Talk:African American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the African American article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	This article is flagged as needing an independent reassessment or validation of its current rating.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups priority open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on the United States. If you would like to contribute, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.

Contents 1 Archived talk 2 Pre-columbian visit?? 3 The trees and the forest 4 Archiving 5 Political correctionism 6 The lead, and other contentious matters 7 Slavery and nomenclature 8 New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles 9 Odd sentence 9.1 So much for a totally off-point discussion 10 Another discussion 11 Poorly chosen comparison 12 from 207200116203 13 Robert L. Johnson 14 Second Biggest Nationality Group 15 Wow.... 16 Dubious 17 Capitalization of Black and White? 18 Footnote #5 19 African-Americans in Canada? 20 Tupac Amaru Shakur

[edit] Archived talk

• Archive 1 (31 March 2005 - 26 August 2006)
• Archive 2 (26 August - 15 September 2006)

[edit] Pre-columbian visit??

  The only reference for this is a BBC article, which itself presents doubts of the theory.  Although under the controversty heading, this section gives the impression that there is much evidence for this.  BYU has more evidence that hebrews visited the Americas.  This theory is a stretch (to put it lightly). 209.250.215.32 17:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The trees and the forest

This article has some excellent sections and seems to be right on track for peer review, good article and featured article status. I'm wondering if it's time for all of the hard-working editors to step back and look at the forest (the entire article) rather than the trees (each section). I'm posting this topic for macro-level discussion... Here's what I posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups:

African American: Uneven-- some sections are truly excellent, some good but lacking citations, and some too speculative for an encyclopedia entry. One or two sections seem to be drawn entirely from a single source, which raises questions (see item #11 here). The history section was very long; perhaps dividing it into subsections would aid reader comprehension. Some bits of various sections seemed to fit best in the History section. Some people would rate this article good, based on its outstanding sections.

Here are some further thoughts:

• Some sections under the heading "Historical Controversies" seem to me to be both extremely speculative and largely drawn from a single source. It's exactly because they are controversial that they need to meet a higher standard of documentation (citations & references) than other sections. While I respect other editors' contributions, think we should be bold in dealing with sections that may hinder the Good Articles/Featured Articles process. I think objectively that if African American is on the Featured Articles track, we should either bulk these subsections up with a high standard of documentation, or consider deleting/moving them off to a separate page. I realize that some editors may have strong feelings about the inclusion of these sections. But there's a saying among authors (attributed to Stephen King): "Don't be afraid to kill your darlings." Besides, moving a topic off to its own page isn't killing it; it's just finding it a new home.
• The Quotations section is really good... but doesn't it seem to be a separate topic from African Americans per se? I really think this section should be moved to its own article.
• So I suggest creation of African American (Historical Controversies) and African American (Quotations). I would put two links to each page on the African American page: one in-text, and one in the See Also section at the bottom of the article.
• Finally, for an article with this much outstanding content, no one person can document an entire section. I suggest a Section Documentation Project with a volunteer list to add cites & references to the various sections (noting that some sections are already very well cited; you may want to simply double-check for links to disambiguation pages or other small errors):

Section Documentation Project

Nomenclature	yourname yourname yourname
Demographics	yourname yourname yourname
History	yourname yourname yourname
Impact ...	yourname yourname yourname
Political legacy	yourname yourname yourname
The term ...	yourname yourname yourname
Political ...	yourname yourname yourname
Who is ...?	yourname yourname yourname
Terms no longer ...	yourname yourname yourname
Criticisms	yourname yourname yourname

--Ling.Nut 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Please, when you archive: you can archive part of a talk page without archiving all of it. Some archived comments appear to be less than 2 days old at the time they were archived. This basically prevents people's comments by being seen by much of anyone except the person who archived. If they even bothered looking. - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political correctionism

It should be noted somewhere in the article that not every black is of direct African ancestry, it is a political correct terminology that is almost exlusively only used in America. Crud3w4re 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Black" in the US (though not the UK) sense of the word refers specifically to sub-Saharan African ancestry. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point Crud3w4re probably tried to make. If "Black" would refer to sub-Saharan African ancestry in your (and the article's) point of view, that should be noted. Others may think "Black" would refer to one's skin color, and in that case, a link with African descent is definitely not always applicable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.44.198 (talk • contribs) 7 October 2006.

