Talk:African Americans/summary

Nov 2006

I've created this template to facilitate access to editing on the ethnicity templates. It can be a bit daunting to have to tease out of an article what to edit in a traditional {{Ethnic group}} template format. This method allows for folks to be able to concentrate on just the infobox itself. (→Netscott) 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic groups

Why not add Afro-Latin American to the related ethnic groups? It makes no sense for it to not be included

Text changed to match image

no Npov changes have been made. no wiki violation so pls let it b.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, your edit summary is "replacing with real American heros with legacy and contribution to the race, offensive condi and powell two coco's". That is a textbook example of a POV edit which, if I'm not mistaken, is a violation of a core Wikipedia policy. When your edit was questioned by me, you chose to simply revert back with no discussion and the edit summary "look before you jump". Exactly - discuss potentially controversial changes before making them. Natalie 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with Natalie here... I too understand Halaqah's edit (and on a personal level tend to support it) but templates have to abide by WP:NPOV just like any other article content. (→Netscott) 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is my personal explaination but the edit was ligit. I didnt change it for that reason alone. Like when i said revert clown, might violate the civility code but it doesnt make my change illegal. See the guy that added a monkey image. look b4 u jump, means see why i changed the text. Look at why the edit was made. the text matches the image.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have changed the text to match the image, which makes sense. I'm fine leaving it like that. But the point of an edit summary is to explain your edits, not to make some tangentially related comment. No one's personal opinions are relevant here - it's not Nataliepedia, or Halaqahpedia, or Netscottpedia. In the future, just leave an edit summary along the lines of "changed caption to match image" and all with be well. Natalie 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I see the point, someone's changed the image and the text below doesn't match the new image. I believe there was a previoius image showing those individuals... but per the image displaing now Halaqah's edit is correct. (→Netscott) 00:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Include AAVE under language?

Would it make sense to include African American Vernacular English in addition to American English under the "Languages" heading of the template? (As context, AAVE's listed under the "Languages" heading on Template:African American topics sidebar, alongside English, Gullah, and Creole.) - Anirvan 18:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I say list it as an American English dialect. ---Mel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.98.1 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Line of Photos

Many ethnicity templates are now including a third line of renowned members photos. It seems appropriate to do the same for the African Americans template. Without a doubt, Colin Powell should be included. Powell was the highest ranked African American in the history of American government as the first black US Secretary of State and he was also the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military official in America. It is also very sensible to include Condoleezza Rice since she is the first black woman to serve as Secretary of State and only the second black Secretary of State after Powell. One can't reasonably say that Rosa Parks, for instance, who, while important in the civil rights movement, is as consequential as either Powell or Rice (while the other civil rights leaders -Dr. King, Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois- are much more important). The third spot on the new line should probably include one of Thurgood Marshall, the first black member of the Supreme Court of the United States; Jesse Jackson, the first competitive candidate for a major party nomination for President of the United States; Ralph Bunche, the first black recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize; Guy Bluford, the first African American in space; Hattie McDaniel, Sidney Poitier, Count Basie, or Ella Fitzgerald, all firsts and leaders in entertainment; Toni Morrison, the only African American author to win the Nobel Prize for Literature; DeHart Hubbard, Alice Coachman, Jackie Robinson, Althea Gibson, or Tiger Woods, who each paved the way for African Americans in sports (I'd have to caution those who think Tiger Woods is best -- while he might be best, we should remember we are judging his impact from today's point of view and, as such, I think an historic candidate is probably best); Booker T. Washington, pioneer in education; or Madam C. J. Walker, the first black millionaire.

So we definitely have Colin Powell. Do we have Condoleezza Rice? I think to fail to include her would be not only short-sighted, but also a non-NPOV to the point of being stupid. But we'll see what folks think. Who should be the third? FEastman (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that we need a third line of photos. Take a look at White American (two lines) or Jew (one line). I think simpler is better.

But if consensus is for three lines... (a) the photos should be in black and white, like the others in the template and (b) I think contemporary figures should be avoided (short-sighted and NPOV, as you wrote). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on having a third line. but I do wonder how we would define contemporary. Also, could we try to have photos from a variety of types of achievements? Right now the people on the template are mostly political figures. Perhaps we should branch out a bit and include people from different fields. Science, education, fine arts, and athletics would be good places to start. Natalie (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a broader range of accomplishments might be more appropriate. I would consider people who are still in the public eye to be contemporary. Edward Brooke, who I was surprised to learn is still alive, is fine. Powell, who is retired, would probably be good. Rice or Obama or Tiger Woods, probably not. But that's just my opinion.

One other thing. From a strictly aesthetic point of view, pictures on the far right should face left; that is, they should face the text of the article and not the edge of the computer screen. (This is recommended in WP:MOS#Images, and it makes good sense.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

That makes sense. Thinking about it a little further, I think we should also try to represent a few more time periods, since at the moment we only have twentieth century figures, and perhaps find another woman. Since we're essentially trying to represent the totality of African Americans through 6-9 pictures, having the most variety we can would express, IMO, the great diversity among African Americans. I think your standard for contemporary seems fine.

So who are some other people we could diversify the template with? Some people I think we should consider are Arthur Ashe, Jesse Owens, or Muhammad Ali for an athlete; Richard Wright, Zora Neale Hurston, or Phyllis Wheatley for writers; and Benjamin Banneker for a scientist/inventor. My knowledge of notable educators and artists is pretty slim, so I'm not sure who some good choices for that would be. And I haven't actually checked to see if we have pictures of these people. Natalie (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we have good pictures of Owens, Ali, Wright, Hurston, and Wheatley, a not too great photo of Banneker, and no photo of Arthur Ashe. Natalie (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If a consensus develops that Banneker should be included, we'll get a better picture of him. [1] [2] [3] — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I might replace the picture on the article with one of those. Natalie (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First African-American presidential nominee

Could you explain your opposition, Malik? You immediately reverted without so much as a mention here or on my User Talk page. Shem^(talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary was sufficient discussion ("Please discuss changes on the Talk page"), and I'm sorry if it wasn't. As you can see from the preceding section, there isn't agreement about whose pictures should be included in the infobox. Some people want Condoleezza Rice and you want Barack Obama. I'd prefer (a) if we try to reach consensus before making spur-of-the-moment changes ("Sorry, have you not seen the news tonight?") and (b) if we keep partisan politics out of the template.

Obama is clearly a historical figure, but so was Edward Brooke, the senator whose picture you removed (do you even know who he is?). Obama is also running for public office, and his appearance in the infobox may seem to some readers to be an endorsement of his candidacy. I think staying away from people who are active in today's politics — which means Rice and Obama — is the best course. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Do you even know who he is?"

Is it your default reaction to drop veiled insults toward those whose changes you dislike? Shem^(talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry, have you not seen the news tonight?"

