sorted out. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not mean WayMaQueen should shift their focus to another topic. I only meant if the topic is of interest there's work to do whenever they are so inclined and the topic does not face resistance. As far as I'm honestly not sure what "respected editor" means when it comes to Wikipedia anymore (empahsis mine), I am not sure there's ever been a time when Wikipedia editors agreed on who is a respected editor. FFF is just my take based on what I seen so I should have qualified it as such. As for everything else, like I said I have not been involved in the debate. The only advice is an well-advertised WP:RFC may be needed to get other voices involved and I think operating in stealth mode is likely a bad idea. WayMaQueen is editor in good standing and one of the worst things here is being tagged a WP:SOCK (or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "stealth mode" IP?). WayMaQueen, you are welcome to tell me bug off. I only stopped by to clarify that alt account, let you know about sandboxes and highlight another topic area that may be of interest. S0091 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WayMaQueen is not a sock puppet, as we can clearly see. Operating in stealth may be the best solution for right now because there is an obvious bias against the article itself by the handlers with more edits and a longer history on this platform. They are being bullies, and this is the sole reason why people say not to trust Wikipedia in general.

As per the article in question, the amount of scrutiny it gets may never die down, and we have to be okay with that. But, ignoring facts and figures in favor of pure opinion (or even public opinion) is just wrong. Everybody knows that. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be very clear, I never said WayMaQueen is a sock or suggested they are. In fact, I made it clear they are editor in good standing. And Wikipedia agrees no one should trust it (see WP:CIRC). S0091 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handshake. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater Railroad

Can you create an article on Wikipedia about the 'Saltwater Railroad'? This is an important part of Black American history about the movements of free Blacks from the United States to the Bahamas/Caribbean countries. --Thanks. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered in another article but I created a redirect as a search term so it's easier to find, Saltwater Railroad. S0091 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln resettled Negroes to Haiti

Some more history: President Abraham Lincoln tried to resettle some Negroes (as they were called on record) in the year 1863 to Haiti. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-a-haitian-island-became-lincoln-s-unsuccessful-utopia-for-black-americans/ar-AA1lM3vK?ocid=hpmsn&pc=EMMX01&cvid=74d0aa949bcf4d4088909cb05b72fb87&ei=36

If you could write an article about this as well, that would be great. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles:

– In 1863, Abraham Lincoln relocated 453 freed Black Americans to a Haitian island, Insider, July 22, 2022

– How Lincoln’s failed colonization plan shaped America’s racial history, The Conversation, September 28, 2023

– The forgotten story of the Black Americans who tried to start a new life in Haiti, BBC News, September 25, 2023

– Lincoln’s colonization plan: A failed experiment in racial justice, The Washington Post, September 22, 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.123 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is already covered, see Île-à-Vache#Bernard Kock. S0091 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

African-Americans were officially 'created' from 1619-1808

Just for the record, January 1, 1808 marks the date that Africans were no longer imported as slaves into the United States, as per the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves (actually enacted March 2, 1807). Therefore, the "African-American" people were technically established between 1619 (arrival) to 1807/08.

This tidbit is for nay-sayers on the African-American Talk page bickering about latter-day immmigrants (such as Africans and Afro-Caribbeans) qualifying as ethnically Black American, which they are not and cannot be due to immigration timestamps and records. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copy-and-paste discussion filed under:'reading of the first two paragraphs' on the African Americans talk page from November and December 2023

{The following is verbatim from an open discussion (that included you) about ethnicity, culture, and definition of 'Black Americans'. This is being copied here as a matter of record. Note that hyperlinks and citations are not live.}

