Talk:African Americans/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about African Americans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Michael Jackson

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

I WP:BOLDly did so, since it seems like a no-brainer, and has the additional benefit of mooting the dispute in the thread above this one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

And just self-reverted that change, per dispute above. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Including Michael Jackson remains a spot-on idea, IMO, the above wrangling over Carey notwithstanding. Space should be made for him as one of the most influential African Americans in history, and globally, whether anyone in particular thinks that pop culture figures get too much attention generally. I do - I'd love to AfD hundred of "been in one TV show or movie" actors – and I don't much care for Jackson's work on my own iPod, but it's unquestionable what a Beatles-level influence he had. He's a no-brainer. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If Mariah Carey is too controversial, Michael Jackson (or perhaps Beyonce) would indeed seem the most logical alternative. Soupforone (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Negro-American"

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Soupforone, regarding this edit you made, why do you think we should include "Negro-American" in the lead, given what is noted in the "Terms no longer in common use" section of the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Negro was an official entry on the last census, and is still used by some African American organizations such as the National Council of Negro Women. It is antiquated like Afro-American, but not quite obsolete. It was also the historical name for the population. Soupforone (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That it is barely used and is considered offensive is why I see no need for it in the lead. "Afro-American" is more accepted, so I haven't questioned that. "Negro-American" was removed from the lead before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I see DD2K reverted you with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I agree, that doesn't belong in the lede. Dave Dial (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'm not sure what that words-as-words policy link is supposed to indicate, but Negro American redirects here. WP:LEDE also notes that "when the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms". Negro American is a synonym for African American according to the US government, so it does belong there per the lede policy. Anyway, I understand and do agree with your point about derogatory terms. Just as long as it is understood that Negro American is indeed a synonym for African American (and was the original legal name for the population), I'm okay if it's just "Afro-American". Soupforone (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the WP:Alternative name policy, but that policy doesn't mean that we have to include all alternative names in the lead; its emphasis is on the most significant ones, and it suggests including a section for the matter when there are more than three. This article does that. I don't see the need for that outdated, or mostly outdated, term to be in the lead in this case. Also see the WP:Offensive material guideline. I don't see any benefit to including that alternative name in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The original and longest-serving legal name for the population is certainly significant. I do, though, agree with avoiding labels that may be perceived as offensive, especially outside labels. Like I wrote, I'm okay if it's just "Afro-American". Soupforone (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

AA=black african, not necessarily sub-saharan African

Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

As both RS cited after the definition in the lede indicate, AA=black American of African descent. Neither RS says that all black/African Americans are of sub-saharan African descent. By insisting on changing the definition from black to sub-Saharan, we are deviating from RS.

The federal definitions are qualified for a reason. Some Americans of African descent--who are perceived to be and identify as black--are technically North Africans (e.g., from Northern Sudan, Somalia, or Nubia). But they are considered African Americans if they identify that way, since they're perceived as black.

(Note that "blackness" is of course a socially constructed concept that lacks biological integrity. Nonetheless, the concept still refers to a real social phenomenon.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

All of the Afro-Asiatic-speaking countries in the northern hemisphere of Africa, from the Maghreb to the Nile Valley and Horn, have a mixture of different ancestral stocks. Through cultural inheritance, they are Arab Americans. The Iberomaurusians were, for example, dark-skinned, but genetically they were closely related to Cro-Magnons (who were also dark-skinned). As regards African Americans, they are mainly of West African descent, notwithstanding their European or Native American ancestry. The other uslegal link explains that they are Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry; this is certainly less ambiguous than "black". Mariah Carey probably has less such ancestry than some Middle Easterners. Nonetheless, she is partially African American because her father was African American. Soupforone (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We go off of WP:RS. The Census RS says black. The uslegal link says black, and also says "the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." The use of the term "generally" implies that there are exceptions: the exceptions include those I mentioned above (some Somalis, Nubians, and nothern sudanese). Steeletrap (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

to be clear: I'm not saying that all Americans of African descent (e.g. North Africans) are AA; clearly they're not. I am merely saying that all Americans who are from ethnic groups perceived as "black," including some groups who are not of sub-Saharan African descent, are AA. This is supported by the RS. Steeletrap (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap, regarding this edit that traded "native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" and "any of the black racial groups of Africa," you addressed this matter more than once at this talk page, and it seemed that WP:Consensus consistently decided to keep the "native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" wording. Per WP:FORUMSHOP, I don't think you should keep bringing this matter up every few months. I haven't seen you go to different forums about this, but you are repeatedly bringing this topic up. That stated, I'll leave the matter up to others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Con cannot override WP:RS. Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the matter is a bit more nuanced. The other uslegal link explains that African Americans have at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry because of folks like Mariah Carey, Rashida Jones and Nicole Richie, who, though not "black" in the traditional negro sense, are nevertheless African American since one of their respective parents is/was African American. Black only recently gave way to negro in usage (they mean the same thing), and the other groups you mention were generally not regarded as negro in the traditional literature (see for example Theodore Roosevelt on the "non-negro" peoples he encountered [1]). They are now more readily considered Arab American, and this is written into their respective national constitutions too. They are also part of the census organization's strata for its new MENA entry (on page 60 [2]). Soupforone (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have Nubian nieces and nephews. They identify and are perceived as black, even though they're not of sub-Saharan African ancestry.

I've tried to introduce a compromise version that's true to the RS, which says "generally" from Sub-saharan Africa. Steeletrap (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, got the family anecdote. Anyway, to your point there about Sub-Saharan it would appear that the census bureau doesn't equate Sub-Saharan with black since some MENA groups inhabit the margins of the region, whereas Afro-Caribbeans and African Americans do not nor do Negrito and related populations. The link above is to the latest official stratification, and it has Sudanese among the new MENA strata. Also note that the census bureau arrived at this at the behest of MENA organizations and expert groups [3]. Soupforone (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You removed the "in the United States, African American is 'generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry.'" part, but a quote for the second reference in the lead still states "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." To me, it seems relevant that we mention the "In the United States" part, considering this is the African Americans article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, United States is important and is already noted in parentheses ("an ethnic group of Americans (citizens or residents of the United States)"). There is no need to duplicate it in the same sentence. Soupforone (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not suggesting any duplication; my point was that since this article mostly concerns the United States, how the term is generally defined in the United States should be in the lead. That is why I noted the "In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In other words, I don't see why you removed that part after Steeletrap compromised with you by retaining "Sub-Saharan African" in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. You wrote that it seems relevant to mention the "in the United States" part, and I pointed out that that is already noted in that same link ("...an ethnic group of Americans (citizens or residents of the United States)"). Since a resident of the United States is an actual inhabitant of the territory, the second "in the United States" phrase was unnecessary duplication. Soupforone (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I was focused on the "Sub-Saharan African ancestry" part, which is no longer in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, it was just that you indicated that "it seems relevant that we mention the "In the United States" part, considering this is the African Americans article". Anyway, as I explained the US government does not after all necessarily equate Sub-Saharan with black. See for example here. African Americans and Afro-Carribeans are not Sub-Saharan. Soupforone (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Not necessarily" is not the point, though. The point is that we have a WP:Reliable source stating "generally," as in "the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not the official government one. Please see the bullet points on page 28. Soupforone (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientists left out of image box