No, is it yours? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah but edward brooks is a republican it says. we need to have Barrack Obama pictures there because he is now the most important African american who there is, what do we have to talk for to give a picture of him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awdacityofluv (talk • contribs) 06:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

hello?? dont you care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awdacityofluv (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not "Afro," he's middle eastern and white. So he dosen't belong here... bls24.19.185.80 (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic

What the hell do Hispanics have to do with this? I'm erasing it. Fclass (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There are Black Hispanic and Latino Americans that could also fall within the scope of this article, but also have their own article. For instance there is the article about Asian Americans, whom Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans are part of but still have their own article. This is due to Hispanic/Latino being considered an ethnicity which any race could be a part of.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

picture

how can you get the picture changed sense their missing Obama and Edward Brooks was a republican? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awdacityofluv (talk • contribs) 05:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

why

why doesnt it show up here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awdacityofluv (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz & Therock40756 Edit-war Discussion

My position is simple, Barack Obama and Condolezza Rice are clearly the most widely known African Americans. They are known on a national and international stage but there is hardly any mention of them on the AFRICAN AMERICAN wiki-page. Shabazz claims that there was a consensus that Obama should not appear on the page until after the campaigan is over on the bases that, "the page shouldnt endorse a candidate". Not only does that arguement make no sense considering Obama appears on several wiki pages, but Obama pic was still posted on the page for several months while this so called consensus had been agreed upon. I simply moved the photo to the top of the page, and now all of sudden the brings up something about a "consensus".

Another reason why some of the photos should be changed is because those pictures are all of liberal African Americans from the civil rights movement, there are no conservative blacks. There are no MODEREN African Americans everyone of the figures in those photos are DEAD. I simply as for a balance with conservative African Americans and African Americans from the moderen era. I am willing to compromise Obama and Condi Rice dont have to be in the main photos but they should be some where on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been discussion both on this page and at Talk:African American about expanding the number of pictures and including a more diverse group of people, including people with accomplishments in fields beside civil rights and politics. But the consensus has been clear that including Obama at the top of the page might seem like a political endorsement.

I'm going to ask some of the people who have commented on the montage in the past to add their views. I hope we can find an amicable resolution to this disagreement. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'll repeat here what I wrote on your Talk page: your talk about liberals and conservatives is bunk. The people in the current montage weren't all liberals, and Obama — whose picture you want to add — is a liberal. So please don't bother with that false line of reasoning. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All of the pictures are of civil rights leaders from the 1950s/60s. African-Americans have done many different things at many different times. Zazaban (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion but Malik Shabazz asked me on my talk page to make a comment. I think that adding someone who is currently running for the presidency of the United States would be a poor choice. In Obama's case it would be a particularly poor choice, since has status as an African American is a matter of some controversy, since some people define African American in terms of having an ancestor who came through the Middle Passage and he did not. Condi Rice would be less problematic, but I'd still try to avoid a current politician.

As for "There are no MODEREN (sic) African Americans", the modern era did not begin in the last 20 minutes. All but two of the people depicted were born in the 20th century. Rosa Parks died very recently. I think it is often best if these montages stick to people who are no longer alive. I believe if you look around at the images used in montages for other ethnicities that is what you will usually find.

Has anyone considered Zora Neale Hurston? Marian Anderson? Booker T. Washington as something of a balance to DuBois? As for living people, if sheer fame is the issue, Muhammad Ali would be right up there with any of these people (admittedly, with Malcolm X, that would make two people associated with the NOI). And Toni Morrison is as unquestionably notable. - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Malik Jmabel and Zazaban, here is my proposal. I strongly disagree we only include people who are dead but after reading much discussion on these photos I believe its almost a consensus that it should be expanded to NINE photos.I fully understand peoples concern about Baracks background, so I suggest we 1) Expand top photos to NINE African Americans those being --Martin L. King, Condolezza Rice, Malcolm X, Colin Powell, Micheal Jackson, Dr Ben Carson, Beyonce Knowles, Fredrick Douglass, and WEB Dubois and have them in COLOR. ( 2) Include a photo of the Obama FAMILY (i.e. Him, his wife, and kids together) somewhere in the article. I could see this being squeezed in the Politics and Social issues section. By virtue of Michelle his family is "ethnically" African American. Are there any disagreements with these changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One problem with using living people is getting "free" pictures to use in the template. We can't use "fair use" pictures.

You might be able to crop a decent head shot out of Image:Beyonce Opening Concert Tour.jpg, but Wikipedia doesn't have a free picture of Ben Carson. (No free picture of Toni Morrison either.) The pictures of Michael Jackson are, to be honest, crappy.

For Condoleezza Rice I think we should use Image:Condoleezza Rice cropped.jpg and not the odd-looking picture you've been using.

Wikipedia doesn't have a picture of the Obama family, so we can't use one in the article.

Finally, I think we should wait a little while for input from more editors. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is a terrible choice. He's a living person almost as well known for scandal as for achievement; much of his plastic surgery can be seen as constituting a denial of, or shame about, his ethnic origin. If we are going to have a male pop star, he's really a bad one to choose. - Jmabel | Talk 16:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama family photo

Jmable, its widley known that MJ has vitiligo(sp?). Anyway there is an Obama Family photo here Image:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg, I believe this should be placed some where in the article. In place of MJ, perhaps a hip-hop or R&B artist (Jay-Z, Diddy, Chris Brown, Usher) Im flexible. In place of Ben Carson I suggest Robert Curbeam. Lets give until 9/22/08 if there isnt any major disagreements this is what were going with. I dont have my photo editing software anymore, so if some else can do the honors and have these changes implemented on 9/23/08 that would be a big help. If thats a problem Ill just download the software again and do it myself. Questions? Comment? Suggestions? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Curbeam would be a good choice. For a rapper: do we have a decent picture of Chuck D anywhere? He'd be my choice in this context. - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any good pic of Chuck D, that pic is particularly bad b/c it has Flava Flav in the back. How about Run-D.M.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with that picture is that Chuck D is hidden behind the mike. There are other photos of Chuck D on Commons. We might be able to crop one of them to get a decent head shot.