This is an article about African Americans. Note that second word. An American context can be presumed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That is what it means in the UK too, SqueakBox 18:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is political or correct about being of a certain ethnicity?

[edit] The lead, and other contentious matters

I recently found myself reverting wholesale some edits by User:Dynamicknowledge24 (after he/she reverted my wholesale and also made quite a few other edits), so I feel I should explain myself.

None of my recent edits removed significant content from the article. My only deliberate removal was of "While all human life on earth originated in Africa, it is quite true that every human on earth's ancestors originated and were indigenous to the african continent." This has no more place here than in an article on any other particular ethnicity: it's like saying in the article on German people that anthropologists believe that humans are descended from anthropoid apes.

What I mainly did change was to move the lengthy section about who is and who is not an African American into the first section following the lead (moved intact, and still preceding the content of the earlier nomenclature section to create Definition and nomenclature), then wrote a new lead that is much more typical of how articles on ethnic groups in particular countries begin: quickly summarizing the demographics, cultural contributions, and status of African Americans in America.

Dynamicknowledge24 did not simply revert me. His/her edit, commented as "Restored original heading which possessed important info regarding this culture and is a good lead in to the rest of the topics addressed. Also, removed unnec, info box and did some editing," did not "restore" anything except the one sentence I had deliberately removed. It:

1. moved the old content (all of which I had preserved) back into the lead
2. completely deleted everything I wrote
3. completely removed the infobox that is the single most standard element of articles on ethnic groups
4. shrunk the passage about nomenclature (which might bear some trimming)
5. removed the paragraph that begins "During the Progressive Era, black members of the middle class attempted improving the conditions of their ethnicity"
6. removed the section Historical controversies (which perhaps should be removed or highly abridged, but not without relevant comment)
7. added a picture of Halle Berry with a caption that seems to argue with itself as to whether she is really an African American "… the first African American woman to win the prestigious Academy Award for Best Actress, is of biracial African American and Caucasian descent." (As remarked elsewhere in the article, most African Americans have some Caucasian ancestry; I have no idea how Berry identifies, but, this being an article on African Americans, if she doesn't identify as one then her picture doesn't really belong, and if she does, then that caption doesn't really belong.)

If I've missed anything, my apologies. It's not like I had an edit summary to guide me through this.

As I say, a few of these edits might be right (though even those merit discussion, or at least a meaningful edit summary). I strongly advocate: if you are making several unrelated, obviously contentious edits in a controversial article, you should make each separately and write a clear summary for each. But taken as a whole, this was a drastic, nearly uncommented edit to a controversial article, and in some respects was headed in an absolutely wrong direction, so I have reverted it wholesale, pending discussion of individual items.

End of rant. - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, this article is a real minefield, isn't it? The very next edit (anonymous, no edit summary) eliminates much of what User:Dynamicknowledge24 wants in the lead and I moved down a section and adds things like "The average Black American is 80% African descended, raping of African women by White men during slavery was common." I have no idea where the 80% comes from; and while raping of African women by White men during slavery was, indeed, common the way it is placed here suggests that it is the only reason for mixed black-white ancestry in America, which would come as news to a dozen or more of my African American friends who have 20th century whites (parent or grandparent) in their ancestry and none of whom, to the best of my knowledge, is the product of a rape. Is there any citable evidence for this number (or, elsewhere in the added material, "40% of Black Americans also have some Native American ancestry")? And is there anything citable for the implication (which should either be stated explicitly or removed) that rape of slaves accounts for the overwhelming proportion of white ancestry in the African American population? (Conversely, prior to this there was only one passing mention of the rape of slaves as a factor in ancestry, and that in the somewhat cryptic context of black ancestry of people who are considered white, rather than vice versa. Certainly the topic deserves some mention, which is part of why I am not reverting.) - Jmabel | Talk 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery and nomenclature

