Talk:African Americans/Archive 3

message: This is outrageous.  I was checking that a link I used in another article went to a pertinent page; all I can say is that I will not be linking here in a hurry.
Although there is some good writing and interesting information here, the general feel is that the article is cluttered, difficult to follow and full of tangents and incorrect statements.  As for the comments on this discussion page--I'm flabbergasted.  I can't even follow who's saying what--or when.  I certainly will not engage in debate with anyone who is not willing to 'sign' their statements.
I would suggest that, at the very least, this entry be drastically shortened and some of the concepts moved to their own articles.  At least then people could fight away about specific subjects.
Quill 10:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly Appalling 

message: I don't know if its too late to be posting this but the topic looked interesting and being Black myself i couldn't resist.
Is it possible for race to be so entrenched in a society like America which has stressed the differences between Blacks and Whites so far that race in this country at least is equivalent to an ethnic group? Cultural Blacks are very different from Whites and history shows this. Whites see this country from one perspective and the experience of Blacks in this country has showed their view of this country and the world.
I personally believe that Black, Black-American, Afro-American, African-American, or even New Afrikan are all acceptable regardless of political correctness. These are far more up to dates and not nearly as deterogatory as Nigger, Nergo, Colored, and Anglo-African.
Black-Americans are different from other members of the African diaspora because we share a Native-American, European, as well as African hertitage and that separates us. We are our own ethnic group though it is an ethnic group without a name it is one nonetheless. African-American is generic and the afrocentricity of the term makes me think its an attempt to drown out everything else and only acknowledge the African aspects.
-Eurytus
:The fact that blacks are a separate ethnic group in the U.S. has little to do with how "far [America] has stressed the differences between Blacks and Whites."  Ethnicity has certain intrinsic characteristics related to culture and, yes, shared history that exist outside of external factors.  Our African-ness is something that has been with us since the beginning -- and, in fact, persists in great part despite white efforts to the contrary.  And what do you mean we are an "ethnic group without a name"?  "African-American" is meant to speak to our origins and the very seminal point that it was our African ancestors who survived the Middle Passage -- a truly "defining" moment in our history as a people.  What?  Would you rather we do some ridiculous Tiger Woods thing and call ourselves "Cablanasians"?  deeceevoice 10:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is BLACK a Race or Ethnic Group in America? 

message: Thanks, Eurytus, for your turnaround of this piece.  I was too lazy to do it comprehensively and made primarily reactionary comments to the crap written previously.  I eventually started on the historical stuff, but you've done an admirable job of writing an overview.  It's got some ways to go and a bit of correction, but this is head and shoulders above the previous incarnation -- a ridiculous discussion of the term "African American" instead of the people so named.  Will return with more info/edits/comments.  Again, thanks/peace. :-) deeceevoice 10:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now, THIS is an article.

message: We should write about the fact that the American constitution set African-Americans as 3/5 of a person when counting representation. Bogdan | Talk 15:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Someone has spoken to this at African American history.  It's working already....Quill 19:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3/5th of a person 