We can't use Image:Rundmc 2.jpg in the template because it's not a free image. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bilbao BUM Chuck D chandal.jpg could easily be cropped, if we decide he's an appropriate person to use. - Jmabel | Talk 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend Harriet Tubman, Jackie Robinson, Miles Davis, Spike Lee, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Each of these represents a notable contribution in a separate field, and each has nice photo that can be easily cropped. --Jleon (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

--No offense Jleon but alot of those people are very stereotypical, that was the beef with the current photos, its something we need to move away from. I mean com'on Jackie Robinson? Miles Davis would probably be better off within the article in the cultural influence section. I could see Neil deGrasse Tyson being included but he'd be bumping Robert Curbeam. I threw this pic together, five AA's from the past (black & white) and four from the present.I couldn't include Chuck D because it messed up the continuity of the photo. The person who I replaced him with was Henry Johnson (Indian Wars soldier), I thought someone like him shows the depth of AA history. If anyone believes he should be changed, it should probably be a older historical figure perferably from colonial America or perhaps slavery days. Lastly, why has the unlock date been changed from 9/23 to 9/26? I dont see any notation about why it has been extended 3 extra days. These changes are supposed to go into effect on 9/23. How do I get the admins to change the date back to 9/23? Or if we're in agreement on this photo we can just have the admin make the changes now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit to being a complete novice when it comes to manipulating images, but it looks like the photo of Henry Johnson was squeezed and the picture of Malcolm X was stretched. Also, is there any way to crop a "head shot" of Robert Curbeam instead of so much space suit? If not, maybe we should consider Neil deGrasse Tyson. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

--Dude look at Asian American the astronauts are in thier full body suit. I actually did crop a "head shot" of Curbeam but went back to the full body photo because it looked better, you could tell hes an astronaut. Ill crop the head and people can compare, but I perfer how he is now. Im a novice at manipulating photos too, if Im doing this Henry Johnson is probably as good as its gonna get. Ill try to adjust X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an alternative. Instead of making a single montage image, just size the photos and put them in the infobox:

I changed a few of the images so they're not facing the right margin. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

--Looks good. Just to summarize Malik the new template and Obama family photo will be added. There is a whole News Media and coverage section for one sentence so Im expanding on that with more stuff. I may do some minor switching around in the order of a paragraph or two. Oh, and that picture of Jesse Jackson is horrible..Im changing it to Jesse Jackson Jr.. And ummmm yeah, thats about it. By the way, if obama loses you have my permission to take him off the page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nice work, Malik. After the election I believe we should replace Powell with Obama. --Jleon (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the reasoning for using a photograph of Beyonce? Why is an image of someone who has had an impact on black America and on music not used, e.g. Aretha, instead of a current pop personality who has been around for just a handful of years?

Also, huge NO to JLeon, Powell was a leading US general, the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first black Secretary of State -- that is, the man who has come farther than any other in American government and military. That would be like replacing a picture of ML King with one of Jesse Jackson just because Jackson ran for president. FEastman (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with you FEastmen I hope people will take you and my argument down the page in account when they say "consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.192.203 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Error on time frame of protected page

{{editprotected}}

This page should become unprotected on 9/23/08 NOT 9/26/08. Please refer to the history section for verification. Please change it back to the correct date. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 05:23, September 22, 2008

Don't confuse the template message on the page with the protection. The template mistakenly says that the page is protected for five days (it's been updated and now says September 27). The protection will end on 9/23, regardless of what the template says. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the protection expires in a couple hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on photo

moved from Talk:African American:

In reference to the picture at the top of the page: Why Robert Curbeam? Ronald McNair I think is a better choice. He has a crater named after him, and a federal scholar program... and he had a PhD from MIT. and he paid the ultimate price dying in the challenger disaster. plus who the hell is robert curbeam? also McNair's hair is way cooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.207.101 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this discussion until after my edit. Two things... why only nine images... lots of ethnicity pages have more... I also notice that arts and cultural figures such as John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Josephine Baker were completely missing. Does nobody value the arts?!? Is it always about politics and history? Other ethnicity pages have such figures in their pages... and keeping out Brrack Obama is going to look really ridiculous once he becomes president. It's ridiculous regardless.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussion about Obama, and concern that including his picture in the infobox might look like an endorsement. Wait another two weeks to include him.

With respect to the other people, please let's discuss them — as we did the other images — instead of unilaterally inserting them. I don't mind putting more people from the arts into the infobox, but last time we discussed it editors wanted contemporary figures (rather than historical ones).

By the way, Sidney Poitier isn't African American. He's Bahamian-American. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I just want to state that I lean toward being against adding more than nine images, there are obviously plenty of Afr-Americans to choose from but it shouldnt be over done with the pics because it begins to look trashy and unprofessional. As for the first comment, I chose Robert Curbeam because he holds the record for spacewalks, which is something many dont know, but Id be ok with McNair replacing him. As for "the Arts" I think one of those figures(perferably Miles Davis) should replace that photo currently in the cultural influence section. As for Barack Obama, I do agree that it would be tacky not to have him on top of the page, especially if he becames President. It is of my opinion that either Powell or the astronaut (Curbeam/McNair) be replaced. By the way Barack is on the page, if you didnt notice.Therock40756 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I get the Sydney Poitier thing. As for Obama: although I disagree that including Obama would be an endorsement (it should be major enough that he's the first african american major party candidate, an explanation that goes beyond any endorsement)... I am sensative to the point you are making and understand that we shoudl wait until he wins (or looses) the election. I still think that if it's laid out well, 16 pictures or even a column of 12 or 20 pictures would still work... some of the other ethnicity pages have them and there are a lot of great figures that could stand to have some representation.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I have some proposed changes. If Barack Obama is elected next week Ill be replacing Robert Curbeam with Barack Obama in the photos and adding information about his win in the opening History section. Dr. Who, I believe that Malik Shabazz harbors some personal issues with Barack Obama. For months hes been very adament about denying Obama his due on the African-American page. Notice how he has now shrunk the size of the Obama family photo in recent weeks. The man is about to be President for Christ sakes. I didnt even vote for him, but he still deserves a visible spot. So if anyone has any other changes lets agree on them now so the changes can be implemented on November 5th, 2008.Therock40756 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he wins or loses, I think we should consider adding Obama — and I wrote that above. (Maybe you should try reading my comments before you make accusations.) I don't have any "personal issues" with him; I've explained my concerns, and most other editors have agreed with them. With respect to the picture of the Obama family, see WP:MOS#Images: "If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified." My "issues" are that I try to follow Wikipedia guidelines, like WP:MOS and WP:OVERLINK. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

PS: Last month you were belly-aching that all the people in the infobox were liberals. (They weren't, but that's beside the point.) This month you want to add a liberal to the infobox. LOL. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we replace the current montage with the one below on Wednesday. I'd appreciate feedback. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Malik cut the BS, if you dont want Obama to be on the page just say it, theres no point in wasting peoples time with BS. By your standards the MLK pic and the Crispus Attucks links would both fail to meet your criteria yet you didnt make an attempt to modify them. Unlike you Im NON-partisan, I dont mind having liberals (even a uber one like Obama) if I feel they are high-profile or important enough to know. The few conservitive thinkers on the page wouldnt even be there without me. I think the template you made is fine, Ill only suggest replacing that bland overused Obama photo with a better one.Therock40756 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What in the world are you ranting about? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