I would not use the term "African American" in referring to the slaves: they were enslaved Africans. I suppose it is an OK (if anachronistic) term for free blacks even in slavery times. But I don't have anything citable on this. Does someone have a source that says roughly this? I would imagine it is out there. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the term "black". Is that inappropriate to be used? I have had an interesting time in the "black people" article, where some contributors (A Canadian and Yemeni) have advocated that ultimately the term "black" is nothing more than a slavery term and should not be used to describe the people in question. What are the opinions of those here? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

dont forget me zaph and i aint arab or canadian--Halaqah 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As the article discusses, "Black" has been pretty universally acceptable in the U.S. since circa 1970. Before that it was more of a slavery term, but it was very successfully reclaimed by the Black Pride movement. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am so happy that the term is dying and being replaced by African American, just listen to the ring African American. It makes sense, African poeple in America. black, a color, what does that tell me about you? nada---Halaqah 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd sentence

Does anyone know what the following sentence is supposed to mean? "There were four required or permitted acts of discrimination against African Americans." If you understand, can you clarify? Otherwise, it should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with people is they feel as though they have to be so politically correct that they're always wrong. Saying that a black person is "african american" is the same thing as saying that "they aren't european". It doesn't really matter how anyone tries to persuade their thoughts on this subject, it's been wrong since the term has come into affect. The term, broken down, does NOT signify race in any sense, and to make a hidden definition with it is simply absurd. I feel as though the section should be split, because the politically correct term has nothing to do with rationality. Being black is alternate to being white. Being african american is alternate to being italian american...at what point does this signify race? It doesn't.

Race and ethnicity are completely different each other. Race refers to people that have similar pyhsical appearances and the same ancestry. Ethnicity refers to people that have a specific heritage, culture, language and tradition. Blacks from the U.S. and blacks from Jamaica are of the same race because we are black and we are of African ancestry. We are ethnically different. The culture, heritage and history of black people in these nations are different. Blacks in the U.S. started the civil rights movement and created rap and jazz music. Blacks in Jamaica created reggae music and gained independence from Britain. There never were any blacks from Jamaica that participated in the American civil rights movement, and no blacks from the U.S. participated in Jamaica'a independence from Britain. African American is an ethnicity, not a race. It applies to black Americans. Read the definition, or read mine. An African American is a black person born in the United States of America, or an American-born black person, who is of African ancestry, or a descendant of enslaved Africans brought to the U.S. during the Atlantic Slave Trade. If a white person comes from Italy to the U.S., that person is an Italian-American, not European American. If a black person comes from Nigeria to the U.S., that person is Nigerian-American, not African American. Europe and Africa are continents, Italy and Nigeria are countries. A person's nationality refers to the country of their birth. Italian, Nigerian, American, German, Ethiopian, and Canadian are nationalities. European, African, and Asian are not nationalities. The term African refers to the indigenous peoples that makeup the continent Africa. They are the ethnic African tribes like Yoruba, Zulu and Ashanti. These people are also black people. They, along with others, don't consider other people to be African. You have to look at this historically, racially and scientifically. Yes, humanity started in that part of the world, but when humans went to other lands, they became their own race: white/Caucasian, Indigenous American, Arab, Asian and black/African. That's how it is. Besides, the term was used by Malcolm X and pro-black groups towards themselves and other black Americans before it became acceptable. One more thing, why do you think the Cherokee and the Apache are known as Native Americans? Because they were in the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere first.Also, black people in other countries created ethnic terms that combines their African ancestry and their nationality. For example, blacks in Brazil are also known as Afro-Brazilians. I also don't hear some complaints about people of East Asian ancestry calling themselves Asian American considering the fact that the Middle East and South Asia also makeup the continent Asia, and a lot of people don't just call them Asian American. In some cases, they just call them Asian.Cclass 22:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't know the meaning of ethnicity. An ethnicity is a sense of being different than other groups because of cultural tradition, ancestry, national origin, history, or religion, so you aren't just "white", "black", asian", whatever. It is only categorized like this in the US, in the rest of the world you are what your culture is, and as an Italian like me, I consider myself MEDITERRANEAN, I hate the EU and the belittling of my culture. Good day.

