This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Small typo
"Some of these were. Slavery, reconstruction, development of the African-American community, participation in the great military conflicts of the United States, racial segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement."
There should be no colon after "were". Could someone fix this?
Spanish pronunciation
The very last paragraph expands on pronunciation in Spanish and Portuguese: "In Latin America, negro, which translates as black is the term generally used to refer and describe black people and, similarly to mulatto, it is not considered offensive at all in these regions. However, it is pronounced differently, with the e (a mid front unrounded vowel in American Spanish: [ˈneɣɾo], and a close-mid front unrounded vowel in Brazilian Portuguese: [ˈneɡɾu]) being closer to a sound that it is intermediate between phonemes found in English words such as pay and egg (in Spanish) or day, city and item (in Portuguese)." It fails to mention, however, that in Spanish the -g- is also pronounced differently, although this is indirectly indicated in the IPA rendering ([ˈne'ɣɾo]).
Book for further reading
*{{Cite book |last= Kilson |first= Martin |year= 2014 |title= Transformation of the African American Intelligentsia, 1880–2012 |location= Cambridge, MA |publisher= [[Harvard University Press]] |isbn= 978-0-674-28354-1 }}
Louis Armstrong for photo table
Can I nominate Louis Armstrong for inclusion on the 4x3 box of notable African Americans? --174.94.45.109 (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which picture would you like to replace with Armstrong's? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 10:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Categories for discussion
There are proposals to merge (and effectively delete) Category:African-American female rappers, Category:African-American female guitarists and Category:African-American female lawyers at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 12. If you have an opinion on these discussions, please voice your position. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Incorrectly used to refer to non-American blacks
"The U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation categorizes black or African-American people as 'A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa' through racial categories used in the UCR Program adopted from the Statistical Policy Handbook (1978) and published by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, derived from the 1977 OMB classification."
This may be what the FBI has used, but it is ridiculous to refer to a black tourist from Zimbabwe visiting the USA on vacation as an African-American. I've been in the room with Americans watching the Olympics, for instance, who use the term "African-American" for athletes who are not American at all. I wish there would be an inclusion in the article about the danger of jumping to conclusions and assuming that any black person an American sees is an African-American, when we really have no idea whether that person is a resident or citizen of the USA. Just because a person's origin is Africa doesn't make them an African-American, and we should have that bias pointed out to us as members of a global community, lest we offend people from other nations with our ignorance, as Joe Biden has recently done assuming a white lady in a restaurant was American, when actually she was a Canadian visitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrommer (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
New change to the opening sentence.
HelenOnline just changed the final clause from the opening sentence of the article. It previously read, "are citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa." and now reads "are black citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa." The word "black" has been added because, as HelenOnline explains in the edit summary, "otherwise all americans would be african americans as all humans have african ancestry". If that claim is true, then the end of the clause - the "who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" part - is actually meaningless, since she claims that this is true of all Americans. But if she is right, then the entire phrase can be eliminated without loss of meaning since it does not narrow the group definition at all. So if HelenOnline is right, the clause should read, "are black citizens or residents of the United States." But this would be to change the definition of the word from one defined in terms of ethnicity to one defined in terms of race. It does reflect how the words "black" and "African American" are used in the US, but it nevertheless is a substantial change to the article that should be discussed before becoming entrenched. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't quote a partial edit summary, my full edit summary is "corrected opening definition per source cited ("A Black American of African ancestry"), otherwise all americans would be african americans as all humans have african ancestry". If the rest of my edit summary was not relevant, I would not have gone to the trouble of writing it. HelenOnline 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- The full edit summary seems to make it worse. The source does not say "sub-Saharan", it just says "African", so by "correcting" the source you have actually changed it further from what the source actually says. This is a violation of WP:OR. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Where did I change it to "sub-Saharan"? HelenOnline 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't. But you explained adding a racial term (that you have elsewhere claimed has no clear meaning at all) with the explanation that you are "correcting" a source. To my knowledge, editors do not get to overrule what the sources say because they believe that it is incorrect. That is WP:OR.
- Where did I change it to "sub-Saharan"? HelenOnline 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- The full edit summary seems to make it worse. The source does not say "sub-Saharan", it just says "African", so by "correcting" the source you have actually changed it further from what the source actually says. This is a violation of WP:OR. 99.192.51.205 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- But my original objection still also stands. If you think that the word "black" is needed because otherwise the description would include all Americans, then you think that all Americans "have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa". But if having "total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa" does describe all Americans, then it can be deleted from the definition without loss of meaning, since "American" is already there. So if you are right, the first clause should just read "are black citizens or residents of the United States." 99.192.51.205 (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: The word significant used to be used; see Talk:African American/Archive 16#"total or significant partial ancestry" and here; the diff-link shows that it was removed by Purplebackpack89.
- Similar to Helen, I've also questioned how the first sentence defines African American, since, you know, scientists are generally in agreement that humans originated in Africa and every human is of African descent; see Talk:African American/Archive 16#African American vs. Black American. Seems that the term African American is not as easy to define as one would think. As for "sub-Saharan Africa," that's documented on this talk page to be something that keeps coming up in discussions here about defining African American. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- 99 That is a separate issue and other editors who are more familiar with this article can comment on that. Please stop making unsupported accusations about my editing. I did not say I was correcting a source, I said I was correcting content in accordance with the source cited, which I did. I did not notice the sub-Saharan discrepancy and did not touch it. If you personally have a problem with it, then remove it. The "black" race construct exists whether I like it or not, I am not even going to try respond to your comment about that as from our interaction at Talk:List_of_African-American_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees#RfC:_Should_this_page_be_moved_to_List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees.3F it is clearly pointless. HelenOnline 15:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)