LEts include . He is African American, and would go along way to showing race as a merely social construct.--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that the elections are over, I don't have any objections to Obama's picture in the montage. Kman543210 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This section right here contains a proposing a new montage then implementing it, with almost no replies, there is hardly any discussion for someone to claim that it generated a "consensus."

oprah

there is a musician already (miles davis) but the most successful aa entrepreneur deserves a slot which would be best taken from another musician (beyonce). oprah has made most influential list on TIME including most influential of the century, i really cannot see the justification for including Beyonce at Oprahs expense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.34.173 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about Oprah, but if she's included her picture is going to have to be cropped so it highlights her face and torso. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not know how to crop, could you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.192.203 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am against a change from agreed upon version. I believe a beautiful women like beyonce should appear in the temp, plus there is already a picture of Oprah on the page.Therock40756 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

... as are pictures of Obama and King. I personally don't think that Beyoncé is important enough to be featured there, and would favor Winfrey. However, I also think that women are a bit underrepresented there. How about replacing Henry Johnson with Oprah Winfrey?
Or how about making the template select a random twelce pictures from a list of candidates each time it's cached. :) --Amalthea^Talk 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any African Americans from the business world in the template. Oprah is primarily an entertainer, but she's also a businesswoman.

With respect to who Oprah replaces: We've got a nice symmetry now between color and black and white photos. Replacing Henry Johnson with a color picture would upset that pattern. On the other hand, I'm sensitive to the issue of having so few women. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyonce is a business women too and I think Obama and King are a bit more deserving of two pictures than Oprah. Im strongly for keeping beyonce, if another female must be included it should probably replace morgan freeman although I find it funny how only females want Beyonces pic removed. A good idea for a women truely deserving to be up there would be Michelle ObamaTherock40756 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How does this look, replacing Morgan Freeman with Oprah? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor note that bothered me when I looked at this template: the male-female ratio is currently 6:1, and would only be 3:1 if you slip Oprah in. No offense to Henry Johnson, but perhaps he should be replaced with a black-and-white photograph of a historical African American female figure. Image:Harriet_Tubman.jpg, Rosa Parks, and Image:Shirley_Chisholm.jpg span a good length of time depending on what period you'd like to draw from.

Also, it'd be more objective to include Aretha Franklin as a color photograph of a singer (rather than Beyonce); Aretha is, after all, the second most honored female singer in Grammy history. The Beyonce inclusion strikes me as a bit recentist. AATP (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, Im for keep Beyonce she is one of the biggest female artist today, she represents the present of African American culture. While I think its pointless having duel photos of Oprah, can accept Maliks latest proposal. I do agree there should probably be at least one female historical figure. I suggest replacing Malcolm X or Duboius, both have had a spot for over a year now. Of the 3 mentioned figures I like Harriet Tubman.Therock40756 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Revised once again, substituting Harriet Tubman for Henry Johnson. With respect to Beyonce, I think she could be replaced by Aretha Franklin but I know that Therock40756 feels very strongly about including her. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there no room for discussion here about G. K. Butterfield? Is there any objection to including him?Die4Dixie (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What is Butterfield's importance? Does he have any significant accomplishments? Based on his article, he sounds like an unremarkable Congressmember. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It would illustrate a very light AA, which would substantiate the social construct of race. A one of the few members of the congeressional black caucus, he is notable. The article would be improved by his inclusion. I'm concerned that there appears to be a "blackness" litmus test for inclusion. Feel free to disabuse me if I am in error.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

W. E. B. Du Bois was extremely light-skinned (he probably could have passed for white), and Malcolm X was also light. Frankly, Butterfield seems like a run-of-the-mill politician. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My family passed over three generations ago. I don't think Du Bois could have. You must have some different pictures of him. You must admit that there are no images of anyone as bright skinned as Butterfield. I'm not married to the idea of him appearing somewhere in the article; however, I can't see any objection to him being there either.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The objection is simply because Butterfield is not notable. —Godheval^{T C W} 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm very happy to see that Harriet Tubman and Oprah are now included. I think the current image strikes just the right balance in having women and people of varying fields of contribution represented. --Jleon (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "balance", seeing as though there are 8 men and 4 women, but that may be a matter of not having enough free images of AA women. —Godheval^{T C W} 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beyonce

At different points above, people have questioned the merit of Beyonce such that she should appear in this template, but the arguments have been scattered around and there doesn't seem to be a final consensus on it. So let's make it official by discussing it here. As others have said, there is already a musician - Miles Davis - and Beyonce, aside from her pop culture impact, is not really someone I consider to be noteworthy. This is my opinion, of course. Beyond that, though, there are SO many other African-Americans who I think better represent the great diversity of interests and accomplishments. My personal high choices are in bold.

• George Washington Carver - the man did practically everything
• Maya Angelou - for those who say (and I agree) that women are under-represented in the template
• Michael Jackson - I mean, pardon my language, but holy shit? Beyonce's up there as a musician, but not Michael? REALLY?
• Aretha Franklin - someone mentioned her already, and I think this another case of a female musician more noteworthy than Beyonce
• Jimi Hendrix - FAR more noteworthy than Beyonce, in that he practically invented rock and roll
• Michael Jordan - I would understand a hesitation to use an athlete, BUT...again, far more noteworthy.
• Jackie Joyner Kersee - another athlete, but also another legend, and more female representation

The list goes on and on. Intending NO disrespect to Beyonce, who I think is beautiful and talented, I just do not think if we're going to showcase 9 - and ONLY 9 - distinguished and great African-Americans, she must defer to others. I think even she would agree. So, officially now, keep Beyonce or replace her - and add WHO you'd like to see replace her if that's your choice. After awhile, if I don't see any discussion, I'll take silence as support and swap her out.

• Replace - With anyone I mentioned above. —Godheval^{T C W} 05:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to replacing Beyonce. Some of the people you mention present problems: There are no free images of Jimi Hendrix, and no images at all of Jackie Joyner Kersee, for example. But I think some of the other people would make fine replacements.