It's not used in the same way as it should be, it is politically incorrect as "latino" is incorrect, which happens to insult my Roman ancestry. Crud3w4re 06:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So this is what I suggest: Just a section that says it's based on political incorrectionism, that "African Americans" usually have no connection to Africans or Africa, that it just furthers the political incorrectionism in America. Also to be used as a tool for politicians to make it seem like blacks have a more significant culture than everyone else. You may think I'm being biased here, but it is true, noone else in America gets treated as better, I don't know what is wrong with the idea of just being an American. The politicians need to stop dividing the people, also blame your special interest active groups, if they don't divide the people, they go out of business! I apologize if I insulted anyone, I am just a major political incorrectionist. :) Crud3w4re 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what you mean when you say favoritism. Blacks in the U.S. are treated the same like everybody else. If you're talking about affirmative action, then I agree. Anyway, it's obvious you don't know geography. Africa is a continent. If a black person comes from Ethiopia to the U.S., the person is an Ethiopian-American. Ethiopia and the United States of America are countries. They're nationalities. Africa and North America are continents made of a number of countries. They are not nationalities. If a white man comes from Ireland to the U.S., he is Irish-American. Europe is a continent made of a number of countries. It's not a nationality. If a black man comes from Jamaica to the U.S., he is Jamaican-American or in some cases with other blacks from the Carribean, Carribean-American. Are all black people in the U.S., African American? Absolutely not. Now, for the American. Everybody who was born in the United States of America is an American. I am an American. I'm not stupid. But to say a person should not celebrate their heritage is wrong. If a Hispanic-American guy wants to celebrate his Puerto Rican heritage, he should be allowed to do so. Who am I to say he should do the opposite? Besides, St. Patrick's Day is more of an Irish holiday, yet it's celebrated in the U.S. In NYC, the Puerto Rican Day Parade happens annually in June. The West Indian Day Parade happens annually on Labor Day. I don't have a problem with this. They should be allowed celebrate their heritage. It's not that they don't like being an American, it's just that they are proud of their heritage.One more thing, to say black people in the west have nothing to do with the continent Africa is wrong. That's where the family trees of blacks first started. That's where our ancestry is. Also, the struggles blacks in the west went through and the struggles the Africans went through are similar. Another thing, saying that ethnic terms that are "politically correct or incorrect" separates people is wrong. Racism, bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, hate crimes and racial or ethnic slurs are the things that can divide people. I have no problem with people of East Asian ancestry calling themselves Asian American. I already explained the term. If you don't understand, then it's your fault.198.83.112.133 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I am not saying that you shouldn't want to celebrate your cultures, I'm just talking about people calling ALL blacks African Americans. I saw it being done to a guy from Haiti, he was called an African American, he could only put "African American" on his application, I think that kinda insults him, I don't even see why there's a need to ask people what their race is, it divides the country, it's profiling! And yes, I am against Affirmative Action, I believe they are a racist organization, they need to come up with points based on economics, not based on what the US considered your race to be. Crud3w4re 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So much for a totally off-point discussion

Jmabel, the sentence should be removed; it makes no sense. It's either vandalism or the result of an incomplete edit. deeceevoice 06:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, I hope in a good way but if you can edit that whole bit a bit better go ahead! SqueakBox 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was about to repose the original question when I saw that you'd actually answered. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another discussion

