Talk:African American studies: Difference between revisions
Africologist (talk | contribs) |
Bot removing the article class assessment |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
{{Talk page of redirect}}{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
||
{{WikiProject African diaspora |
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=Top}}<!-- Formerly assessed as <!-- Formerly assessed as Start-class -->-class --> |
||
{{WikiProject United States |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High}}<!-- Formerly assessed as <!-- Formerly assessed as Start-class -->-class --> |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Archive box}} |
{{Archive box}} |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
== Merger proposal == |
== Merger proposal == |
||
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was to [[WP:MERGE|merge]] the two articles, [[African American studies]] and [[Africana studies]], into a single article, under the [[WP:COMMONNAME|common name]], [[Black studies]]. [[User:Daniel Power of God|Daniel Power of God]] ([[User talk:Daniel Power of God|talk]]) 22:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)}} |
|||
The following is the rationale for the proposed [[WP:MERGE|merger]] of [[African American studies]] and [[Africana studies]]: [[User:Daniel Power of God|Daniel Power of God]] ([[User talk:Daniel Power of God|talk]]) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
The following is the rationale for the proposed [[WP:MERGE|merger]] of [[African American studies]] and [[Africana studies]]: [[User:Daniel Power of God|Daniel Power of God]] ([[User talk:Daniel Power of God|talk]]) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
Line 106: | Line 107: | ||
::And just to be clear: this merge proposal does not include [[African studies]] which is a distinct field. African American studies, like African Canadian studies, etc., is a subset of Africana studies AKA Black studies (at least in theory; at any given US institution, for example, there may not actually be any difference), and thus this merge discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) |
::And just to be clear: this merge proposal does not include [[African studies]] which is a distinct field. African American studies, like African Canadian studies, etc., is a subset of Africana studies AKA Black studies (at least in theory; at any given US institution, for example, there may not actually be any difference), and thus this merge discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
::: [[User:Daniel Power of God|Daniel Power of God]] I agree with the two of you. And Black Studies is for the moment the only name that doesn't have a serious political underlining and is generally understood as the broader field. [[User:Africologist|Africologist]] ([[User talk:Africologist|talk]]) 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC) |
::: [[User:Daniel Power of God|Daniel Power of God]] I agree with the two of you. And Black Studies is for the moment the only name that doesn't have a serious political underlining and is generally understood as the broader field. [[User:Africologist|Africologist]] ([[User talk:Africologist|talk]]) 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{Discussion bottom}} |
Latest revision as of 00:07, 27 January 2024
This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Black studies Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Black studies |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Sub-field?
[edit]A lack of understanding of the field. The titles of these departments: Black Studies, Africana Studies, African-American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology, reference departments that are all in the same field. There are no subfields. Some departments of "African American studies" do Caribbean and continental African studies. Some Africana Studies departments do mainly African American studies. It depends on the alignment of the particular department based on the current faculty who run it. Name changes to be more uniformed don't always occur or are sometimes challenged by the college they are housed under. We should merge the two articles "African American Studies" and "Africana Studies" with this in mind. Africologist (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 28 June 2021
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED
No opposition here, and the discussion at the MOS supports this style (though there are objections to codifying this level of detail on the policy page). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
African-American studies → African American studies – WP:COMMONNAME is without hyphen. This is quite apparent on other websites and ngram, as well as major university programs (e.g. Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Boston University, South Carolina University, etc.) and an academic journal in the field (e.g. Journal of African American Studies). There is also a related MOS discussion. Caorongjin (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support I don't have particularly strong thoughts here, but it seems reasonable for the same usage on the page African Americans to be reflected here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I agree it makes little difference, but go with the more common usage and consistency with other articles. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]I note
18:19, 24 July 2013 Schierbecker talk contribs block 38 bytes +38 Marcus Qwertyus moved page African American studies to African-American studies over redirect: compund adjective
and also that there is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphenating racial identities (as noted above) which is ongoing. Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Post hoc comments