I'd like to hear Therock40756's opinion, because she/he seems to be very insistent that Beyonce belongs in the montage. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection to the change in almost a month since I first posted this, I am going to go ahead with the change. I am selecting Michael Jordan out of the above candidates because his picture is of the highest quality amongst them. If a higher quality image of M. Jackson, Aretha, or any of the others could be produced, I'm not committed to Jordan. Also, while GWC has a good image, it is in B&W and would break up the pattern of the template.—Godheval^{T C W} 00:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What is with this obsession with removing Beyonce? What do people have against her? Women are under now serverly underrepresented again, I am going to go back to consensus version until a suitable women is decided on to replace Beyonce. Nor do I feel that Beyonce should even be removed until there is a majority vote for her to be replaced. In the interest of fairness i will put it up to a vote that will last up until 12/29/08. If there is a tie Beyonce stays. I say Beyonce should stay.Therock40756 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I have anything against her, it's just that she is NOT noteworthy to the same degree as the others in the template, who have not only achieved much for themselves, but for Americans in general and African-Americans in particular. Aside from making millions of dollars and making people dance, Beyonce has done nothing compared to the other people I named. You say there is an obsession with removing her, but really, it seems the only obsession is yours in keeping her. The arguments for removing her are legitimate, while aside from fandom, there is no legitimate argument for keeping her. She is not the most noteworthy African-American singer, female or otherwise. That she is a "businesswoman" is not noteworthy at all, as there are countless businesspeople, including Oprah, who is already here, and is a much bigger deal than Beyonce. And where is this vote that you're talking about? I have not seen it. As far as I can tell, you are the only one insisting that she remain, and that is not a good enough reason. I posed the question of whether or not she should be removed, and NO ONE - including you - responded in over a month. The only other person who commented was Malk Shabazz, who was also fine with removing her. If there is any consensus, it is for removing her. Sorry, but let's not change this into a RV war. If you can garner a consensus for keeping her, THEN you can change her back. —Godheval^{T C W} 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And if your argument is with regards to there being more female representation, you won't receive any resistance from me. It's just that there are many, many more noteworthy African-American women to put in the position, even amongst singers - such as those named in previous discussions. I doubt even Beyonce herself - unless she's an arrogant fop - would say that she is more noteworthy or more deserving of representing African-Americans as a whole than some of the other people mentioned here. —Godheval^{T C W} 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Other more noteworthy African-American women include:

• Octavia E. Butler - a pioneer and award-winner in African-American Science Fiction
• Toni Morrison - Nobel Prize winner in Literature (and first AA woman to win it)
• Alice Walker - Pulitzer Prize winner
• Maya Angelou

(Worth noting is that these the above are all authors, and there is no representation for them at all in this template, while there is for musicians already with Miles Davis)

And before you go citing Beyonce's Grammy wins as comparable to Pulitzers or Nobels, you might want to note that Lil Wayne was also nominated for those awards, and I don't see anyone arguing for him to be used for the template. I mean, at that point when we hoist LW up as a model of African-American success is the point where we should commit self-inflicted mass genocide, because there is no hope. —Godheval^{T C W} 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama?

Hi, I was pointing out that according to the United States order of precedence, Barrack Obama should be higher up on the template to account for the fact that he is president, considering the fact that he does outrank people like Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell (No offense to them). Does this make sense? Or shall we just leave it? Thanks. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 04:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another row is needed

May I suggest that we add another row of images and these people would be my choices: Muhammad Ali, we have an excellent image of him when he was younger; Dorothy Dandridge, again, we have a nice image of this beautiful actress; Jim Beckwourth, we have an image of him as well. Alternatives to the above people would be Billie Holiday, Mahalia Jackson, Bill Cosby, Whitney Houston. As is the case with all of these image montages at Wikipedia, there is an uneven balance of sexes and occupations. Before I edited the White Americans page, there were only two women with the rest being US presidents! Now we have a balance of the sexes, occupations, age, living and dead, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably add another two or three rows. Jesse Jackson would also be a good choice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think another row might be a good idea, but I would like to take advantage of the additional space to add more women. We currently have only three women out of nine pictures.

I think two or three more rows is probably too many, but let's see what other editors think. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, two more women should be added, perhaps one living and the other deceased, just to give more balance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with another row. It will disrupt the decorum of the African-American page. If changes must be made to photos I suggest that we simply utilize the spaces given with either, historical AAs or or modern AAs. photos can be rotated in and out based on request and a consensus.Therock40756 (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson picture?

I personally believe he deserves a spot up here. He is the most famous person in the world (if not then hes just behind Obama). While any photos from the late 80's on would show him with white looking skin, the fact is hes african american and he knows his roots. We obviously wouldnt have to use a photo of him "pale" but he definitely deserves some spot. I think theres room for another musician up there. And he deserves a spot over Michael Jordan.

Jackson helped break color barriers on MTV (he got african americans on mtv), hes contributed to charities (heal the world, USA for Africa), etc. I dont want to start an edit war, but what do you guys think? Thechode69 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

oh and also, the best image I could find was Jackson, 1988 (46845017052).jpg

but I was wondering how the MJ article has a picture of scream on there? is it a non free photo? could we do something along the same lines for a picture of michael, not screaming (and without janet)? because wikipedia needs a better picture of jackson anyways, so if using a music video for the picture fit would the guidelines..?

sorry if it doesnt im new and just trying to contribute

Thechode69 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that picture looks too good at the small size it would be in the template. Very blurry. What do other editors think?

With respect to your other suggestion, Wikipedia's policy with respect to copyright requires that all images in templates be "free" – that is, not subject to copyright. A screen-shot from a video is not free. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i dont think its so blurry at that size. however, could some editor make a template of the pictures with the michael one in it, just for a preview? i think a good person to replace would be michael jordan, but its up to you. and about the screenshot -- how did the picture get on michaels page if its not free? Thechode69 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I lean against adding MJ because there are no good photos of him. If he is added, Im strongly against Condolezza Rice being removed. This page should have some conservative black representation. Perhaps Colin Powell can be removedTherock40756 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Colin Powell is a far more historically consequential African-American than Condoleezza Rice. He's the first African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the first African-American Secretary of State. Powell is also far more famous than Rice. And the notion that we need to have "conservative black representation" rather than picking African-Americans purely on the basis of notability is silly. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I really do not care who is to be removed, but Michael Jackson has to be in the list. He was (and still is) the most famous and most influential African American. And, btw, I think that this picture is good, because it shows Michael Jackson the way he is recognized and remembered all around the world. Tajik (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson "the most famous and most influential African American"? Puh-leeze. In any event, a big part of the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't have a decent "free" picture of Jackson. Most of the other images in the collage are head shots, and a full body image of Jackson would be out of place. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

yes he is the most famous man on earth and most popular artist of all time. see this please mr Malik Shabazz [4] and [5] and he is one of the most influential African American of all time. Shahroozporia (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the collage doesn't look that bad with Jackson in it. If people like the new box, I'll resize Condoleezza Rice's picture so that row is filled out. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! Thx. Tajik (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning on the picture of him in 1988. It's not full body. But regardless, we NEED a picture of Jackson up there. So I'm fine either way. Since his death he needs a place in this article. As we all know, he broke racial barriers on MTV. He is the only black musician to be placed among legends like "The Beatles", Frank Sinatra, and Elvis Presley. Whoever is authorized or is experienced enough to change this please do. P.S. - I'm searching the ends of the universe for a free photo of michael. As you could see watching the "This Is It" press conference, there were LOTS of digital cameras there. SOMEBODY out there owns a picture that could be released into the public domain. Thechode69 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

hey i just noticed there was a new picture of michael jackson on here. which do you think looks better?