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

"African Americans, also known as Afro-Americans or Black Americans, are an ethnic group consisting specifically of descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States. Because of intranational migration (or lack thereof), there are varying tribes which may determine how the ethic group self-identifies (for instance, the Gullah). African Americans constitute the third largest racial group in the U.S. after White Americans and Hispanic and Latino Americans, and depending on the census, the largest ethnic group (vying for the top spot with German Americans)." -- There are 3 (@NotPeterParker, @MonsenorNouel, @WayMaQueen) against 2 (@Rsk6400, @Firefangledfeathers) here on getting the required 'consensus' that a specific editor keeps making a fuss about. NotPeterParker (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply This sounds good. WayMaQueen (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply I think this would be a distinct worsening of the lead. Some of the more obvious issues: In support of the phrase "consisting specifically of descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States", we'd be citing a source (Martin & Fabes) that makes it clear this is not always how the term is used and another source (Mumford Center) that does not support the text at all. The first sentence would be claiming that "Black Americans" is an ethnic group that is limited to just descendants of African slaves in the US, which I doubt any source would agree with. The extra sentence on intranational migration, tribes, and the Gulla is unsourced and unsupported by any text in the body. It's unclear, since there's nothing on it in the article, why this would be due for such a prominent lead mention. I'm not sure who is "making a fuss" about consensus, but I'm with them. Consensus is worth fussing over! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply See the Multigeneral thread above for more discussion. This topic/article can get very excited and very quickly due to how people in general feel about Black people. White liberals stereotypically think it is their right to police the activities of these people, and immigrants seem to have an air of jealously about them, either wanting to replace or erase them. For example: citations and evidence presented by @WayMaQueen/@MonsenorNouel in earlier threads seem to have been ignored in favor of feelings. You even went ahead and removed 6,000+ characters from the article because you disagree with those references provided. So, I've resigned to the likelihood that we're probably never going to get an affirmative vote from you or @rsk6400 (who is a non-American based in Europe). Taking emotion out of the argument, I went to a pubic library in Montana voted the #1 PUBLIC LIBRARY IN THE WORLD for more opinions, figuring that these librarians can provide credible sources and non-bias to the discussion. All on-duty staff agree that the simpler the lede the better. Immigrants are not part of the same African-American ethnic group, unless they are somehow 'return immigrants' from Liberia or Black Nova Scotians. Liberians are technically "Americo-Liberians" who share the genetics and required history with African-Americans in order to qualify for inclusion. The Gullah are a prime example of everything wrong with fluffing the article with pro-immigrant-as-African-American arguments; as they are mostly of Angolan descent, which verifies the fact the African-Americans are originally from Angola (read about The White Lion slave ship in 1619), but the genetics analysis portion of the article does not mention that country in DNA examination, instead prominently pointing to other West African countries and European genetics. That renders the whole argument moot, since all African Americans should have some bit of Angolan admixture, even the other non-Liberian West Africans who migrate to the States could have some Angolan in their DNA from Americo-Liberian cross-breeding, but don't. This whole edit warring is similar to the Somali Bantu discussion. The Bantu peoples have assimilated in the cultures of Somalia, but they are not Somali. And just like with Black immigrants trying to assimilate into the dominant black population of the United States, attempting to re-write a Wikipedia article won't magically change that. NotPeterParker (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply @NotPeterParker: As I already told you on your user's page, nobody owns a specific article here. The fact that I'm not American has nothing to do with our discussion here. And please read WP:CONSENSUS regarding voting. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply I refuse to let you or anyone else determine what is and what is not relevent to them in regards to so-called African Americans. You not being American is trivial; you being Germanic is minor. You being a foreigner is the crux of the issue. You already stated in above threads that you agree with @Firefangledfeathers about disregarding provided citations (factual information) in favor of the subject matter, the article itself, and Wikipedia's integrity left in disarray. Stop inserting yourself into matters you obviously know little about (probably - but not certainly - because you are a foreigner), and then trying to say that the article has no ownership, thus leaving the door open for further vandalism. People come to this encyclopedia to learn about things that are hopefully true and clear, not to be disrespected and spiteful. We will all follow WP: rules here. Retrieve whoever you must to be included in this conversation. Leave all of these threads in this Talk page AND edits to the Article from this month and any other up (DO NOT DELETE/HIDE OR OTHERWISE OBSTRUCT) so that admins can make a fair assessment. Also, if you keep writing unsolicited nonsense on my User page, I will ban your privileges from editing Wikipedia. NotPeterParker (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply Also, within the Wikipedia article, it also states that the history of African Americans starts at the 1500s. This is a clear distinction of specifically and solely African American history as an ethnic group. African Americans were excluded from Africa at the points of no return. This is the exact point where history defines a new ethnic group arising at the point when those enslaved reach the USA. (Review definition and in totality what ethnicity is if necessary) The same is true for Afro Jamaicans when they reached Jamaica and Afro Brazilians when they reached Brazil. Each group had to cultivate their own culture and had a distinctly different history, all the way down to their different emancipation dates, languages, speech, perspectives. When they now in present day migrate to the USA, they are Jamaican American of the Jamaican Diaspora, not African American. African Americans have their own African American Diaspora as well in Canada, Mexico etc. WayMaQueen (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply I believe many people confuse racially Black and ethnically Black when it comes to African Americans aka Black Americans. The historical truth is that African American is a compound termed ethnic group and this same ethnic group has historically been called Black Americans prior to the immigration of other racially Black people from across the globe. African Americans have the historical context due to etymology that proves and backs this ethnic group up firmly as also being regarded as Black Americans/Afro Americans. No other immigrant group of African descent has this etymology. It has been stated by countless people on the continent of Africa even in verbal and written pieces. Most immigrated to the USA and assimilated and through assimilation learned “Black” from African Americans because where they were from historically this was not and still isn’t so. See the 11th-15th paragraphs of this written piece for example at The Republic When properly looking at ethnicity as clearly defined, it is this: ” Ethnicity is more than skin color or physical characteristics, more than language, song, and dance. It is the embodiment of values, institutions, and patterns of behavior, a composite whole representing a people’s historical experience, aspirations, and world view. Deprive a people of their ethnicity, their culture, and you deprive them of their sense of direction or purpose” - here People often speak of immigrants incorrectly as African Americans when they should probably properly refer to ALL ppl of African descent correctly as “of the African Diaspora” or “African Diasporans” because all of them certainly have different ethnicities, even inside the USA. This common error is due to the fact that most people don’t know what ethnicity is. They simply look at race. When it comes to a person who is racially Black, it doesn’t mean they are ethnically Black. These are two very distinct things. A racially Black person can have a totally different ethnicity (Zulu, Igbo, Jamaican American, Nigerian American) which means their historical and cultural experiences are vastly different than the ethnic group AA. Due to the fact that the ethnic group African Americans has been historically known also as Black American and Afro-American doesn’t change and isn’t incorrect DESPITE the more recent influx of immigrants. African Americans are still specifically the descendants of the African enslaved. Immigration doesn’t change that or their ethnic name, culture and history which is preserved in over 100 museums etc. No other ethnic group in the world would change their own name or remove their own historical names if immigrants moved into their country. The immigrant would have to assimilate and keep their ethnic group name in tact as it was prior to moving because their history and culture doesn’t suddenly and miraculously become someone else’s. This is why MONTHS ago, I suggested the lede be changed because the topic is about African Americans, not Black immigrants. Why the sentence is there at all is baffling. Black immigrants come over and ASSIMILATE into African American culture. They don’t share the same history, lingo, foods, perspectives at all. The lede could say that “some Black immigrants tend to assimilate into African American culture, taking on a fully assimilated African American cultural identity, (so much so that it is difficult to tell them apart), but most do not.” The addition of the words FULLY ASSIMILATE would automatically show the difference between an actual African American and an immigrant who is or has assimilated without having to rewrite a full three paragraphs. Assimilate means to resemble - “Assimilation is most often talked about in the context of “cultural assimilation,” which is when immigrant groups are encouraged to “adopt the culture, values, and social behaviors of their host nation.” This means shedding or hiding aspects of one's culture – including certain foods, clothing, language, religious traditions, etc – that the host nation is unfamiliar with. Supporters of assimilation claim it creates a more cohesive cultural identity, reduces cultural conflict, and helps immigrants gain more social and economic opportunities” CULTURAL ASSIMILATION - Cultural assimilation refers to the process in which a minority group or culture assumes the behaviors, values, rituals, and beliefs of their host nation's majority group In the USA, the ethnic group African American is the nation’s majority group when it comes to the African Diaspora. If there was an influx of AA migrants to Jamaica, that influx of AA would ASSIMILATE. There isn’t a great influx to Jamaica however. WayMaQueen (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply WayMaQueen, sorry to say, but that's a very long piece of original research. The two sources you gave are not sufficient to support your theory, see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply I'm with experienced editors FFF and Rsk here. I think I understand the concerns that others have raised, but Rsk is right that the proposed changes amount to original synthesis and are disallowed. The current lead is both well-sourced and WP:DUE, which is another way of saying useful to the reader. I think it should remain as-is pending new arguments. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply Removing the last sentence about Black immigrants completely would actually be best then since the topic is about African Americans and not Black immigrants. That last sentence should be added to a topic elsewhere on Black Immigrants and how they assimilate. Ex:with the already existing topic “ African immigration to the United States” on Wikipedia, you could place the assimilation factor in this topic where it should be in the already existing subheading of Culture. WayMaQueen (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply Since some Black immigrants and their descendants self-identify, or are identified by reliable sources, as being African Americans, the sentence is an important bit of context to the one that precedes it. I'm not wedded to the status quo option of having these terminological questions dominate the first paragraph, and I'd be fine with moving them lower in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply Wherever it is moved, it should be clarified, and the best page for this sentence of Black immigrants and assimilation should be on this page or a separate page devoted to Black Immigrants who move into the USA and also to those Black immigrants who move elsewhere to other countries. Even on the linked page, in the second paragraph, there is a distinct difference between African immigrants and African Americans. African Immigrants do have their own ethnic groups which they are proud of and African Americans are also just as proud of their ethnic group as well. WayMaQueen (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply I think the issue here is one of misplaced essentialism. Ethnic groups are socially constructed categories. Some people construct them one way, others