[edit]As an MOS regular, I think this move was correct. "African-American studies" implies "studies undertaken by African Americans", i.e. "African-American scholarship". What we have here is actually a phrase meaning "studies about African Americans", with a two-word object of study. It is not normal to hyphenate those in names of fields of study or of degree programs, even when they come first and can look adjectival in structure. Cf. "an information and data sciences degree", not "an information-and-data-sciences degree"; "the computational mathematics program[me]", not "the computational-mathematics program[me]"; etc. It's typical to hyphenate compound modifiers in formal writing, but there are always exceptions and we mostly intuit them automatically. E.g., how often do you see "the civil-rights movement", "a Parkinson's-disease diagnosis", "the law-enforcement field", and so on? When the leading multi-word phrase is parsed as a unit already by virtually all readers, a hyphen in it becomes unnecessary and even an impediment, though it is not strictly an error. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Merger proposal
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge the two articles, African American studies and Africana studies, into a single article, under the common name, Black studies. Daniel Power of God (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The following is the rationale for the proposed merger of African American studies and Africana studies: Daniel Power of God (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Extended rationale
|
---|
In Okafor (2014), pp. 218-219, the following is stated:
This excerpt seems to correspond with the points made by Africologist at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field?, including where the following statement made was: "The titles of these departments: Black Studies, Africana Studies, African-American Studies, Pan-African Studies, and Africology, reference departments that are all in the same field." Okafor (2014) indicates that African American studies and Africana studies are a discipline (as opposed to disciplines/fields or sub-disciplines/sub-fields) that go by various names. Africologist also stated at Talk:African American studies#Sub-field?: "We should merge the two articles "African American Studies" and "Africana Studies" with this in mind." Should African American studies and Africana studies be merged into a single article? Additional sources to consider:
|
Early procedural discussion
[edit]- @Daniel Power of God: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 9,500 bytes, the statement above (from the
{{rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)- Thanks for letting me know, Redrose64. Daniel Power of God (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now that I (and others) can see what this is all about, I should point out that per WP:RFCNOT, this is not a WP:RFC matter but WP:MERGE for which special templates exist - these should be placed at the top of all articles involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- That may be my fault. My fear was that a merge request wouldn't get as wide an input as the RfC might, and so I recommended that the RfC might get more attention than the merge request. There may be some alternative ideas that could come out of the RfC as well. Anyway, we can switch to a merge request if you think people won't be okay with this procedure. jps (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now that I (and others) can see what this is all about, I should point out that per WP:RFCNOT, this is not a WP:RFC matter but WP:MERGE for which special templates exist - these should be placed at the top of all articles involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Redrose64. Daniel Power of God (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Actual merge discussion
[edit]- Merge: Yes, these are essentially two names (among many others) for the same topic, so we cannot have two articles about this, per WP:CFORK and possibly WP:POVFORK. I suspect that "African American studies" is presentsly the most WP:COMMONNAME, though am open to presentation of arguments to the contrary. An argument might be made that "Africana" is broader in scope than "African American", but this is could be illusory. In reality, the actual program, regardless what it is named at a particular US institution, will offer courses about Africa and the broader African disapora, not just African Americans literally. However, if non-US universities also offer [less US-focused] Africana majors, then that might be the better article topic and scope, inclusive of both AA-focused US degree programs and non-AA-focused non-US ones. But I think we should see some evidence of this, not just assume it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: SMcCandlish, the "extensive survey of existing Black Studies programs" highlighted in Mazama (2009), p. 65, indicated that the "three most common names are, at the present, African American [Studies] (73), Africana Studies (41), and Black Studies (34)." Ngram (2019) examples #1, #2, and #3 seem to show that Black Studies is the most common name, followed by African American Studies, and then Africana Studies. Dawkins (2021), p. 5, indicated that "some leading Black Studies scholars have begun to embrace “Africana” Studies as the formal identity of the field, even though the common reference to Black Stud-ies continues to be widely" accepted. More recently, the faculty opinion survey of Kopkin (2019), p. 362, concluded: "Our findings show that, among the available choices, “Africana Studies” is most often chosen by our participants as the ideal name, followed by “Black Studies,” “African Diaspora Studies,” “African American Studies” and “Pan-African Studies,” “Africology,” and “African Studies.”"
- African American Studies seems to be the most common name in Mazama (2009), the second most common name in Ngram (2019), and the fourth most ideal name in Kopkin (2019). Black Studies seems to be the most common name in Ngram (2019), the third most common name in Mazama (2009), the second most ideal name in Kopkin (2019), and a widely accepted name in Dawkins (2021). Africana Studies seems to be the second most common name in Mazama (2009), the third most common name in Ngram (2019), the most ideal name in Kopkin (2019), and an embraced name in Dawkins (2021).