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Why are there no African-American scientists or inventors featured in the image box at the top of the page? There's no sign of George Washington Carver, or Elijah McCoy, or Neil deGrasse Tyson, all prominent and influential in their fields. Tyson's picture is stuck way down in the section on "education", as if his educational attainment were more noteworthy than his professional accomplishments. This mystifies me. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A side note: if there's only going to be one representative of African Americans in the film industry featured in the image box, why Denzel Washington and not Spike Lee? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

How the hell is Mariah Carey African American?

Latest comment: 8 years ago47 comments11 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LjL and Pincrete (last time WP:Pinging Pincrete to this section because I assume he will check back here if he wants to read replies), I wasn't suggesting that self-identification alone should be the main way we categorize people based on "race"/ethnicity. After all, Rachel Dolezal identifying as black/African American isn't enough for us to categorize her as black/African American. But I am stating that, like Berry and Williams, Carey identifies as black/African American (has identified as black/African American in different interviews), has been categorized as black/African American by WP:Reliable sources, and is part black/African American. Who are we to state that she is any less black/African American than Halle Berry is and that she therefore does not count as black/African American? What are we basing that on? Their skin color differences, despite both having a black parent and a white parent? I was stating that we need to go by self-identity and/or what WP:Reliable sources state. Like I noted at Talk:Johnny Depp when agreeing with CorbieVreccan that we shouldn't categorize Johnny Depp as African American, "There have been various disputes at the Barack Obama article and talk page relating to the one-drop rule, which is why the lead of that article currently has a WP:Hidden note, stating, "PLEASE DO not CHANGE OBAMA'S RACE FROM 'AFRICAN AMERICAN', per existing consensus. See discussions and FAQ (Q2) on the talk page." With the Barack Obama article, we went with what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources were/are calling him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Flyer, any lack of clarity was mine not yours. I endorse everything you are saying, both how identified generally by RS + self-identification need to be allowed for. Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A subject considering that they qualify for a label under such a "rule" of racial pigeonholing isn't the same as their self-identification. We'd need more to go on than one thin statement in an interview. I had a Moravian great-great-great-grandmother but do not self-identify as a Czech-American, even if I'd agree I qualify as "part-Czech" in a genetic background sense, were someone to ask me about that. There's a difference. PS: Noted, about Outedexits and socking, but the issued raised is a valid one, as evidenced by the extended, multi-view discussion that is raised. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Replacing the notable but fading-from-influence Carey with the mega-notable Michael Jackson, whose ethnic self-identification isn't questioned, would seem to make this discussion moot. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish (last time WP:Pinging SMcCandlish to this section because I assume he will check back here if he wants to read replies), see what I just stated above to both LjL and Pincrete in one reply; that is what I mean in this case. I included that clip because, upon a quick Google search, I didn't come across a WP:Reliable source where Carey self-identifies as black/African American (despite, in the past, having read in more than one article that she does identify that way), and because it is a source where she directly speaks on the matter (in other words, seeing and hearing is often believing). While she doesn't directly state that she views herself as black/African American in that interview, she does state that "In the U.S., she is black", and she seems mostly content with that, going on to state that her father is black and that her mother is white. She is also categorized as African American by a variety of categories at the Mariah Carey article because she is part African American and is identified as African American in some of the sources there. As for Michael Jackson, considering all the speculation and debate about his changing physical appearance, I'm not sure about his self-identification as black/African American, but I know that he is without a doubt categorized as black/African American. Still, I object to your change because, as stated before, we should be presenting diversity in that infobox, not simply images of people "we think look black, so they're black." We shouldn't be excluding people because they look "too white" and therefore some people won't view them as black. I also disagree because how are we to define "fading-from-influence"? If we mean "not in the spotlight as much" and/or "doesn't have as much sway with the new or older generation as before," the same can be stated of various people in that infobox. But do all these people have lasting influence? Yes. The Legacy section of the Mariah Carey article is clear about her lasting influence; she still influences up-and-coming singers, whether it's seen on singing shows, where the singers comment about her being their inspiration or wanting a voice like hers (in her glory years, no doubt), or whether it's stated by up-and-coming singers or new stars in interviews. But I noted that I'd leave this infobox matter up to others; it doesn't mean that I accept the outcome. The "light-skinned black people and/or light-skinned biracial people for the infobox" aspect has come up before at this talk page; a recent example is a February 2015 discussion where Steeletrap argued for adding Mariah Carey. And it will come up again and again at this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to reverting my change [actually, I just self-reverted it]; making it seemed like an obvious way to get around the issue, and Jackson's a more notable example to use to begin with, but of course it doesn't help resolve dispute to replace one dispute with a new one. If it's desirable to not replace a female example with a male one, there are plenty of long-term-notable, very influential women would could be used as examples here, even if you want to stick with singers (the most obvious is probably Ella Fitzgerald). I don't personally have an opinion about whether Carey "should" be considered "black"; I think this kind of racialist thinking is ridiculous to begin with, and the "one drop rule" is basically politically motivated and manipulative superstition. My concern was that one video clip where Carey confirms partial African descent does not equate to an "I am African-American" self-identification, that's all. It's original research. If there are additional sources confirming such a self-identification (even in a sideband way, e.g. speaking at a NAACP event, etc.), then it wouldn't be OR (though this is a matter that should be taken up at her own article, which does not ID her as an African American). Due to WP:BLP we have a responsibility to respect self-identification over external labeling; it's not enough that some articles probably refer to Carey as African-American. Because of increased understanding of race as a social construct, mostly one bent to negative ends, more and more people actively resist such labeling, and we don't have enough information to know whether Carey is one of them. As for 'we should be presenting diversity in that infobox, not simply images of people "we think look black, so they're black"', that's another reason why Jackson seems an obvious choice; his quest to change his physical appearance did not affect whether he can objectively be classified as African-American (though some feel it challenges his classification as "black", which as I suggested is basically pointless noise, socio-culturally speaking, to begin with). We do not need any large percentage of included photos that are intentionally chosen because they're light-skinned; including Colin Powell and a few others is sufficient. Going out of our way in this regard would be no different from going to the Irish people article and intentionally singling out a bunch of swarthy individuals from the extreme west of the island to over-make a point, or top-loading the "White people" article with individuals who've spent lots of time in a tanning booth. Illustrating the range of diversity is not the same as browbeating people with it. :) This article isn't "Black Americans", so there is not much need to go out of our way to demonstrate "hey, not all 'black' people are dark!" to begin with. It's not like anyone reading this article doesn't already understand that, even if they're school children or people from countries without a lot of "black" people like Finland and Japan. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's only WP:Original research if I was arguing to use that video clip as a source for the article to relay that she has directly self-identified as black/African American; I wasn't. Like the introduction of the WP:Original research policy currently states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I explained why I included the clip. As for self-identification with regard to "race"/ethnicity, we clearly do not simply go on that alone at this site. With regard to "race"/ethnicity, we usually don't wait to see how a person self-identifies; we usually categorize them on "obviousness" and/or by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state. If Obama identified as white, it's still unlikely that the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources wouldn't be referring to him as black/African American. But, per my statements above, how a person self-identities also matters to me. And I would not have stated that Carey self-identifies as black/African American if I hadn't read it in WP:Reliable sources over the years. I don't know what you mean about her Wikipedia article not identifying her as African American; it clearly does, which is why I stated, "She is also categorized as African American by a variety of categories at the Mariah Carey article because she is part African American and is identified as African American in some of the sources there." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