You still don't get it, do you? If a black person comes from Nigeria to the U.S., he is Nigerian-American. Learn your geography. If a person, albeit a white person, comes from Ireland to the U.S., he is Irish-American. He is not European American. Europe is a continent made up of these countries along with their nationallities: Ireland-Irish, Italy-Italian, Germany-German, France-French, Norway-Norwegian, Spain-Spanish, England-English, Portugal-Portuguese, Greece-Greek and Finland-Finnish. There are others, but I don't have time to name them all. These, and other nations make up the continent Europe. If a person from any of these nations and becomes a citizen of the U.S., they take the nationality of their country of birth, not continent of birth, and connect it to their adopted nationality, American, like the example I just gave. Africa is a continent made up of these countries along with their nationalities: Nigeria-Nigerian, Uganda-Ugandan, South Africa-South African, Namibia-Namibian, Ethiopia-Ethiopian, Zimbabwe-Zimbabwean, Ghana-Ghanaian, Mali-Malian, Somalia-Somali and Senegal-Senegalese. I could name others, but I don't have the time. If a person comes from any of these nations and becomes a citizen of the U.S., they take the nationality of their country of birth, not continent of birth, and connect it to their adopted nationality, American. Please learn about geography. I already explained the AA term. If you don't understand, it's your fault. Now, profiling. Suggesting that Arabs and Muslims should be stopped and be victims of harassment just because the terrorists nowadays are Arabs and Muslims is profiling. Police officers who stop, question and harass a young black man just because he's black is profiling. Filling out an application that has the question, "What is your ethnicity?", is not profiling. Blacks whose ethnicity are different from the ethnicity of black Americans check "Other". I know a guy from the Virgin Islands who does that.20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Cclass

Don't delete my posts, sir! If you're replying to me, why do you first delete my post to make it look like you're replying to yourself? Italians and Greeks are traditionally mediterraneans, differs from your traditional european nations. If you want to profile, you either go 100% or not at all! It is racist to ask me for my race or ethnic background, I don't have to give it to anyone! Crud3w4re 23:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Crud, that's basically saying if someone asks where you are from, then that person is being racist. It is NOT racist to ask what your race is. In fact, it's required by law in the U.S. Does that make the government racist? No. This country is a melting pot, something we are very proud of. It's great to know that people from all over the world come to our country for a better life. Not racist. kthx! DJDavis92 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cclass, you make the honest mistake of misunderstanding the roots of "African American" and "European American". They are not logically thought out terms that are equal or make real sense that can be used in analogies. "African American" is a political term. It sounds nicer than "Black" (which was an insult until it was turned on its head), shows history and ancestors, and shows an ounce of patriotism. "European American" is rarely used. Americans of all shades have such mixed ancestry after a few generations it is impractical to keep a certainy country attached to their identities, and, Americans typically find it quaint to still be harping about the motherland 100 years on. J jackson 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish Americans find that quaint? SqueakBox 00:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

European-American is rarely used because Europeans in America are the majority, Do you think people in Nigeria go on about being Nigerian-Africans? They are the majority. If Africans took over America and became the majority then the term European American would become valid---Halaqah 01:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly chosen comparison

The comparison of the African American unemployment rate to Western European rates is, at least, problematic. With a very different structure of benefits, being unemployed in the U.S. means far fewer benefits and far greater social marginalization. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from 207200116203

<<Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthound">> oh come on.,my edits are relevant to the African American experience and gets deleted for breaking Wikipedia rules??? I happen to be a black man!!! Can you admins help me out "research" and "verificate" it? The US census themselves use the "official" but questionable stats on the African American population. Then the NAACP came out to say on the census stats are wrong and deceived millions of black Americans out of the census. Next is the number of black Americans in the west coast wasn't stated in the article, you find millions of black people like me in California. Why was it deleted too, it was right in the California article. The southern US still has half the black American population and 8 southern states are over 10 percent black. It's obvious to notice the heart of black America is the south, but the soul is thriving in the north and the west. I explained why the crime rate of urban blacks is true, but gave African Americans a bad name with a racial stereotype planted on us, and what the article states we black people commits the most crime. Police brutality and racial profiling hasn't corrected the problem, it was the drug epidemic and how the inner city was void of good-paying jobs and poor standard education. The inner cities are better today than 15 or 30 years ago, most black neighborhoods have more recreation to keep young blacks away from crime, drugs or gangs "for kicks" (sorry it was POV and I tried not to make it so divisive or offensive, since I'm an African American man). We gave colonel sanders most of his KFC recipe, but why is it nostalagic black movies or TV shows make fun of what we eat? White Americans eat this stuff too and KFC is a worldwide enterprise, thanks to you know what people? Rap, Rock, Jazz, Soul and disco has much to thank the African American music of gospel, rhythm and blues, and ragtime played for over a century. And the P-C libs want to tell me don't say negro, colored or black are "bad words" but they allowed us black people to say the "N word" to each other??? I won't use that word ever, but its a very corrupted version of "negro" or "colored". To say I'm African American is the current trend to self-title our people, but it's to make whites forget more of the civil rights struggle by a code word to make them closet racists "feel good", to ignore the suffering we endured. Whether you're liberal, conservative or moderate (myself), you're going to disagree about today's current status of African Americans by review of policy to advance or entrap my people. We're enjoying a better life and more freedom than my parents, grandparents and slave ancestors had. I'm fortunate to be born and alive in the US but can't deny racism and injustice happened. Wikipedia is an elitist self-corrective machine that deletes every edit worth while to look up. 207.200.116.12 09:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC) <<Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthound">>

