Talk:African-American

Usage notesEdit

In the Usage section, is this note, "This term is preferred to black by some blacks," facetious?

RFD discussionEdit

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

${\displaystyle x}$ -American entries and ${\displaystyle x}$ -born entries (ex: Sicilian-American, American-born Chinese)

"SoP" entries. Sets a bad precedent for thousands of similar entries (ex. Korean American, Cuban American, Mexican American, and so on). --TBC 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

keep Submit for RfV just like anything else. There are usually important as preferred alternatives to usually non-SoP pejoratives. Usage notes alone on each subject would warrant their inclusion. I would suggest that we should have at least one attestable non-pejorative demonym (?) for every ethnic grouping for which we have a pejorative demonym. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete American-born Chinese and British-born Chinese; keep Sicilian-American and African-American. I'll see if I can dredge up the classic Nelson Mandela quote using "African-American" where an idiot American reporter "corrected" him about the term and Mandela explained that the black people of Africa were not actually African-American. African-American in particular is not sum of parts, since it is not used to refer to Americans of North African descent or to white Americans of South African descent. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that these ought to be treated en masse, as EP's views suggest. There may be very different merits for each. I often find that the effort of citing the entries leads to an adjustment of the definitions that clarifies the usage of the terms. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That logic doesn't really apply to the [[[Sicilian-American]] entry, but I can see why the African-American entry isn't completely SoP. If it's necessary, I'm for separating this request, as per EP's comments.--TBC 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Separate these, per above. Otherwise, keep African-American per EP's Maghreb comment, and delete all the rest unless a good argument is made for any.—msh210 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Jackofclubs 06:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete, ridiculous entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Jackofclubs 06:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete, ridiculous entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete as the current SoP definition. --Jackofclubs 06:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. It was transwikied from Wikipedia when a short dictionary definition was wrote, but having it here is redundant. Anyone with enough encyclopedic information should simply write at Wikipedia.--Jusjih 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect definitionEdit

I don't believe this definition is correct, as this term should not and is not used to refer to Australian Aborigines, Papuans, etc.:

" (nonstandard, US) Any black person. "

71.66.97.228 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. This is insane. Nelson Mandela is not "African-American", Naomi Campbell is not "African-American", neither of them are American, so how can they be African-American? If people use the term African-American to mean any black person then they are using it wrongly, it's not a nonstandard definition, it's just a completely mistaken use of the term. I can't believe you will find any dictionary or reputable source that will support this definition.94.173.10.78 08:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. People will sometimes used the term "African-American" incorrectly to refer to black people that aren't from the United States. This mistake should be mentioned in the usage notes, which I have added. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.86.226.40 (talk) at 03:03, 16 August 2012‎ (UTC).
Y'all aren't really making sense. I mean, the original commenter's comment makes sense: (s)he claims that the term is not used this way. That claim is mistaken, but at least it's coherent. But the latter two commenters' comments are self-contradictory. People use the term this way, and it's nonstandard. You obviously accept that people use this way, and you obviously consider it nonstandard. So you're objecting to the entry containing information that you agree with, on the grounds that . . . you don't like the information? You find it too NPOV? What? —RuakhTALK 04:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)