- In comparison to Black Studies, African American Studies does not seem to be the most common name in sources more recent than Mazama (2009). While Black Studies seems to be the most common name, which is widely accepted, Africana Studies seems to be an embraced common name that is regarded as the most ideal name. Daniel Power of God (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the overview. I think this gives us some (conflicting) indications of what the common US names might be, but it doesn't resolve our "what should the scope actually be?" question. It's important to keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME is simply an instruction to first take the most common name in RS as the name to initially test against the actual WP:CRITERIA, most important among which are recognizability and precision. What we have here is a precision question: is this article going to be limited to US programs? If it's not, then "Africana studies" seems to be the most appropriate choice; but if it is, then "African-American studies" might be. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, Okafor (2014), pp. 218-219, indicates that what drives the "domestic", "diasporic", and "globalistic" visions of the discipline involves a "combination of factors" relating to faculty. Kopkin (2019), p. 362, indicates that, among surveyed faculty opinions, Africana studies is regarded as the most ideal name for the discipline. Africana studies, as the name of the prospective merged article, allows for the scope of the discipline, which apparently includes US and non-US programs, to be reflected within the scope of the article. In addition to the highlighted "domestic", "diasporic", and "globalistic" scope of the discipline, there apparently are sources highlighting details related to, and showing the presence of, Africana/Black Studies programs outside of the US:
- United Kingdom – PhD Program in Black Studies at the University of Nottingham; Undergraduate Black Studies course at Birmingham City University
- Canada – Black Canadian Studies Certificate at York University; Black and African Diaspora Studies Minor at Dalhousie University; Africana Studies Minor at Brock University; Prospective Black Studies Minor at Queen's University; Prospective Black Studies Minor at Concordia University; also, a Black Canadian Studies Association
- Daniel Power of God (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Some additional sources apparently highlighting details related to, and showing the presence of, Africana/Black Studies outside of the US:
- Brazil –
- Nascimento (2021), p. 9:
- SMcCandlish, Okafor (2014), pp. 218-219, indicates that what drives the "domestic", "diasporic", and "globalistic" visions of the discipline involves a "combination of factors" relating to faculty. Kopkin (2019), p. 362, indicates that, among surveyed faculty opinions, Africana studies is regarded as the most ideal name for the discipline. Africana studies, as the name of the prospective merged article, allows for the scope of the discipline, which apparently includes US and non-US programs, to be reflected within the scope of the article. In addition to the highlighted "domestic", "diasporic", and "globalistic" scope of the discipline, there apparently are sources highlighting details related to, and showing the presence of, Africana/Black Studies programs outside of the US:
- Thanks for the overview. I think this gives us some (conflicting) indications of what the common US names might be, but it doesn't resolve our "what should the scope actually be?" question. It's important to keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME is simply an instruction to first take the most common name in RS as the name to initially test against the actual WP:CRITERIA, most important among which are recognizability and precision. What we have here is a precision question: is this article going to be limited to US programs? If it's not, then "Africana studies" seems to be the most appropriate choice; but if it is, then "African-American studies" might be. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Abdias Nascimento returned home in 1981 with a mission to develop Africana Studies in Brazil and contribute to the field with the intellectual and artistic baggage he had accumulated over a life of activism and critical thought. He created IPEAFRO at the Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP), with the support of the Ford Foundation Brazil Office, then directed by Dr. J. Michael Turner. But the institutional framework at PUC-SP could not sustain the project. In Rio de Janeiro, he presented the proposal to the State University, whose progressive administration did not take the bait. From 1985 to 1995, IPEAFRO offered its extra-curricular course for teachers as an independent initiative in partnership with the university, whose only contribution was classroom space. Professor Eduardo Duarte of the Federal University of Minas Gerais has noted that while other important artists, intellectuals and activists have been considered men of their times, Abdias Nascimento was a man ahead of his time.
- Saunders, Ipólito, Rodrigues, and Souza (2020), p. 3: “Abdias do Nascimento, one of the key figures in the founding of contemporary Brazilian Black Studies, defined Kilombismo as a competing vision of social organization that emerged from the political and economic engagement of Africans in the Americas.”