[outdent] If Mariah Carey has a Black parent, was raised in Black culture, and self-identifies as African American, I think it's fine to identify her as both African American and Mixed Race. She is both. Another example of a person who doesn't necessarily "look Black" to many, but identifies as such, is Rashida Jones, the daughter of Quincy Jones. Both are different from Dolezal as Dolezal was raised white, has white parents, and fabricated a new, fictitious identity for herself. Totally different. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeat: One video clip where Carey confirms partial African descent does not equate to an "I am African-American" self-identification, that's all. The "had a black parent" claim isn't borne out anyway, except under "one-drop rule" thinking, which is basically anti-scientific. We know only that her father was of African American and Venezuelan descent, and do not know whether he self-identified as African American, Hispanic, multiracial, or what. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of that clip, WP:Reliable sources have identified her as black/African American and/or as having stated that she identifies that way; some of these sources are in her Wikipedia article. As for Carey's father's self-identification, every indication that Carey has given about his "race"/ethnicity is that he saw himself as black/African American, and that includes her comment in that aforementioned clip (note that I stated "indication," not "confirmation"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Lack of confirmation is a BLP issue and looks like OR (if not to you then to some, in the form of novel analysis/interpretation, i.e. "reaching"). External labeling by sources is not self-identification. We do not have any kind of need to include Carey, when there are hot-swappable alternatives (see below) that, without raising any such BLP/OR question, preserve an unquestionably notable, female, world-famous, post-black-and-white-era, light-skinned, singer-songwriter/actress/beauty-symbol in the infobox, to the extent that any of those particular criteria are important to begin with (probably none of them are other than "notable" and maybe "female"). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I was clear about why I provided that video clip; it is Carey directly commenting on the topic of "race"/ethnicity. In the video clip, she clearly states that she is black in the U.S. and that her father is black (her father being black is something you question since you take into account his identity and that we shouldn't be adhering to the one-drop rule), but Carey has always described him as black. I know this from having read various articles on Carey over the years (my mom was/still is a huge Whitney Houston fan, and Carey was commonly considered Houston's main rival); it's these various articles that contribute to me stating that she has self-identified as black/African American before. Either way, I've been very clear that we do not solely or even mostly go by self-identification when it comes to categorizing people's "race"/ethnicity at this site. As for any supposed WP:BLP violation, see what I stated a below; I bolded for emphasis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Houston would probably be an even better Carey-replacement than either Turner or Knowles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to continue to question Carey's star quality, despite her huge accomplishments. She was consistently compared to Houston because of her talent and accomplishments. She is the only singer I've seen credited as a true rival to Houston. Again, look at the influence she has had, and still has. I don't see how Beyoncé Knowles is more notable than Carey. Knowles is light-skinned, yes; but, like I noted below, Carey being listed is not simply a light-skinned matter. There are already light-skinned people in the infobox. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed alternative solution: Pick someone from Category:African-American female singers (light-skinned if you like). NB: Mariah Carey does not appear in this category. That's a really strong indication she should not appear in this article. Tina Turner seems like a reasonable bet. If there's any goal to retain a younger, more recently-notable face in there, even Beyoncé would work, though her notability level is lower (though like Turner, and Carey for that matter, she's a Hollywood movie star as well as best-selling singer, so is double-notable). Pinging: Savvyjack23, CorbieVreccan, Flyer22 Reborn, Pincrete, LjL, 181.50.106.49 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There are already light-skinned African American people in the infobox; for example, Malcom X and Obama are considered light-skinned African American people. The point is that Carey and those similar to her represent another aspect of the diverse African American community. And that Carey is not in Category:African-American female singers because no one has yet placed her there (or they did and she was later removed for whatever reason) is not "a really strong indication she should not appear in this article." Like I noted above, "She is also categorized as African American by a variety of categories at the Mariah Carey article because she is part African American and is identified as African American in some of the sources there." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, she is in Category:African-American female singer-songwriters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Colorism (who is "black enough" and who isn't, and who is better because of their light skin or dark skin) is a serious issue in the African American community, and I see that issue being reflected in this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I do, too, namely in the insistence that it's wrong to remove Mariah Carey (whose own article and the sources for it do not indicate she self-IDs as "African[-]American"), solely on the basis that we need more light-skinned examples. (Colorism in the US runs in the opposite direction it does in Africa, with prejudice in most contexts running against those with darker skin and more obviously African features). I've provided this talk page with two obvious alternatives that do not have potential WP:NOR / WP:BLP issues, and I don't even agree with the view that we need to stuff more light-skinned examples in there; it's a red herring to begin with. I've done enough, others can decide (how about some actual African-American editors?) and I decline to continue more circular argumentation about this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere did I state or indicate that we should include Carey "solely on the basis that we need more light-skinned examples." Firstly, Carey is not simply "a light-skinned example." Her case is that of a biracial woman who, to many people, does not "look black" but identifies as black/African American and is categorized as black/African American by various WP:Reliable sources. Like Halley Berry, she states that she has a white parent and a black parent (no matter if you don't consider Carey's father black), but that, in the U.S., she is seen as black and therefore this factors into her identity as black. Berry goes one step further and acknowledges that she "looks black," which makes it easier for her to be accepted as black. Carey, on the other hand, had a tougher time being accepted as white or black, or anything else, as she's stated or indicated in various interviews over the years, and as was made clear by her mother on Oprah (see this video clip if you haven't already). You made it seem like adding Mariah Carey to the infobox is a WP:POINTY violation, which is silly to me, given that she is identified as African American in various WP:Reliable sources and by categories in her Wikipedia article. If she can be safely categorized as African American in that article, and it is in no way a WP:BLP violation or, more specifically, a WP:BLPCAT violation, she can be safely identified as African American in this Wikipedia article. You (and the blocked editor who started this discussion) made it seem like we should forgo including Carey because some people will not see her as black/African American, despite the fact that she is indeed categorized as African American by various WP:Reliable sources, identifies as black/African American and with black/African American culture, and has been embraced by that culture for years. And then there is the aforementioned February 2015 discussion I mentioned. I saw all of that as a problem, which is why I stated "we should be presenting diversity in that infobox, not simply images of people 'we think look black, so they're black'" and "We shouldn't be excluding people because they look 'too white' and therefore some people won't view them as black.'" No one is stating that we should have a bunch of "examples" like Carey in the infobox. But some of us are stating that having one or two "examples" like Carey is fine, since Carey indeed represents another aspect of the varied African American community.

