Is it permissible to use "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: See previous discussion in the section immediately above.

• Yes - As I stated above, MOS:ETHNICITY allows use of ethnicity in the lead (which includes the lead sentence) for bios of people whose ethnicity is relevant to their notability. King certainly fits that standard, and it's done in other articles. If someone wants it in the lead but not in the lead sentence, we need a policy or guideline to support that rather than a personal opinion. Including or excluding it in the lead sentence is a personal opinion, since either way it is acceptable in the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone wants it in the lead but not in the lead sentence, we need a policy or guideline to support that rather than a personal opinion. I really do not understand the argument you are suggesting here. MOS:ETHNICITY states Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. It states the lead. Not lead sentence, not lead paragraph, it allow editors determine where exactly in the lead it can be applied done on an article-by-article basis. It does not say it has be in 'lead sentence or nothing'. It does not say, if you support it anywhere else in the lead paragraph non-lead sentence then you are just using your personal opinion not based on policy.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I think you may have missed my point, probably because I haven't stated it clearly. I agree that the issue of lead sentence can be determined on a case by case basis, which is exactly why I started this RfC. Just as it is personal opinion to include it from the lead sentence, it is personal opinion to exclude it from the lead sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad idea. Because we usually put citizenship ("American") not ethnicity nor race, otherwise it suggests that African Americans or Blacks are not American. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African American clearly identifies someone as American. It's one of the most commonly used descriptors in the English language. You could substitute "black", but that's not necessary. Either way, your logic is flawed. Someone can be described with two adjectives; one does not negate the other simply because two are used. Please give us the policy or guidelines that prevents it from being in the lead sentence. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ONUS is on you. This article has had American (no hyphen anything) in the lead a long time perfectly in keeping with MOS:ETHNCITY. African American or black I support being in the lead, -- not in the first sentence, where MOS says generally put citizenship. American is citizenship, African American is ethnicity not citizenship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, citizenship is included in the lead sentence, but that doesn't prevent ethnicity from being in the lead sentence when it's appropriate. Again, one adjective does not negate the other. That's a matter or opinion since MOS:ETHNICITY is silent on the exact location in the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidently, this bad idea of replacing American with African American was just in the news, the suggested racism was not a good look.[1] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic (that's not a criticism, just an observation), and I don't want to start a new debate on that issue, but one U.S. senator's misuse of terminology doesn't have a lot of bearing on exactly which term should be used on Wikipedia. If enough people here want it to be "black", I can accept that. But African American is quite acceptable, including for most African Americans. In any event, it's not very relevant to this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of our words and actions is relevant: your edit seeks to replace the long-standing citizenship, with race or ethnicity in the place of the long-standing well supported in the MOS, citizenship. There was a time in America when blacks were written out of citizenship -- no more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree regarding the term. "African American" incorporates nationality and ethnicity. African Americans are Americans with a specific ethnicity. It would be awkward to say "American African Americans", and it's not necessary. I believe you made your comments in good faith, but please be careful not to divert this issue to one of racism and historical mistreatment of African Americans. I respect your comments about disenfranchisement of African Americans, but it is really not relevant to this discussion. If this RfC results in placing "African American" in the lead sentence, I would welcome a separate discussion on the specific term for the ethnicity, perhaps with input from WP:WikiProject African diaspora and WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups. But not here. As I have said several times, we could use the word "black American", but African American is more common. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the MOS and the article African American agree African American is ethnicity, not citizenship. Whereas American is citizenship. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link or otherwise identify where in MOS it is stated that African American is not citizenship, and that the term "African American" does not identify someone as American? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Black American" and "African American" both denote citizenship. That's the American part of it. Our article African American (to which Black American redirects) begins African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans and formerly, Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group consisting of Americans .... There is no merit to the argument that "Black American" or "African American" replaces citizenship with race or otherwise omits or eliminates citizenship. Levivich 00:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says it is an ethnic group, that means it is an ethnicity. In that very sentence American without hyphen anything is the citizenship (or nationality). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: Sorry, I don't understand your comment "In that very sentence American without hyphen anything is the citizenship". Could you explain. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