A: File:ReaganMichaelJackson.png

B:

or C:

A is recently added, apparently. What do you people think?

B is the most recent that is good enough quality. It shows his face with no glasses (unusual in public) and close up.

C is a good shot, not much to say about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechode69 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I support this user and think Powell should really be replaced by Jackson. Really the infobox has too many politcians, Rice and Obama I think are enough political but there is no image of a person who is notable for entertainment or music and that I think should definitely be Michael Jackson. The issue here is the image but I think the image of him with a cap is suitable because it is a better close up image without glasses and can be recognizable. Dimario (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have added a new updated image of Michael Jackson, if no one is happy with it you can revert and discuss it here. Dimario (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Michael Jackson and President Bush 2 (cropped).jpg

"no image of a person who is notable for entertainment or music"? Hello? Maybe you've never heard of Miles Davis, Michael Jordan, or Muhammad Ali (sports are a form of entertainment).

Here's the newest image of Michael Jackson. Dimario, do you prefer the new picture or the one with the baseball cap? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically im talking about someone in music entertainment they are other types of entertainment whereas these politicians are similar, previously there was Beyonce, but Michael Jackson should go up there. The new image seems to have a copyright violation i think, so i think the baseball cap one is suitable and works because it is a better close up image. Dimario (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Steele

I noticed a user have replaced Oprah with Michael Steele. I just want to make it clear the I fully support this change and the reasoning for it. Oprah appearing twice takes valuable space from other African Americans who can have thier photo somewhere on the page. Michael Steele is a great choice for that replacement.Therock40756 (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I have with Steele is that other users have complained that there are too many political figures and there are too few women. I agree that it doesn't make sense to have the same picture of Oprah twice in the article, but maybe we can find a picture of another woman to add to the template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King's picture appears twice, so why not Oprah? She's both the richest & most philanthropic African American of all time, she was extremely instrumental in the election of Obama, plus she's a woman & her picture is in color. It's very insulting to not include Oprah in the template. She was voted the second greatest African American of ALL TIME in the Discovery Channel's Greatest American contest. Iconicism (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rosa Parks

Seeing as she has been considered "the mother of the modern-day civil rights movement", shouldn't there be a picture of Rosa Parks in this section? I was thinking that perhaps it would make sense to have a picture of her replace Michael Steele, seeing as she has done far more to contribute to the African American community then he has. I have also noticed that people have been looking for another woman besides Oprah to add to the section. What do you think?--Joker123192 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Rosa Parks is somebody whose picture should be in the template. There's a symmetry to the images, though, in the distribution of color and black-and-white photos, and adding Parks to the top center breaks the pattern.

Maybe we should consider a fifth row, as was proposed above. It would also give us an opportunity to add more women. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

An alternative might be to remove Miles Davis. Here's how that might look. (I could try to resize/crop the images to eliminate the white space between them.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. Okay, perhaps we could try that out.--Joker123192 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oprah, part II

Oprah Winfrey's picture appears at African American#Economic status. That's the same picture that's been proposed for this template, which is why I removed it. It doesn't make sense to have the same picture twice in the same article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there might be another image of Oprah we could use. I'll see if I can find it. Iconicism (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I found another image of Oprah for the template. It shows Oprah at one of Obama's campaign rallies back in Dec 2007 right before he won Iowa. Iconicism (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I found an alternative picture of Oprah on Commons, and I replaced the one in the article with it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Im replacing the picture of Oprah to someone else, there is no reason for her to be on the page twice. If there are no objections or suggestions in 48hrs I will make the changes and decide on myself who the person shall be.Therock40756 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Several people are on the page twice, including Martin Luther King, Barack Obama, and Michelle Obama. In fact, you added Michelle Obama to the page twice. So you'll have to come up with a better reason than that.

And please don't make threats on this page. If you make unilateral changes without discussing them, they will be reverted. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The people who are on the page twice are deserving of being on the page twice. MLK, and the First BLack couple of the U.S.. Oprah is definately not on that level. Plus one of pics of her is massive. Its bigger than both MLK and Obama. Oprah does not merit this much attention, so I open to hearing suggestions who should replace her. Im flexible.Therock40756 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oprah is very much on that level. She's the richest & most philanthropic AA of all time, the most admired black woman of the 20th century, and she was extremely instrumental in electing the first black president Iconicism (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you're the one who's complaining about Oprah Winfrey, why don't you propose a replacement? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Tiger Woods is a good choiceTherock40756 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. There are plenty of free pictures at Commons that we could use. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want Tiger Woods he can replace someone else, but Oprah belongs in the template because she's the richest & most philanthropic African of all time, was extremely instrumental in electing the first black president. Besides we need more women in the template. Iconicism (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

An editor recently replaced Oprah Winfrey in the template with Clarence Thomas. He didn't discuss it here, so I thought I would. Any thought? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas photo should replace Barack Obama, if there are no obections go for it!Therock40756 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive objection. For one, there was a strong consensus to add Obama—in fact, you were a very loud part of the drive to add him. Second, why Thomas? Are there any positive reasons for including him? He's a second-rate jurist at best. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson, James Brown, and Magic Johnson

Today an editor added a fifth row of photos, with Jackie Robinson, James Brown, and Magic Johnson (with Nancy Pelosi).

I guess there are a few issues here. First, should we add a fifth row? Second, if we add a fifth row, whose pictures should we add? Third, if we don't add a fifth row, should we change some of the pictures?

I don't think the template needs another row, but I feel strongly about it.

In the past, there has been concern expressed that we don't have enough women in the photos. At present, there are four women out of sixteen pictures. If more pictures are added, I would like to see more women among them.

One last point: I have tried to keep a symmetry between the color and black-and-white photos in alternating rows. If possible, I'd like to try to keep it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To sort of balance the number of men and women, I suggest adding Toni Morrison's picture and deleting Micheal Jackson's picture. I, too, do not think a fifth row is necessary. ExistentialBliss (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I say, no more additional rows of photos. If another row is added it just starts to look tacky. I dont really care for any of the suggestions put forward. There would be too many athletes. I mean Jackie Robinson is stereotypical, why not Willie Mays? Same could be said for the other two. If new photos are to be put up I suggest it be done by replacement. Jordan could be replaced with Magic (sports star for Sports star), M.Jackson could be replaced with James Brown(entertainer for entertainer).Jackie Robinson could replace Muhammad Ali?. If a women needs to be repalced it should be Oprah as she already has a massive photo on the page.Therock40756 (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change pictures just for the sake of change. I'm not opposed to replacing Michael Jackson with Toni Morrison, though; Jackson was added immediately after his death following a discussion by a pair of enthusiastic fans. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm even open to adding another row of just women, if people are opposed to removing any of the current pictures. That way, the number of men and women would balance out, and female literary giants would thus be represented. My suggestions are Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. ~ ExistentialBliss (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Over the next few days I'll try to crop pictures of them for the template and we'll see what people think. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ExistentialBliss (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaced Michael Jackson with Beyonce