another. Sometimes the borders are easier to define (e.g. the Sentinalese people for instance, where there is no question of who is and isn't a member), whereas in other cases the borders are more difficult to pin down. This is one of those difficult cases. It is perfectly understandable to acknowledge a distinct ethnic identity proper to the descendants of formerly enslaved peoples of the United States, but it is also understandable that the descendants of Black immigrants to the United States see themselves as African Americans too. These can both be true. Both groups can legitimately lay claim to the same terminology. Explaining this ambiguity to the reader is what is demanded of us by policy, e.g. WP:BALANCE. In any case, FFF makes a good point that this doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph, but it is an important enough definitional feature to warrant being mentioned in the lead. I'm also open to revising the way we say it to make clear that there are conflicting definitions at play –– which is not at all unusual when we're dealing with socially constructed categories. Generalrelative (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply Ethnicity has components such as symbols, language, culture, heritage, monuments, food, perspectives etc which is shared within a certain people. The same as with Africa, there are hundreds of ethnicities to which everyone in Africa knows they belong, there are also many ethnicities outside of Africa (diaspora)that are compound worded ethnicities, that were formed outside of the continent under very different circumstances than those inside the continent. In the case of African Americans, they have their own Heritage flag,own heritage museums, own institutions,own shared history within the USA and lineage, own language AAVE, own perspective, own cultural dishes, own folklore, own music etc… even own wars fought for their freedom and own emancipation date. African Americans even have holidays such as Juneteenth and African American Emancipation Day (started a year after their Emancipation) in the 1800s newspapers. No other ethnic group besides AA celebrated these. None. It was and is specifically for AA and IF ppl want to participate with AA, that is okay, but the holidays are AA, including Black History Month, founded by an AA scholar. This is an ethnicity. All of this means they are their own ethnicity because no one else in Africa shares this heritage as they do. Just like an African American can’t be Zulu by moving in because it isn’t their heritage. They would have to LEARN IT AND THEN ATTEMPT TO RESEMBLE IT, which is called ASSIMILATION. The dominant Black ethnic group in the USA is the one who has been there for over 500 years and has literally build its own culture and heritage AFTER being excluded from Africa at the points of no return. African Americans are an ethnic group of the African Diaspora in the same way that within Africa a Maasai is a different ethnic group than the Igbo. If a Maasai moves anywhere on the globe, he is still Maasai. Yet he can, may and will ASSIMILATE into a culture that is already founded BEFORE he got there. He has the choice to assimilate but he doesn’t have to. Im not certain what is being misunderstood here. If someone moves to another country, their own person lineage and heritage doesn’t change just because they moved. They can’t just “become” another ethnicity and begin saying “my people fought in the Civil War and we were emancipated in 1863 and we were part of the Great Migration”. They can’t say that because it’s not true. That is someone else’s heritage. Instead, they can say what their own ethnic group endured. People on Wikipedia are CONSTANTLY confusing ALL racially black ppl in the USA as African American when in fact all are not African American. If one simply looks at ethnicities of let’s say NIGERIA and scroll down, NIGERIAN AMERICAN is right there. If you go back in newspapers and look up Nigerian American, it is right there clear as day. They are not being considered AA historically because their heritage and history is distinctly different in the USA. They even have their own societies and memberships etc. Outside of Africa, ppl of African descent are ALL PART of the AFRICAN DIASPORA but all of them are not African American at all. America just happens to be the spot where MOST move. This is not a difficult concept to understand. EVERY EUROPEAN DIASPORIAN isn’t the same ethnicity all across the globe either. WayMaQueen (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply I hear you and I agree with many of your points, but this is what we call original analysis. It's not what we publish here, according to core policy. I hope you will understand. Generalrelative (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply Understood but whenever I gave scientific analysis and even used previous citations, it is removed. It is beginning to seem that original analysis and whatever else analysis isn’t good enough because I provided all sorts. I literally used one of the same citations already on Wikipedia and someone stated it is a legit source but the added info not necessary. However the other information was???? But hey, understood. Wikipedia does state also in its that it isn’t definitely reliable. This is possibly why. WayMaQueen (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply Thanks for your thoughtful engagement and understanding. Yeah, it's certainly true that some sources stick closely to the definition you've argued for. It's just that others offer a more equivocal way of conceptualizing what it means to be African-American (e.g. the source I just added to the article). When reliable sources disagree, we have to present each side in a way that's balanced to reflect their relative prominence. In this case, we give more prominence to the view you prefer while also acknowledging the other. Generalrelative (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply Trust me I hear you, however, that citation with the though all may not agree at the end of that sentence in the lead isn’t needed. It’s an opinion… the same thing I was just told shouldn’t be in the articles. I read the entire article, and it doesn’t state that immigrants become African American. What it does do however is double down on the fact that African American is set apart as its own ethnicity and immigrants may or may not want to assimilate and acquire an AA CULTURAL IDENTITY onto themselves. That latter part of the lead should be removed as it is an opinion and from immigrants who have yet to even know and understand AA history and heritage. Here are some quotes from the article: ”While they seemed impressed—but not surprised—that slaves had played a part in breaking their own chains, and were interested in the events that had brought Lincoln to his decision during the summer of 1862, they insisted it had nothing to do with them. Simply put, it was not their history.” “ And so the “not my history” disclaimer by people of African descent seemed particularly pointed”