- Caribbean –
- Teelucksingh (2017), p. 31: “The evolution of Black Studies in the former British West Indies is unique as it has undergone significant cross-fertilization from Britain and the USA…The contributions to the field of Black Studies in the English-speaking Caribbean include academics from the three university campuses in Trinidad, Jamaica, and Barbados. Most have degrees from abroad and include James Millette, Fitzroy Baptiste, Elsa Goveia, Bernard Marshall, Allister Hinds, Alvin Thompson, Richard Goodridge, and Rupert Lewis.”
- SMcCandlish, based on the sources that have been provided, do you think the presence of Africana/Black Studies outside of the US has been sufficiently shown to justify the name of the prospective merged article being Africana studies rather than African American studies? Daniel Power of God (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is enlightening, but indicates that the COMMONNAME is Black studies, which dominates in that non-US data and is already a top contender in the US, too. The lead should begin with something like
Black studies or Africana studies (with nationally specific subfields such as African American studies and Black Canadian studies) is an interdisciplinary ....
Disused names like "Afro-American studies" don't need to be in the lead, just mentioned in the appropriate section. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)- SMcCandlish, your suggestion for the lead seems like a good start, but, in Nascimento (2021), p. 9, and Teelucksingh (2017), p. 31, Africana/Black Studies outside of the US (e.g., Brazil, the Caribbean) apparently were also characterized as "the field" (as opposed to "sub-field(s)"). In any case, details regarding the lead can be discussed and resolved post-merge-discussion, and a section covering the different names for the field/discipline can be as well. Specifically, as it relates to the name of the prospective merged article, and in consideration of the sources provided, do you think the name of the prospective merged article should be Black studies? Daniel Power of God (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. And I think a merge should proceed soon if we don't get objections with very good reasons to maintain what appears to be a WP:CFORK and possibly a WP:POVFORK. PS: What I meant by "sub-field" is that "African Americans"/"Afro-Americans" and "African Canadians" are necessarily narrower scopes that "Africans" or "the African diaspora" more generally, but I recognize the point you're making. In my suggested lead rewrite, something like
... (with nationally specific terms such as ... also in use) is ...
would work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 02:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)- I agree as well. I think the two existing articles, African American studies and Africana studies, should soon be merged into a single article and that the name of this prospective merged article should be Black studies. Daniel Power of God (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Africologist also suggested this merge back in March, and might care about this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. And I think a merge should proceed soon if we don't get objections with very good reasons to maintain what appears to be a WP:CFORK and possibly a WP:POVFORK. PS: What I meant by "sub-field" is that "African Americans"/"Afro-Americans" and "African Canadians" are necessarily narrower scopes that "Africans" or "the African diaspora" more generally, but I recognize the point you're making. In my suggested lead rewrite, something like
- SMcCandlish, your suggestion for the lead seems like a good start, but, in Nascimento (2021), p. 9, and Teelucksingh (2017), p. 31, Africana/Black Studies outside of the US (e.g., Brazil, the Caribbean) apparently were also characterized as "the field" (as opposed to "sub-field(s)"). In any case, details regarding the lead can be discussed and resolved post-merge-discussion, and a section covering the different names for the field/discipline can be as well. Specifically, as it relates to the name of the prospective merged article, and in consideration of the sources provided, do you think the name of the prospective merged article should be Black studies? Daniel Power of God (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is enlightening, but indicates that the COMMONNAME is Black studies, which dominates in that non-US data and is already a top contender in the US, too. The lead should begin with something like
- I do believe that there is a distinction between African American studies, which focuses specifically on the African American experience, Africana studies, which focuses on the African diaspora globally (despite being an American term), and African studies, which focuses on the continent of Africa. But I'd need to look into the fields a lot more to understand whether they're distinct enough for it to make sense for them to exist as stand-alone articles rather than just as discussion within a single article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sdkb Black Studies, Africana Studies, African Diaspora Studies, African American Studies, Africology, and Pan-African Studies are all within the same field. But you are right that African Studies is an entirely different field (though interdisciplinary links exist). Africologist (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Africologist, what is your position/view as it relates to the details of what SMcCandlish and I have discussed? Daniel Power of God (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- And just to be clear: this merge proposal does not include African studies which is a distinct field. African American studies, like African Canadian studies, etc., is a subset of Africana studies AKA Black studies (at least in theory; at any given US institution, for example, there may not actually be any difference), and thus this merge discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Daniel Power of God I agree with the two of you. And Black Studies is for the moment the only name that doesn't have a serious political underlining and is generally understood as the broader field. Africologist (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)