My Response from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthound". "Welcome, again. The edits were major, and were also coming fast and unsubstantiated. I would welcome your input, but please check WP:MOS and WP:NPOV and try to put the information back in a neutral point of view, while giving references. It was just too much new information to ask others to just "look up". I understand that it is hard to figure out how to give references for the information you wish to put into the article. I am more than willing to help. Just post the references here and I will format them in a way that you can use. Again, I believe that you have something important to say, and would welcome your voice. Sincerely," Stealthound 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert L. Johnson

I want to dispute some of the claims made about Oprah Winfrey in this article. 1) How does Forbes list in 2006 cement Oprah as anything in the 20th century? It is clearly the 21st century. 2) It also seems to me that Robert L. Johnson was at one time twice as wealthy as Oprah has ever been, with a one-time net worth of $3 billion. Please see Forbes. --SVTCobra 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Biggest Nationality Group

If the US Census was mainly based on Nationality not Race/Ethnicity, would it be the second biggest nationality group after German Americans. --User:Caribbean1

[edit] Wow....

...this article is both terribly written and formatted. I would hope someone with focus might sit down and fix the page.

[edit] Dubious

In the infobox, under "Related ethnic groups" why do we specifically mention "some with Native American groups"? There is presumably more admixture of European ancestry than Native American ancestry. - Jmabel | Talk 09:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the sentence "Nonetheless, even today African Americans as a group fall well below the country's average in income, wealth, business ownership, and levels of formal education" dropped from the end of the intro? Most of the intro is, appropriately, about the not insignificant progress made by African Americans since the mid-20th century, but to talk only about the progress and omit this qualifier seems to me to present a false picture of African Americans' status in the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of Black and White?

Throughout this article, the word "black" is often capitalized. In my opinion, it should not be because black (like white) is not a proper noun, while Asian, African, European, etc. are derived from specific places. White is rarely capitalized. I'm not whining about reverse racism or anything like that, but it looks stupid to capitalize one and not the other. Regardless of what we choose, "black" and "white" should either both be capitalized or both be lowercased. SteveSims 07:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote #5

The source referenced in note #5 does not provide any information related to Oprah being the "richest black person on the planet". Further, that claim is highly dubious. I would bet good money that Robert Mugabe has quite a bit more in his Swiss Bank account than Oprah could ever dream of. --216.75.93.110 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African-Americans in Canada?

I believe they would be called African-Canadians. The term American as an adjective usually refers to United Staters, for some it refers to all of North and South America and the Carribean. Well you might as well list their populations too.

[edit] Tupac Amaru Shakur

I have recently noticed that there have been no mentioning whatsoever of the late Tupac Amaru Shakur, I am very sure many here on wikipedia would contest and try to contend my view that Mr. Shakur was a notable and prominent figure for African Americans, and is worth very well noting in this article. I have added a qoute, however i hope to see more about Tupac Amaru Shakur in other areas of this article.

Thank you in advance.