This type of discussion is why I mainly stay out of "race"/ethnicity discussions on Wikipedia; I've been clear on my talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia that most of the scientific community doesn't believe in "race" in the way that society generally does, which is also why I commonly point to Recent African origin of modern humans in these types of discussions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at. But what I'm getting at is that nothing at Carey's article indicates that she actually self-identifies as African-American at all, and using a handful of sources that do want to classify her that way is a serious PoV problem as well as raising the ABOUTSELF, BLP, and IDENTITY issues. All she's said is that being mixed-race caused familial problems and social challenges growing up. This is what I mean by this being a subtle OR problem; it's a synthetic analysis coming to a conclusion not evidenced in the cited sources, even if it's a rather understandable and innocent one. If a fighter pilot said that having had a part-Jewish father caused him some problems growing up in Idaho this would not equate to a self-identification as a Jew himself. Many of us melting-pot Americans do not consider ourselves to be "an anything" other than melting-pot Americans (scientifically the idea "I'm 1/8th English" or whatever is nonsense to begin with; genetics doesn't work that way). And yes, we do very strongly consider such self-identification matters as a BLP issue; they come up quite frequently, and not just with regard to "race" or ethnicity. It would not be enough that some newspaper had labeled the fighter pilot "Jewish-American" or "a Jew". WP is absolutely not in a position to advocate the "one-drop rule" in WPs own voice, either directly or subtly. My broader point, however, is that an infobox is not a place to put examples that generate dispute, so Carey should be replaced on that basis alone anyway. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the extended discussion on my talk page, and your "21:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)" post above, I think we generally understand each other's points. Again, I apologize if I misinterpreted your views. But I will note here that I didn't state that self-identification does not matter as a BLP issue; in my "20:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)" post above, I was clear that it does. But I was also clear that "With regard to 'race'/ethnicity, we usually don't wait to see how a person self-identifies; we usually categorize them on 'obviousness' and/or by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state. If Obama identified as white, it's still unlikely that the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources wouldn't be referring to him as black/African American." I was not suggesting that we impose a one-drop rule on the article. And, given your posts on my talk page, I think you know that; society already imposes the one-drop rule enough, mainly based on appearance, or else Obama wouldn't simply be thought of as "black/African American" more than he is ever thought of as white, despite his biracial heritage. In fact, I can't think of any case where he is simply identified as white. If anyone were to call him white, everyone would bat an eye. But call him black, and it's fine. I've been clear that Carey has self-identified as black/African American (even if not directly in that first clip), that she's identified as black/African American by various WP:Reliable sources, and that she is accepted as black/African American by the African American community. My point all along has been that, considering those factors, it is not wrong in the least to include her in the infobox as African American; doing so is not stating that she is not also white/multiracial. A good thing to look at in a case like this is Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, where it states, "The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ('biracial', 'mixed', 'Kenyan-American', 'mulatto', 'quadroon', etc.)?", and then goes on to answer with regard to the definition of African American or black, and with regard to WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Carey is the daughter of a white woman and a black man; she's as black as President Obama. https://books.google.com/books?id=xcwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q&f=false Let's please not descend into colorism; she's just as notable as Rihanna, another African American pop star. (The reaction to her addition speaks volumes about the extent of colorism in America; this is something Rashida Jones has had to deal with.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As to Dolezal, there's a reason that she was able to live the lie for years: there are thousands of black people who look like her. In addition, there's a difference between having mixed ancestry--and looking more like your white parent--and lying about your ancestry. Steeletrap (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap, Vvven was the latest account to remove Carey, stating, "mariah carey cant be included because she is genetically and visually a mixed. and millions of laatinos affirm that she is latina because her backgrounds." I reverted, per above and per Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy?, where the WP:Consensus is clear. But I'm not going to WP:Edit war over this, especially since this article is vulnerable to WP:Socks pushing their POV. Also, it is worth noting that Vvven states on his user page, "Im a white Latino that born in my beautiful country Venezuela." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Wath is problem if i state my true ethnic and backgroung if thousands of million state that hes black or "afro american" while they have right with contribute in a ethnic page when they just have of african 600 years old when they were is african. i have to right to say the same too. i am white latino., and with the question, she is has very statements and sources more valids of shes is a latina than the supposedly that shes is african american, that she said that shes is african american, and you like her, dont support anything, is like say that obama is white just that in case that he said he said that. is not valid that. shes has complete backgrounds Venezuelan latina, and White..-.. shes not should included here--Vvven (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Vvven, huh? There is clearly a language barrier between us. I understood a little bit of your argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ok you understand all but i going to traduce it for you will happy and dont cry--Vvven (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

