Talk:African Americans/Archive 4

message: I've noticed that there is a lot of repitition in the introduction and definition sections of this article.  Also, if  the term is so disputed as to who is included, we should probably delete the census info in the opening paragraph, or explain who the census bureau considered African American.  But all in all the additions made in the article has made it a confusing and repetitive mess.Ramsquire 21:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's a mess.  I've been saying it's a mess.  Even the discussion is a mess.  No argument out of me, IMO it's a mess. Quill 22:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Lot's of the discussion on this page refers to things that are no longer in the article and sometimes people add to a comment about a resolved issue. I think that's one reason the talk page is so messy. I kinda wish the talk pages worked more like usenet. As for the article itself I think it's pretty good now. It's an understatement to say race in the United States is a mess and therefore I expect an article about anything having to do with race to look and feel messy. When I do any editing I try to pretend that I'm explaining it to someone from another country or that someone hundreds of years in the future is reading it. --Gbleem 04:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened here? 

message: Does "foodways" include agricultural methods. I vaguely remember reading about african rice and rice farming techniques in a book on South Carolina. Should you add "crops and agricultural methods" or something like that? --Gbleem 10:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  foodways 

message: From my perspective the term “African-American” is someone who was born in Africa and moved to America gaining U.S citizenship. This could apply to ANYONE (Black, White, Asian, etc.) who was BORN in Africa. If I’m born in Japan and move to America am I a Japanese American? Yes, and in ignorance terms, no. Yes, if I’m born in Japan I’m a Japanese citizen. If you say Japanese means Asian then that is ignorance because all Asians are not from Japan. All Black people are not from Africa so in reality “African-American” only applies to a small group of people with citizenship in an African nation. Which would make them Nigerian-American, or Sudanese-American, etc. Unlike our light-bulb bright President, we all know that Africa is a continent and not a country. So what are we to do? Do we go with 1. (Continent of origin)-American, 2. (Country of origin)-American, or 3. (Race Group)-American? If we go with (1) then we need to have Wiki pages for South America, Europe, Asia, hell even Antarctican-Americans, regardless of race. We could “Native” Americans and just call “Indians” Americans since everyone else migrated (or were slave traded here). If we go with (2) then we have hundreds of (country of choice)-Americans regardless of race. Or we can go with (3) which would be calling all spades “spades” regardless of where you come from. 
	I can take this a little bit deeper since there are no literally “black” people, hell black isn’t even a color. So I think it’s up to “Brown” people to decide what “Black” people are going to call ourselves and quit letting “White (pink)” people give us these pacifying, hypocrisy filled labels.
:This point really has been discussed adequately.  Have you read the above discussions?  I really think the overwhelming majority understands the term 'African American' as being the latest and preferred term for persons of African descent born in the US.  Whether or not it should properly be applied to African citizens living or naturalized in the US is touched upon in the article, and could probably be expanded upon.  Quill 07:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title change? 

message: The sections you're trying to delete from African American -- U.S. Lexicon are a legitimate discussion of the history of black and white relations in the United States, and it's not appropriate to delete these valid paragraphs.  RickK 07:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
It is NOT legitimate for non-AA's to comment on slang used for a minority in an encyclopedia.  This is not scholarship, but bias dressed up.  When the European American page starts getting edited by Quill, RRick and the other biased, fanatically oriented watch-list based posters (not authors), then I'll believe you.  objective 07:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about?  Please do not simply chuck my name about out of context, particularly not slinging unfounded insults--what on earth does this mean "...biased, fanatically oriented watch-list based posters (not authors)...."?? Quill 01:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias dressed up