I removed Michael Jackson and replaced him with Beyonce. I just think it's really offensive to have someone who was accused and investigated for child molestation, not once, but twice, and settled one of the cases out of court, as a representative of African Americans. Second, we need way more representation of African American women which is why I added Beyonce.Greatestnovel (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it offensive to include Michael Jackson, one of the most famous, notable, and influential musicians of all time, but not offensive to include Malcolm X, who was accused of racism, black supremacy, antisemitism, and violence? Jackson is pictured in the article People of the United States. Should he be removed from there, too? Besides, it's not about gender, it's about who's more notable. --John of Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Chart

According to this chart, 13% of african americans are irreligious, Thats more than catholics and muslims. Someone65 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the source on which the chart is based, you would see that 8% of African Americans are religious but unaffiliated, 1% don't know (or wouldn't say) if they're religious, and less than 1.5% are atheists and agnostics. Based on the source, I'd say that "irreligious" isn't a significant "religion" at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

According to that source 3% Of African Americans are unaffiliated and irreligious. Only 1% of African Americans are muslim. Even atheists are agnostics alone at 1.5% make up a more significant amount than muslims. Therefore irreligious people have more legitimate and deserved claim to be on that table than muslims. According to the verified data, either Islam has to be removed from the box, or irreligious has to be added. Someone65 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion; another Pew source [6] composition uses the wording 'nothing in particular'. Irreligion is an absence and indifference towards religion so you could also possibly describe all unaffiliated Afrian Americans as irreligious. Someone65 (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First, "irreligious" isn't a religion. Adding atheists, agnostics, and "possibly all unaffiliated African Americans" and describing their "religion" as "irreligion" is considered original research.

Second, when "irreligion" is recognized as equal in importance in African-American spiritual and cultural life to Islam, maybe we discuss whether Islam should be removed and "irreligion" added in its place. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Images in the infobox

There's a community discussion concerning whether there should or should not be images in infobox templates such as this one. If you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing Beyonce with Michael Jackson

I replaced Beyonce with Michael Jackson for the reason that I feel Michael Jackson has a more influential impact on people. Without Michael Jackson, a lot of entertainers and performers, including Beyonce, wouldn't be who they are today. Jaz2423 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind adding Jackson to the template, but I'm concerned about replacing Beyoncé. There have been past complaints about gender imbalance, and replacing one of the women with a man would cause imbalance once again. What do you think about replacing Ali or Jordan with Jackson?

I'm also interested in what other editors have to say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you were to add a female there, you should put Aretha Franklin because she has had one of the strongest impacts in the music industry, particularly for female entertainers. I definitely think that Michael Jackson should be there for an equal reason as Aretha Franklin.

If you were to put Michael Jackson there, replace Michael Jordan. Jaz2423 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Aretha Franklin is the lack of a quality "free" image.

With respect to Michael Jackson, let's wait another day or two to see if anybody else says anything. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add Michael Jackson, I love his music and his humanity but Beyonce represents Af-Am better. that who bleaching issue, oh no. And we have too many entertainers and athletes up there, cuz When I tried to get Sammy Davis on the Jewish page you know that didnt go down well. I rather discuss why Condi is up there, that what I want to know. Belefonte and others are right to say she is non-representative of African American. I made this complaint years ago actually. At least Malcolm (who coined the term) is up there.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

i think we have to Replace Beyonce picture with Michael Jackson. because we see 11 important person in this Template but Beyonce isnot important in history of African American people. Shahroozporia (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion immediately above. Beyoncé helps keep a certain gender balance. Have you considered the possibility of replacing Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali with Michael Jackson? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

i read the discussion above before my friend. i know you want to keep a certain gender balance but please chance Beyoncé with another black woman artist. you know why i want to do this? because every person in this Template is important in history of African American ethnicity except Beyoncé. Michael Jordan is best in basketball, Muhammad Ali is best in boxing, michael jackson is best artist history of African American ethnicity, oprah is best in tv. but Beyoncé is not important in history of African American ethnicity. and i want to say the black mans do so much wonderfuul work then black womans. if we have 100 person in 100 greatest black people list, there is more than 60 or 70 balck man and black woman are 30 or 40 person. sorry if my english is not good my friend. Shahroozporia (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I repeated my self. REJECT! --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

why reject? this Template it's not about gender, it's about who's more notable. Shahroozporia (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It actually is about gender because it has always been about balance and representation (something MJ failed to do). I think I would have less objection if Af-Am were represented by someone popular who was not singing and dancing. Like a scientist or scholar. Or even Farrakhan if you want popular and history. But at Least Malcolm is up there.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Barack Obama is not an African-American, but an African who is American. He’s not a descendant of the enslaved Africans who built America without reward or respect for their contributions. He is in fact a first generation American, while the real African-Americans are people whose lineage can be traced back fifteen generations and more. FireFire007 (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, but not the sourced definition of African American. The current consensus definition of the term is "A Black American of African ancestry", "African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa", and "an American of African and especially of black African descent". There are certainly those who believe as you do, but that is not the standard definition and would be considered a fringe view. Dave Dial (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as a fringe view. Our article says (in its second and third sentences): "Most African Americans are of West African descent and are descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States. However, some immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations, or their descendants, may be identified or self-identify with the term."

Obama self-identifies with the term (recall the dust-up when he chose African American on his census form?) and it is appropriate to include him in the template. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fringe view to say that "Most African Americans are...etc", but it is a fringe view to state that one "must be a descendant of slaves". I'm not saying there are not those that believe that, but that it is fringe. It's like saying that Chinese Americans can't be considered Chinese Americans if they came after the railroads were built. Or you're not a German American if you came to America after WWII. It's exclusionary based on opinion, not ethnic origin. Dave Dial (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. I misunderstood. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid point, and it came up b4. I am biased because I really need an intellectual like Obama in that image box - hence why I didnt press the point. The article is not about people like Obama. But at the sametime in popular association he is what the world knows as an African-American. But he really is not the African-American under discussion in the article. See previous debates around "Who is Af-Am" and we have an article for the Obama's--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper order of photos

Putting new photos with old ones don't look good. It should start with the earliest photo and then in order of history go down to present time. I fixed this but some photos need to be cropped so that they all even up. The white borders also make it look good.--182.177.124.109 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit messed up the template: some rows had two images and some had one. I think it looks nice with a blend of new and old photos, plus there's a symmetry of color and black-and-white photos. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No African-American scientist?