":Flyer22 Reborn Wath is problem if i says my true ethnic and backgroung if thousands of million also says that they are blacks or "afro american"s and they have the right of contribute in a ethnic page as this, and they just have of african when 600 years old they were in reality afro or african, now they are just americans called they self "african". i have to right to say, as you says, the same too. ok i am white latino., and with in reality matter, in she there facts and sources much more valids, that shes is a latina, than the suppose that shes is african american, that she said that is african american, and you people like her, dont support anything, is like say that obama is white (just that in case that he could said) just beacause he said that. is not valid too. shes has complete backgrounds of Venezuelan (latina), and WHITE..-.. shes not can be included here no think change much but you can read now?--Vvven (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)"

On a somewhat related note, have a look at this edit on "White people" where "people who aren't completely white, people for whom visual evidence is inadequate, and ugly people" were removed. Here we are pushing to include someone with a parent who is in turn half-African American, there they purge people who aren't "101% white" or are too ugly to be a good example of the pure race. This is awful. LjL (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Noting here that Vvven has again removed Carey, this time with an absurd edit summary. Vvven, considering Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy?, good luck removing Carey from African American categories...if you try that next. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Accord of the discussion in Mariah Carey composed of fanatics Afro Americans people, just says a couple of lies and not based in true arguments. Her father is a Latino Venezuelan, not an african american. Carey also has a white mother. For this same dumb fact, she should also be included in White Americans article. --Vvven (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Vvven, I don't have anything more to state to you, except that I've again noted disagreement with your view in the article's edit history, and would report you for WP:Personal attacks if you were worth reporting. I'm used to personal attacks at this site, so I can let them roll off me unless I really want to get an editor away from me or WP:Blocked. But since you called Alanscottwalker, Wikimandia, Steeletrap and Snow Rise "fanatics," and they have the right to know that, I've WP:Pinged them in this paragraph. Good luck with your "Carey is not African American" crusade; you'll need it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And as for the other personal attacks I was speaking of, Vvven removed them before I responded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a crusade, this is says the true to diffenrence to this facade of this article. an article with intentions to feel proud more in biased terms of who is who is not than says the true. they could be fanatism because says that a Venezuelan is African American or says that an Irish American is balck is be a blind.--Vvven (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I fail to see how Carey is more noteworthy as a female representative of the performing arts than Billie Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald, Leontyne Price, Diana Ross, or Nina Simone, to name a few examples. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, articles should give due weight to viewpoints published in reliable, independent sources. Concerning Carey's noteworthiness or relevance, I observe that she is conspicuously absent from 100 Greatest African Americans, which includes performing artists Marian Anderson, John Coltrane, Katherine Dunham, and Duke Ellington. Why is Carey's picture featured in this article and not theirs?—Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Vvven's edit, which was reverted again, or any other image addition to the infobox, the matter has been resolved by this edit by Filpro, who cited WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I'm not sure how the WP:Consensus from that discussion will hold up, given that we still have such galleries at the Man and Woman articles, etc., which are just as subjective, but it's the WP:Consensus for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

On a side note: I found the 100 Greatest African Americans argument to be weak; the vast majority of people on that list are deceased and the criteria aspect is not something that readily lends itself to those like Carey. Asking "Why Carey and not more from that list?" can be posed for a number of people by substituting their names in place of Carey's. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:RfC

I created this subsection so that it's very clear that a related WP:RfC has resulted from this discussion: Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Growth template (little green arrow)

Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Broadmoor added a little green arrow showing that the African American population is increasing, but MShabazz later removed it on the grounds the the template's documentation supposedly doesn't endorse such use. The situation repeated itself, and I intervened to restore the arrow because I saw nothing in the template's documentation that would forbid its use. I was then informed (after a third revert by MShabazz) that a discussion was in progress at Bradmoor's talk page, instead of here. I'm taking it here as it seems a lot more proper. LjL (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: why do you say that "all population groups increase, all over the world"? Surely, that is not true, and there are many ethnic groups whose population is shrinking. I really have no idea what you base that assertion on. LjL (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem, this isn't a murky issue, it's clear that the African American population is fastly growing (among the top 3 in the nation), other ethnic groups have the green indicator on their page so it's not out of compliance. And it's clear that MShabazz is being unreasonable and is combative for no reason.Broadmoor (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to make it about the editor; keep it about the content. It's not "clear" to me, anyway. Why don't you show us the other ethnic groups that have this green indicator, since MShabazz did show some that do not have it? But in any case, I can only keep repeating (as I have done on your talk page) that the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifies nothing one way or the other. More importantly: do we have a source that clearly states that the African American population is currently increasing? Also, is this in raw numbers, or in percentage of the general American population? There is a difference. LjL (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (@LjL) I base it on where the template was placed, at the very top of the infobox, above the total number of African-Americans. Because AFAIK *all* population groups in the US, and virtually all elsewhere, increase in numbers. If the template was intended to draw attention to an increase in percentage share of the total population it should be placed somewhere else, or rather not placed anywhere, since that could just as well be stated in words somewhere in the body of the article. And, BTW, don't template the regulars as you did with Malik Shabazz. Post a customised message instead, it's as valid as a 3RR-warning as the template is. Thomas.W ^talk 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether I "template the regulars" or not is up to me, not to essays, and if you disagree with my choice you can leave a message on my talk page in clear preference to leaving it here. If "the regulars" make three consecutive reverts with no discussion on the article's talk page, as they did, it seems obvious that regular or not, they are not familiar enough with the policies. That "virtually all" population groups "everywhere" increase in raw numbers is obviously false, as there are many countries in Europe (for example) where the total native population is decreasing. This needs sources, and is not true for "all" of anything as you're trying to assert. As to placing the information somewhere else, if the template exists, it's because it can be used to convey a simple bit of information that can be useful to have in a short, visible form; if you have a good argument for using prose, present it. LjL (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, for starters it wasn't "a little green arrow" as you claim in your first post here, it was a very prominent large arrow at the very top of the infobox, instead of the little in-line green arrow next to small text in the infobox of companies that is the intended use of that template. As for the rest it seems like you didn't read my post, since I did not say that you shouldn't notify Malik Shabazz, as you seem to claim both here and on my talk page, what I said was that it should have been done using a customised, "hand written", message instead of the template, as templating a regular, especially one as experienced as Malik Shabazz, is often seen as disrespectful. Thomas.W ^talk 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The arrows fits the font of the content in the box which is larger than the other ethnic pages that uses the indicator. And if the problem was truly the size of the arrow, why didn't Thomas.W just make it smaller opposed to deleting it completely. The problem is you just don't want it up there because you said so and that's not how it works.Broadmoor (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