This article doubled down on the fact that AA is its own ethnicity. WayMaQueen (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply Ah, here's the distinction. We do publish opinions. But only the opinions of subject-matter experts published in reliable sources. Not the opinions of editors. See e.g. WP:YESPOV. And I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you about the point being made in the Smithsonian article. See the final paragraph in particular: New circumstances, it seems, require a new narrative. But it need not—and should not—deny or contradict the slavery-to-freedom story. As the more recent arrivals add their own chapters, the themes derived from these various migrations, both forced and free, grow in significance. They allow us to see the African-American experience afresh and sharpen our awareness that African-American history is, in the end, of one piece. Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply This article stated nothing about there is a new all encompassing narrative nor did the article state that immigrants are AA. It stated quite the opposite in this definite statement: "African- Americans have rightly laid claim to a unique identity”. The rest are opinions (such as the one you added)that shouldn’t be in the lead at all. 500 years of AA versus a “handful” of 60 years of immigrants to the USA who may not have a clear understanding of AA history nor can even speak on it thoroughly does not and will never warrant a change in anything AA. The article clearly backs up firmly African American as its own ethnicity. The article you cited states clearly and definitively —- “African- Americans have rightly laid claim to a unique identity“ WayMaQueen (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply References ^ "The Black Population: 2010" (PDF), Census Bureau, September 2011. "Black or African Americans" 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." ^ African Americans Law & Legal Definition: "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." ^ ^ ^ @Hemiauchenia: I'm not sure about your recent change of the definition. While the term African American itself points to Africa, and while slavery and all its consequences surely are important in African-American history (as well as in the history of the enslavers), I'm not sure about its "definingness", i.e. should it be part of the WP:LEADSENTENCE ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply I don't really have a horse in this race, and I don't have a strong opinion about whether slavery should be mentioned in the opening sentence. I think that the "black racial groups of Africa" definition that I replaced is clunky, and I would prefer something simpler. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 72.174.131.123 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:HipHopVisionary per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopVisionary. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked this account given new evidence presented on the sockpuppet investigation page. Sro23 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]