There's no African-American scientist in here which I think is a significant omission. How about including Percy Julian, George Washington Carver or even Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the gallery of pictures on the top right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A scientist would be nice. I think we're a little heavy on entertainers (including athletes). What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about Guion Bluford? In addition to the extreme significance of his achievement, I think his photo in a space suit would look great on the template. I don't know that anyone's worth sacrificing though, except probably Whitney Houston, but I talked about that below.

Brownsc (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bluford would be good. Who would he replace? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nominating Scott Joplin's picture for the template

I believe that Scott Joplin is arguably the most important and influential composer in the history of the United States, of any ethnicity. He is universally acknowledged as the greatest and most recognized ragtime composer in history, which is a specifically African-American genre of music. Ragtime is the root of stride and jazz, and by extension swing, doo-wop, rock and roll (with blues and other elements), funk, electro, disco, hip-hop.

Whitney Houston certainly has an impressive resume of awards and achievements, but it doesn't seem to me that she is nearly as historically significant in the history and evolution of American music; nor is she particularly prominent in a specifically African American musical genre, as opposed to pop or American music in general. In fact, Houston's name is not mentioned even once in any of the articles Soul music, Gospel music, Urban contemporary gospel, Traditional black gospel, Rhythm and blues, and two times in the article Contemporary R&B.

Furthermore, Scott Joplin is the author of what is by far the most famous composition in the history of African-American music, The Entertainer, and possibly the most famous American composition ever after Happy Birthday.

I do strongly believe that if there is to be one space on the template to be dedicated to an African-American musician, that despite the strong resume of Whitney Houston, Scott Joplin is a much more deserving candidate.

Please discuss.

Brownsc (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Whitney Houston is a relatively recent addition, when she was substituted for Beyoncé. I agree with you that Joplin was much more influential than Houston (or Beyoncé, for that matter), but concerns have been raised in the past about gender issues in the template. Without Houston or Beyoncé, we'd only have four women out of 12 images.

Is there anybody else whose picture you would replace with Joplin's? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been skimming through the talk page, and trying to understand the reasoning for each of the pictures featured, so as not to write anyone off out of ignorance, or to bring up anyone we've decided against. You obviously have been very active on this page for a long time, so I welcome any criticism you have.

I think we could shake it up a little bit. I believe Douglass, Obama, Parks, Rice, King, Malcolm X, Washington, and Tubman are all locks. I've already made my case for Joplin, so that brings us to ten. I obviously believe Whitney Houston can be taken out, leaving us with Oprah Winfrey, Muhammad Ali, and Michael Jordan yet to be discussed in this paragraph. I don't think there's any point in taking on Oprah because of the wealth she built herself, her influence, and so on, so I guess I'll talk about the other two. Jordan is -arguably- the best and unquestionably the most recognized, marketable, and so on, and that those two combined are a case enough. I think Ali's politically important (no quarrel with them Viet Cong etc), let alone his extreme significance in his own sport. I think they're quite equal, at least without splitting hairs, so it's pretty tough to sacrifice one over the other.

I think we could add another row -- it isn't too drastic when you take a look at White American, English people, etc. 4x4 would be nice and symmetrical. I also believe this template would still be miles ahead of the format on those pages, in that the pictures are separate, the names appear under the pictures (as opposed to confusing row-by-row listings).

If we add four pictures, having removed Houston, I think it'd be preferable to have three women, 7/16 on the template. I'd really like to see Bessie Coleman there, because she is the first internationally licensed black pilot, and among the first women. I also have a small bias because she has such a beautiful face, but it's beside the point. I think Dorothy Height and Shirley Chisholm are very worthy candidates, even if we weren't trying for gender, but are we then maybe leaning too much towards politics and civil rights activists? Your opinion? I think Guion Bluford is very worthy as I said above.

Finally, I really would like to see a black baseball player, particularly a Negro league veteran: baseball was THE sport of black America, for maybe half a century before prominent black American athletes first began to feature in any other sports. I'd pick a Negro league player over a Major league player because so many of the greatest American baseball players are so often overlooked even today, because the colour of their skin left them locked out in their own eras. It must be said that the general opinion among observers in that era all the way through this one generally believe the Negro and Major leagues were likely equally as talented as one another. I'd really like to display one of these players under-appreciated to this day, over say Jackie Robinson, who is very much discussed and honoured etc. Cool Papa Bell is my personal favourite, but by far the best candidate in my opinion is Satchel Paige -- after he refused anything but a full and equal induction to the Hall of Fame (vs being designated a separate category in the Hall), in 1971, Paige and eight other Negro leaguers were given Hall of Fame inductions; all were inducted equal to one another i.e. in no particular order or preference, except for Paige, who was given the distinction of being selected first, you know, as tops among all of them. He also spoke awfully loudly and very early about letting black players into the majors, even though he would not be the first. He did play five years in the majors. He barnstormed, but made it back to the majors for one game at the age of 59, and is a decade older than any other to have played major league baseball. I really do believe this biography and history, as well as the under-appreciation, beat Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali. We'd still have a fairly good balance of people living and dead, with 5/16 living, but two more who lived until very recently. I think that's pretty good, being that the biographies featured on this template span 200 years.

I really am awful at formatting, but there are my crazy old ideas, what do you think?

Brownsc (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not to beat the dead horse, but one more critical point about Joplin: the first ever African-American opera, Treemonisha. Brownsc (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't a fan of adding a fourth row, but somebody formatted the template recently and gave it more "white space". Maybe a fourth row wouldn't be too bad.

I don't have any objections to your suggestions so far. I would just point out that in order to be included in the template, we need a "free" image of the person. According to our policy, a "fair use" image can't be used in a template. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Did it, send some feedback please

Brownsc (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you for taking care of this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox suggestion

I was thinking, given the historical significance of racial interrogation of professional sports and Jackie Robinson's role in that integration, perhaps he should be represented in the infobox?

Also, I noticed, that other than COL Guion Bluford, no individuals who are notable for military contributions are included in the infobox (even though he isn't primarily notable for his military service, but more for his being the first African American in space). May I suggest SGT William Harvey Carney, as his action is the earliest which an African American was a recipient of the Medal of Honor, or MAJ Martin Delany the first African American field officer, or BG Benjamin O. Davis, Sr. the first African American general officer. Come to think about it, given that Robinson was a commissioned officer, he can serve a duel function (although he is not primarily notable for his military service).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Skewed Representation

Should nearly half of the pictures be of Civil Rights/abolition leaders. Malcolm X and MLK capture Civil Rights pretty well. Tubman and Douglass for the abolition. Height, Washington, and Parks are all enormous figures, but I think it's overkill. I also don't understand why the most famous human (excluding religious figures) Michael Jackson is not on here. It's like American Jews leaving out Albert Einstein. Either way I think there should be another musician in addition to Joplin. Maybe Miles Davis. --Yellowfiver (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Abolition of Slavery in the United States and the African American Civil Rights movements are important milestones of African American history, so is the period when African Americans were largely bonded in slavery.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)