reply -- too many edit conflicts

(too many edit conflicts) LjL, you're speculating about the meaning of the arrow, and Broadmoor is being a dick. I have several articles about ethnic groups on my watchlist, and today is the first time I've seen anybody add an arrow to the population. I tried to discuss the matter with Broadmoor, but he was a dick -- telling me to fix the other articles (presumably by adding arrows) instead of this one. Broadmoor claims all other articles about ethnic groups have the arrows, but they don't: look at Japanese Americans, American Jews, or Jews. On Wikipedia, when an editor adds material to an article, the responsibility is theirs to justify their addition, not on others to justify why it doesn't belong. See WP:BRD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not really true. If there is no valid reason stated, even after it is requested, as to why it doesn't belong, then at that point, the information belongs, and the burden of proof shifts to the other party. Otherwise, I could stop any information from ever being added to Wikipedia just by objecting to it on vague grounds. Please do tell us what exactly in the template's documentation prevents it from being used, or what other good reason there is to avoid this indication. Some ethnic groups are gaining population, some are losing it (despite what Thomas claims, which is very confusing to me; the overall world population is increasing, but that in no way implies that all ethnic groups are gaining new people!), so that's a valid bit of information, in itself. Whether other ethnic group articles currently have it or not is basically irrelevant. LjL (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans all have growth indicators. See LjL, this why I didn't bother further engaging Shabazz ... just look at his response. And African Americans are increasing percentage wise and by number, just look at the cited census data found on the AA read page. The only ethnic group that is decreasing percentage wise nation wide is Non-Hispanic Whites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadmoor (talk • contribs) 22:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Broadmoor, you're the one who wrote that "all other racial groups have the growth indicator" (my emphasis), which is obviously not true. When I showed you it was untrue, you got all dickish about it. ("Either remove all increase symbols or don't remove the one from African Americans.") Who the fuck died and made you King of Wikipedia? I'll edit what I want to, thank you very much. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And LjL, as I explained twice before, please read the instructions at Template:Increase. The population of African Americans is not comparable to a "ranking in a list or company profit". Stop lying and saying I haven't provided a valid explanation for my deletion when I provided one in my edit summaries, at User talk:Broadmoor, and on your talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And I have explained, on Broadmoor's talk page where you (for some reason) first decided to discuss this matter instead of taking it here, that the fact "not comparable" to a couple of examples doesn't mean anything, and that the basic documentation for the template simply states that it should be used for things that increase. So your explanation is not valid, and I find it particularly unappropriate that you would characterize me as "lying" for stating that. You have reverted 3 times (just short of WP:3RR) without a word on this talk page, you have called the other party's edit summary "piss-poor" and himself a "dick", and now you are calling me a liar. Who are you trying to impress? LjL (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

LjL, Broadmoor's "explanation" for undoing my revert, both in their edit summary and on their talk page, was piss-poor. They have been a dick about this whole thing. (Read their contributions to this page and their talk page if you don't believe me.) I went to their talk page because they have never made a single edit to this talk page, ever, despite making 81 edits to the article, and I didn't feel like talking to myself. Finally, it's time for you to be honest: You don't like my explanation, but that doesn't make it invalid. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I edited with integrity. So Shabazz when are you going to remove the growth indicator for Non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans .... the three other largest ethnic groups? Or are you just obsessed with removing it from African-Americans for who knows why? What sense does that make? You have dodged the question over and over and over again and made derogatory comments about anyone who dare challenges your flawed logic. If it's wrong for African Americans to have it, why is it OK for the other ethnic groups to have it. Until you can fairly answer that, it will stay up ... and "because I said so" isn't good enough.Broadmoor (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be good enough for you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

MShabazz you're not fooling anyone, I know you have multiple user accounts to revert the changes but I'll go through the proper channels moving forward. It's been reported so we'll go from there.Broadmoor (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're a swift one. Click on my user name to see my other account. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Broadmoor: Article talk pages are for discussing article content, not other editors... Thomas.W ^talk 15:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Afro-Americans

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The term is now obsolete and is rarely used anymore. MB298 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right, and this source (cited in the article as footnote 208) seems to add support: In a 1993 survey, 30% of African Americans preferred that term, 42% preferred Black, and only 10% preferred Afro-American.

Is there a specific proposal you'd like to discuss (for example, removing the phrase from the first sentence and moving it to the "Terminology" section of the article)? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Does WP: IMAGE RELEVANCE apply here?

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

and

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

Frederick Douglass

Harriet Tubman

Booker T. Washington

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

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

Don't overload articles with images.

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

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

I have made changes to the infobox. These changes reflect the consensus reached in these talk pages. There are 36 African Americans who I felt are most notable for diverse achievements in the political, economic and cultural spheres. I paid attention to historical and gender diversity as well.DanJazzy (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@DanJazzy: You have made a lot more changes than just adding a gallery to the image box, it's in fact a major rewrite of the article, with a large undiscussed removal of sourced content. Adding a gallery also violates consensus at Wiki Project Ethnic groups. Thomas.W ^talk 18:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a made up rule. It is not Wikipedia policy.DanJazzy (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe more images of women?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Outside of the Obama family portrait, there's only a single African-American woman (Michelle Obama again), pictured on this page, and - well, depends how you want to count it, but there's 6 individual portraits of men, one of two men (one Caucasian), and a couple group portraits that are pretty much all male as well. That seems problematic. Offhand, ignoring musicians (as, frankly, there's far too many to even begin listing once you go there: entertainers are easily the most photographed individuals, and we have entire archives of Jazz performers (for example) released into the public domain), I could suggest Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisholm, and/or Maya Angelou, perhaps? Decent images for all of them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the use and number of pictures in the infoboxes. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:African Americans". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)