message: I had two good reasons for the edit:
1.  There was a Wikipedia warning about the size--in excess of 31 KB, recommended condensing and move.
2.  The article was becoming cumbersome again.  Notes of preachiness and bias were creeping in.  In my experience, Wikipedians tend to throw up their hands and walk away when the editing task seems to large.  This way, people with interest or expertise in a specific area can give energy to a specific topic.  This article should have a good definition and description of African Americans (which it does) and passing reference to other topics.
Quill 22:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If "notes of "preachniness and bias" were creeping in, then they should have been addressed.  So, hacking the article fixes your concerns?  Don't think so.  If "passing reference" is what you seek, then this is the venue in which to express such concerns BEFORE unilaterally deciding to truncate a piece, IMO making it a far less effective and comprehensive overview of a subject -- which is what one EXPECTS in an encyclopedia (note wikipedia treatments of other subjects like "jazz" and "race".  Interesting that no such criticisms of "preachiness" and "bias" resulted in the chopping up of the earlier version of this piece when it basically was a useless, ad nauseam examination of the history of the term "African American" instead of a treatment of the subject itself. deeceevoice 18:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Again, on this issue of "bias" and "preachiness," it would be useful if you (Quill) and others who believe any of the information presented is, indeed, biased, if you would direct people to the specific passages so that they can be examined further.  Blanket and vague allegations are not at all helpful.  Assuming that, Quill, you merely chopped up the piece and changed nothing else, presumably, the "bias" still exists.  What, in your view, needs to be changed?  If we hear nothing from you, we will assume you have reconsidered your comment and now think otherwise. deeceevoice 09:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that the Japan article might be a good model for the African American article. If you look at its history, it had a major problem before with having lots of poorly-organized (and often inaccurate) information crammed into one article. As it stands now, there's a brief summary of all the major points, and links to other articles that examine each area in much more depth. The African American experience is incredibly broad and there's no way to write it all up in 32 kilobytes; it might be a better idea to summarize it within 32 and then broaden the concepts in articles about African American history, African American music, African American society, African American literature, etc (which could all be subheadings under this article). - Sekicho 21:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Quill, who said anything about "within 24 hours"?  Certainly not I.  And "we" is anyone interested in the article.  If you make a claim about a problem, it's reasonable to expect some sort of substance to that claim.  If something about the article needs fixing, then it's helpful to know precisely what those problems are.  Otherwise, your opinion is useless; you give us absolutely nothing to work with.  Asking someone to specify (even a single example would be helpful) what they've stated in only the most general of terms is wrong with a piece is certainly not the same thing as expecting or demanding that the person offering the criticism fix it immediately.  If you see something wrong with the article, then tell us.  Perhaps others of us will see it also.  And those who have the time and inclination can set about correcting/rectifying it.  Assuming that because you don't have time to fix the entry it should remain as is -- with, by your account, "bias" and "preachiness" -- until you can get around to it makes no sense -- unless, of course, you believe you're the only one capable of approaching the subject matter with intelligence and fairness. :-p deeceevoice 23:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Deeceevoice, you came back to your same comment in less than 24 hours with another statement.  I took that as preremptory and demanding.  On re-reading, perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but it certainly sounded to me as though you were complaining that I hadn't responded to you.  And your last sentence, directly above, is unjustified, unworthy and unfair.  Please reread my fourth paragraph of Nov. 10.  Enough already. Quill 23:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: First you conclude that I'm branding you a racist.  Then you say I'm being demanding and threatening you!  I agree.  "Enough already." :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: With regard to alleged "preachiness" and "bias," I went to the African American culture piece (Christianity and Language) and did some reading.  I found some things wrong with it myself (hadn't read the entire AA article completely before it was chopped up -- still haven't -- so my questions were genuine).  But I really don't see any "bias" or "preachiness" -- or that your "corrections" on that topic were substantial.  I made some additions, and tweaked it a bit and added a nod to historians -- in the event that is what you were referring to (the Muslim thing), if that's what concerned you.  But the piece is essentially the same.  I deleted that business about "some people even going so far as to suggest" (or whatever you wrote).  It's a well and widely known historical fact that songs were used as code. Slaves even used homemade quilts slung across fences or hung out to air with arrows (or geese -- anything) -- pointing the way to safehouses and freedom.  It's simply not in dispute. deeceevoice 15:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Move 

message: Thanks to GBleem for restoring a lot of what was useful in the first major revision (deleted by Eurytus) of the old article.  Good call.  After Quill's decision to break up the article into numerous smaller segments, a lot of that text seems to fit.  And, Quill, I'm warming to your decision to chop the article up.  I thought what remained of the original article looked (and read) like crap.  (And it kind of did.)  But with the restoration of some of the other information, hey, it's better.  Not perfect, but better.  And, more importantly, your edits allow for expanded treatment of some subjects that received merely passing mention in the second major revision of this piece.  Another good call. deeceevoice 07:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gbleem's restoration of much of old text and a reconsideration of Quill's "hack job"