an ethnic group consisting of Americans The whole point of that article you linked to is that all African Americans are Americans (the faux pas McConnell committed was suggesting otherwise). If all A's are B's, and X is an A, then X is a B. Basic logic, right? Levivich 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of that article is that African Americans are an ethnic group. American is the citizenship or nationality (that is what the link tells), so when we put American in the place we usually put citizenship, that is the clear direct way to express citizenship, not ethnicity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident that if the reader reads "John Doe is African American", the reader will deduce that John Doe is an American. Levivich 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So when expressing citizenship, say he is an American, there is no need to deduce anything and American is the standard wording for expressing citizenship, in the place where we usually first give the context of citizenship, not ethnicity. There is plenty of room to refer to ethnicity later in the lead. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article in the news is not about this. Here are some better articles, IMO: [2] [3]. Levivich 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the information, but I'll ask anyone who wants to discuss which terminology should be used to raise the discussion elsewhere. It's an important issue, but this RfC needs to focus on whether the term (whichever is appropriate) should appear in the lead sentence. Right now the lead identifies MLK Sr. as "black". I'm fine with that if enough people support its use. Sundayclose (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you but FWIW, the RFC question, Is it permissible to use "African American" in the lead sentence? doesn't convey whether the term (whichever is appropriate) should appear in the lead sentence; you might want to rephrase it :-) Levivich 00:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I added "Black American". Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's certainly permissible, per MOS:ETHNICITY if it is relevant to the subject's notability (which it is for this subject). That doesn't mean, though, that I think it must be in the lead sentence, or even should be. I can imagine a lot of lead paragraphs with different positioning. For me, the bottom line, is that the reader should be told, early (i.e., somewhere in the lead paragraph, and lead sentence would be fine but not crucial) that King was a member of the group whose rights he fought for. That's because it's a key part of the civil rights movement that it was led by people of color and not white people (some may argue that was an essential part of its [relative] success, as compared with civil rights efforts led by white people). It's also beyond dispute that, for example, MLK would not have been arrested as much if he was white. It's important to include it in the first paragraph, certainly permissible in the first sentence, and I have no strong opinion about "black" or "African American" for this particular article subject. Levivich 00:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, per MOS:ETHNICITY. I think what you were really asking is, "should it be". My personal opinion, well, it should certainly be in the lead. It doesn't state anything about his race, which is fundamental to the story of the man. Everything that the man was known for, was fueled in some part by race. I'm leaning towards the lead sentence at this point, as I can't find many other places in the lead where it would fit in now. There is already precedent for this at the b-class article, Rosa Parks. If we do end up adding info about his race, I would prefer the adjectives African American as it will make the idea more concise, and get across two fundamental ideas. Sea Cow (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also precedent at Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, Irene Morgan, Alberta Odell Jones, Huey P. Newton, Elizabeth Eckford, Aurelia Browder, Naomi Anderson, Theresa El-Amin, Amzie Moore, Nannie Helen Burroughs, Ernest Green, and Elizabeth Piper Ensley. I'm sure there are others. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC). I'm sure there are others. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Barack Obama; and for this article (Martin Luther King, Jr), it is already in the first paragraph of the lead that he was black. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great way to describe his race, it describer's his father, it would be a lot better if we just got the point across and said he was African American, instead of doing it some backwards way and talking about his fathers race. Sea Cow (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not describing his father's race/ethnicity (although it does that too by implication) King Jr. is the subject of that sentence, that sentence is describing King Jr. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad about screwing up the subject. Anyways, it's a really not great sentence construction. The entire sentence is confusing and needs to be rewritten. I still think this should be a principal topic and go in the lead sentence though. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an incorrectly framed/loaded RfC. Yes, of course it is permissible, but is it better in the 1st phrase or in 2nd phrase (as in current version). This is the essence of the disagreement. As the flow goes, current version seems to be OK. One must suggest a specific change (a specific phrase, for example) for an RfC to be productive. And start from discussing the issue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The exact wording of the first sentence doesn't have to be stated explicitly. The issue whether enough people support including the term "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence. But if someone insists, I can formulate a sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly help, since of course it's "permissible" to use "African/Black American" in the lead sentence. The main question here though is if it should be included in the lead sentence and if so, where exactly in the lead sentence. I would oppose "...was an African/Black American Baptist minister"[4] as the current version[5] is better IMHO, but I have yet to see other proposed phrasings for the lead sentence. And of course the lead paragraph could be re-written altogether if needed. Some1 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suggest a tweak to the first sentence: "Martin Luther King Jr. (born Michael King Jr.; January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an African American Baptist minister and activist who became the most visible spokesman and leader in the American civil rights movement from 1955 until his assassination in 1968." But I'm open to suggestion as long as "African American" (with or without a hyphen) or "black American" is in the lead sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why exactly this should be in the first, rather than in 2nd phrase? My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because his ethnicity in relation to his activism is notable enough to put it in the first sentence, as is done in numerous other articles for African American activists. This is a matter of opinion, of course, just as not putting it in the lead sentence is a matter of opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear for people coming in, there is no current dispute (and never has been) about describing King Jr as African American or black in the first paragraph. The first paragraph of this article already does, but MOS ETHNICITY says that generally the first context is citizenship, here American. Like we do in the Barack Obama article, this article (almost immediately thereafter) describes him as African-American/black in the context of his life and work. (see also Wikipedia:ETHNICRACECAT for Wikipedia consensus that African American is ethnicity). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Since we're restating the issue, it is a matter of opinion about whether "African American" or "Black American" would be in the lead sentence (as it is for a number of articles about major African American civil rights activists; I provide a few above), which is not forbidden by MOS:ETHNICITY. Sundayclose (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no need to restate the issue, if you had not jumped to a malformed and misleading RfC. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's malformed or misleading. As for "jumping", if you have a personal issue with me, this is not the venue to discuss it. Take it to my talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told by others above you created a malformed and misleading RfC, and that your jumping into an RfC without discussion is a hinderance to resolution, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you and one other editor. If there is a consensus here that the RfC is malformed, I will start another one. But at this point that is not the case. If you want to challenge what I have done, please take this to my talk page or WP:ANI so that there will not be a "hindrance" to this discussion, to use your term. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not one other editor, you have been told by multiple editors, the question this RfC asks makes little sense and is not actionable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. If a closer states that the RfC is malformed, I will do another one. And again, please take this issue to an administrators' board, not here. You are interfering with the discussion. I will be happy to address it elsewhere, but not here. It's pointless for you and me to repeatedly express our disagreement with each other here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is the discussion, the discussion of malformation and misleading nature of the RfC belongs here, not elsewhere. The hindrance arises from the malformation and misleading nature of the RfC.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Permissible, though not preferable, as I believe it's good to mention in the lead paragraph, but it's a bit hammer-headed to have it in the primary phrasing. Also agree with Alanscottwalker that the RFC is founded on an outcome that will still be a clumsy outcome. Who cares if it's "permissible"? - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnecessary, just for some "guidance" I checked Brittanica.com and they don't use the term anywhere in their lead. Also, I think the second sentence in our MLK article is poorly worded, its use of African-American a "stick in the eye." Must Wikipedia be so "literal" or heavy-handed? By that I mean, if it's really essential, why not work it in subtly/indirectly? For example (not for publication): "MLK led the civil rights movement in seeking equality for African Americans" or if we must, "for his fellow African-Americans." His photo, what most people know and all the rest gets the point across quite effectively. BTW, the idea came to me by looking up Brittanica's Dick Gregory article and then our Sidney Poitier article, which mentions "black" in passing, as opposed to first and foremost. Allreet (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Current RFC wording will not resolve any dispute Whether it is permissible does not appear to be at issue. The question is whether it ought to be in the first sentence. Martin Luther King is best known for being a. an American civil rights leader in the '50s and '60s or b. African-American. The answer is a: thus it's unnecessary and undesirable to put this in the first sentence. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but unnecessary, given the article subject photo and mention in the second sentence is sufficient. I agree the second sentence wording could be a bit better. Kierzek (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with those who say this RFC might be framed poorly. Of course anything is permissible if it's sourced to independent, reliable sources. The question is what's the best treatment for the subject matter. I personally see no issue with the current phrasing. He is indeed American, and African American. The fact that the latter was a major part of his activism means it should be mentioned early, but it wouldn't be absolutely necessary to shove it into the first sentence. I'm sure the RFC's current wording isn't really driving at the real issue, so I'm not sure how helpful this comment is, as an outsider to this dispute. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, and it is clearly relevant. Benjamin (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No, to the extent that the real question is whether MLK's ethnicity should be in the opening sentence - categorically no. Should his ethnicity be in the lead, obviously yes, since it is relevant, although very few readers will be unaware of MLK's ancestry and the infobox photo is a bit of a giveaway! There is a - probably unintended - disservice in saying that he was a black (or African) American, rather than an American (who was black). It draws attention to his ethnicity first, which is ironical given the beliefs he fought (and was killed) for were the exact opposite of this. A sufficient reason to deviate from standard "nationality first" practice hasn't been given IMO. The proposal saves a few words, but ditches clarity AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. He campaigned for the rights of African Americans and was an African American community leader.--Seggallion (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While it is "permissible" per se, I don't think it's necessary. The fact that he was black is of secondary importance to the fact that he was a minister and a civil rights activist. On any biographical article, it's not in good taste to mention the race of the subject in the lead sentence. Songwaters (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Permissable yes, but should we? No As I have explained in the preceding discussion. Though I would suggest having it somewhere in the lead paragraph tying into his civil rights activism.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Sea Cow, Sundayclose, and Seggallion. Per precedent on other articles and centrality to this article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]