When it comes to this, editors should see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I came to this article see if "black" was capitalized mid-sentence to follow however this article does it in the Baltimore article, which is all over the place, but I'm noticing it's inconsistent here as well. Looks like it's lowercase more often, but it's capitalized randomly too. Is there a specific policy or general consensus about it? PermStrump(talk) 01:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where in the Manual of Style one would find it—I thought it might be in WP:MOSCAPS, but it's not—but Wikipedia's style is not to capitalize "black" when used as an ethnic description, as opposed to all other ethnic descriptions which (to my knowledge) are capitalized. "Different" but equal, I suppose. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what it seemed like, but I just wanted to double check. P.S. If anyone wants to look at the Baltimore article, I'm struggling with it. Some of the neighborhood sections are pretty racist and nothing is sourced, so I've opened different sections to edit a few times and then went on a research tangent to find sources and haven't really edited it yet. Still working on it though. PermStrump(talk) 04:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. This has been set up to determine the appropriateness of sections such as the "genetics" section in this article. I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to African Americans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Terminology/Admixture: please change "...until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitional in Loving v. Virginia (1967)." to "...until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia (1967)." Unconstitional is not a word. Midnight magician (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Exact numbers for Genetic DNA studies at the lead

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Citation 14 http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5 has the full genome for African Americans---African, European, and Native American. Citation 13 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/786.long does not, so we cannot state "78 percent West African, 19 percent European, and 3 percent Native American heritage", when citation 13 clearly does not state this exactly. Nowhere in citation 13 does it state that AAs are on average 3 percent Native American. That is way too high an estimate and one not even supported by Katarzyna Bryc, the author of the study, herself. This is why there is discussion on Wikiproject Ethnic Groups to delete genetics, because many people believe that the findings are being misinterpreted. I believe the genetics sections should stay because they are essential to certain ethnic groups like AAs who have had their history and ancestry largely obscured due to slavery, but if we're going to put numbers down, we need to put the right numbers down. Citation 14 actually has the full genome (with a margin of error, yes, but) not rounded up, and was written here exactly as the citation has it. Even saying "19 percent European" is misinterpreting the study of citation 13. We can't round up or down for genetics or put information about Native American dna for AAs when it isn't even given in the citation. In fact, citation 13 was a study to show how intermediate AAs are in between West Africans and Europeans---Native Americans weren't really factored into this study. Citation 14 gives how much Native American DNA AAs have on average.Kinfoll1993 (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Both analyses are genome wide and by the same lab. Given this population's makeup, it can be inferred that the remaining 3% is Native American. However, the 0.8% figure is more direct, so it is satisfactory. Soupforone (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This level of precision is inappropriate for the lead, and needs to be described more clearly below. Bryc 2009 uses a sample of around 450 individuals, and Bryc 2014 uses a much larger sample of around 5,269 customers of 23andMe. Similar to a poll, these paper provide estimated percentages of ancestry of those individuals, not "of African Americans" in the sense of all living African Americans. Bryc 2014 explicitly excludes African Americans of Hispanic origin and African Americans with multiple ethnic or racial backgrounds; therefore it's not representative of the broader set of present-day African Americans, which includes both these overlaps. In short, papers like these are valuable, and provide insights, but their numbers cannot be used as simple descriptions of the larger population, any more than can be done with polling data.--Carwil (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bryc lab culled its own African American sample for its 2009 analysis. The sample contained some individuals with parents of different heritage since the West African ancestry proportion ranged from 99% to 1% (78.1% on average). For its 2014 analysis, the lab apparently did borrow its African American sample, but Bryc indicates that they were unable to ascertain the exact West African and Native American ethnic groups/tribes ("at present, unable to delve deeper into the complexity of, and subancestries within, Native American and West African populations" [4]). Just the general tripartite ancestry proportions for the population,. Soupforone (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, a user put a new study up, http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1006059&version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click but we should have the discussion here first to decide if it's ok before we put it up. PLOS is well-respected, non-profit and peer-reviewed. The study does point out the disparity between African Americans of Hispanic and Latino background versus other AAs, with the former having a higher proportion of Native American and Southern European ancestry. But the European ancestry seems very low, lower than most other recent DNA studies for AAs. Also note the limited Native American sample: "Because of the small number of Native American tracts, even a small amount of spurious Native American ancestry assignments can bias the inference." Kinfoll1993 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, its European and Native American elements are uncertain given the Bryc lab's work. It is actually based in part on the Bryc analyses, so that's the standard. Soupforone (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It also seems based on the Zakharia analyses, with that being one of the references. It takes from many different studies as an amalgamation of sorts, but is it the better one? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. For one thing, it hypothesizes several different tripartite ancestries depending on the baseline populations, not just one tripartite ancestry. One analysis using West African YRI, Northwestern European CEU and Native American/Asian CHS as the baselines has 74.96%, 24.95% and 0.09% inferred proportions; the other analysis using West African YRI, Southern European TSI and Japanese as the baselines has 80.9%, 18.2% and 0.94% inferred proportions. Byrc at least indicates one tripartite ancestry and that lab specializes in this, so it's the foundation. Soupforone (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in these studies "indicates tripartite ancestry"; rather the researchers know that tripartite ancestry for prior reasons and select there current populations from known ancestral regions to do the study. The choice of Japanese or CHS populations, for instance, doesn't imply that the researchers either found, or believed, that the African Americans they studied had Japanese ancestors. Rather, they're using these populations as a proxy for the larger genetically similar group of Native Americans.

Also, many studies (including Bryc et al 2015) summarize the results of all prior studies. The best we can get is to choose one of the latest summaries, using it to indicate the range of values. For this, Bryc 2015 says:

Unlike previous estimates of the mean proportion of African ancestry, which typically have ranged from 77% to 93% African ancestry, our estimates, depending on exclusions, are 73% or 75%.

Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand, J. Michael Macpherson, David Reich, Joanna L. Mountain, The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States

For comparison, Zakharia offers the proportions in three samples in a table. Since both these recent papers offer a range of estimates, and don't claim theirs are superior to prior papers, the best we can do is summarize the range of results. Can we please do that, instead of picking one as "the foundation"?--Carwil (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Zakharia lab used different Native American baselines. Under its three-population admixture models, the Zakharia lab attempts to gauge in which order the tripartite founding admixture happened. It concludes that the African American population was established by intermarriage between West Africans and Native Americans, followed by two pulses of European admixture. The Bryc lab assertion above only highlights the West African percentage, and its average rather than absolute range. The lab indicates elsewhere [5] -- "consistent with previous studies, the diversity of ancestry profiles of 23andMe African Americans reveal that individuals comprise the full range from 0% to 100% African ancestry, but, further, that there are differences in estimates of ancestry proportions among regions". 0%-100% or thereabouts is thus the absolute range, and 73%-75% is the average range. Bryc also indicates -- "Genome-wide ancestry estimates of African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American ancestry... At present, we are unable to delve deeper into the complexity of, and subancestries within, Native American and West African populations." Likewise, the Zakharia lab indicates [6] -- "We used available parents among the trios in the Southern Han Chinese (CHS), Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria (YRI), and Utah Residents (CEPH) with Northern and Western European Ancestry (CEU) populations from the 1000 Genomes Project as a reference panel, comprising 50 CHS, 97 YRI, and 91 CEU individuals... We performed a supervised K = 4 run of ADMIXTURE [42] on African-Americans from HRS, SCCS, and ASW, with the YRI, CHS, GBR, IBS cohorts from the 1000 Genomes Project used as the reference populations representing African, Native American/Asian, northern European, and southern European ancestral populations... The mean ancestry proportions for African-Americans in HRS, as estimated by ADMIXTURE, are 81.583% for African, 17.333% for European (southern and northern combined), and 1.083% for Native American, in very good agreement with those derived using local ancestry estimates of RFMix (see main text). In comparison, the ancestry proportions for the ASW cohort are 75.726% for African, 21.881% for European (southern and northern combined), and 2.394% for Native American." The tripartite percentages therefore vary. Soupforone (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Underbelly has been warned that we should settle this matter on the talk page. I have tried to come here to resolve this, but he has been unwilling. He claims that Bryc 2014 is "5 to 10 years old", when it was published last year in The American Journal of Human Genetics. Apparently according to his perfect reasoning, a study done in 2014 and published in 2015 is somehow "5 to 10" years old. I wasn't aware of it, but apparently we are living in the year 2020 or 2025. Underbelly tries to cover himself by saying he has the most up to date study. We are interested in the most accurate study, not the most up to date study. He isn't interested in putting the best information up for Wikipedia, he is only interested in putting up a genetic study so that he receives the credit. You know, he's a true team player. If his study is more accurate, then we can put it up. If not, then we won't. But we are supposed to discuss these things and try to resolve them if there is a disagreement. Underbelly has refused to go to the talk page and instead wants to edit war. Despite my getting a third party with Trappist the monk to ask him to go to the talk page, he decided to ignore this request and to continue to engage in this petty, pointless effort to put up a study because he found it on the internet (not because it was better, and this shows how unwilling he is to allow anyone else to put something up). He's been on Wikipedia many more years than I have, yet seems incapable of following the proper procedures. If he continues this friendly behavior, I suggest that he should be disallowed to edit the article. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Underbelly should have discussed it first. As seen, both the Bryc lab and Zakharia lab indicate West African/European/Native American ancestries for this population. It's just their sample areas and tripartite percentages that vary. Underbelly appears to prefer the Zakharia lab estimate due to the age thing. However, rather than date of publication, it should be because of the lab's caveat regarding ascertainment bias on the 23andme and ASW datasets. Soupforone (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that Underbelly actually prefers one study over the other; he initially argued for Bryc 2009, then switched to the PLOS genetics study after I pointed out no specific mention of "3 percent Native American." I'm not against a compromise that would summarize the studies if it will resolve this. I also want to add that the RFC for whether genetic studies should stay is still open. Soupforone and Carwil---if this RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups is of interest to you, please feel free to comment or vote. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Underbelly would perhaps then be okay with a range estimate for the tripartite ancestries, from lowest to highest for each ancestry (viz. 73.2%-80.9% West African/18.2%-24% European/0.8%-0.94% Native American). It would thus comprise both the Byrc and Zakharia estimates. Soupforone (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he would be content with your suggestion, as he still hasn't been to the talk page. I can only speak for myself and say that I would not mind the combination of the Zakharia and Bryc estimates. I just want the best information up and to wrap this up. Also, the RFC I mentioned above has just recently closed,it appears that it's been decided to keep genetic studies for pages on ethnic groups. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Soupforone (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with Soupforones suggestion of the compromise of both the byrc and zakharia studies. Underbelly

Okay Underbelly and Kinfoll1993, per the above, I've adjusted the estimate to the Bryc and Zakharia labs' ranges. Soupforone (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Black racial groups" should be changed to "Black populations"

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"...ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa". This is incorrect because it insinuates that there is more than one racial group in Africa. There is only one human racial group in the world and all human beings fall under that group. It should be changed to "...Black populations of Africa." as stated in one of the sources. Let's try to end this ignorance regarding the socially constructed misconception about human races!

If you would like to dispute my facts there is an excellent Wikipedia page on the subject where you will find the information needed to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.128.242 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Humans are actually a species, Homo sapiens sapiens. Soupforone (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, please, a picture?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(warning: "I'm not racist but..." material, ranting)

I know it was most likely removed to not look racist, but please, can we just have an image in the infobox that gets across "this is roughly what black people look like. Not all black people look like this, of course, but they usually tend to look vaguely similar to this." It isn't racist to give an example of what a normal individual would see and identify as "black" or "African American" any more than it'd be racist to show someone and say "this person looks pretty white" (OK, well, that would be potentially racist, but something more similar to the earlier description wouldn't be); it's just providing examples. It isn't as much of an issue here- most people, at least where I live, know the general common traits of a black person- dark skin, dark hair, etc.

However, it seems that this was applied to other races too; Albanians includes few modern images of Albanians, at least near the top. You know what? I have no f***ing clue what Albanians look like. I'm sorry, but I don't. Most people I know, off the top of their heads, couldn't describe Albanians to you at gunpoint.

Remember: An image of an actual person of a group that doesn't have any obvious physical differences from most other people isn't a racial stereotype because that person is actually a member of the group. It wouldn't be accurate to show an image of The Elephant Man under an article describing English people, but it's accurate to show a picture of an actual, generally-physiologically-average English person there.

End-of-rant.

Hppavilion1 (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. And see its proposed repeal. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts about "Terminology" Section

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I had some thoughts about the Terminology section. As most people reading this page will most likely be English Language speakers, I just wanted to highlight the difference in usage of the word "boy". In England, calling someone a "boy" is ok, and it's part of the language culture -- I believe irrespective of race/origin. However, in the US referring to an African-American as "boy" would be highly derogatory. I believe no different than the "N" word. I'm not yet ready to edit and write on main pages, so just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about this? My thought is to clearly distinguish the use of "boy" in England from its (historic & degrading) use in the USA. Let's say someone from England comes to the US to visit, and they don't know the historical context of "boy" in regard to African Americans. S/he may playfully/ignorantly call an African-American teenager "boy" -- and then be considered bigoted. If you ever watch the UK tv show "Doc Martin" one of the characters constantly calls his son "boy". Just thought I'd run this by the community.Torfrid (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)