This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). U.S. Congress List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) people(s). African diaspora List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subdivision of the article List of African-American United States Representatives into four generations is drawn directly from the Black Americans in Congress website. The website is maintained by the Office of Historian, United States House of Representatives. There is a 1001 page companion book that has identical material with the website serving as an ongoing supplement that is regularly updated. The book and website contain extensive citations.

I will be gradually rewriting the Wikipedia article African Americans in the United States Congress to focus solely upon the African-American elected officials and the electorate that elected them. Also, I will be adding other material that is not mentioned in either the book or website.

Hopefully, this update and future additions will illuminate more information and insights that did not exist in the previous list and do not exist in the article page.

--Mitchumch (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, your template incorrectly linked party affiliations to "Democrat Party" rather than "Democratic Party" - --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that the mother of 19th Century New Mexico Delegate Antonio Joseph was a mulatta former slave (but was "passing" while living in New Mexico). See the information in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antonio_Joseph_(politician). If the evidence is deemed to be sufficient to make the assertion, should Antonio Joseph be added to the List of African-American United States Representatives? He wasn't considered an African American when he served in Congress, but if the goal is to list all African-American members of the U.S. House of Representatives, it would be odd to keep him off the list just because he kept his ancestry hidden.

(Of course, it is not my intention to put the cart before the horse, and a decision on whether to accept the evidence on the identity of Antonio Joseph's mother must come before any decision on his inclusion in this page.) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to post this proposed edit on the talk page first. I would like some time to research this. However, my initial thoughts are Wikipedia is not the proper venue for the question you are posing. There are several printed sources that examine African Americans in Congress during the time period Antonio Joseph (1846–1910) was alive and served in Congress (March 4, 1885-March 3, 1895).

• Clay, William L. Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1991. Amistad Press, 1992. ISBN 1-56743-000-7
• Freedman, Eric. African Americans in Congress: A Documentary History. CQ Press, 2007. ISBN 0-87289-385-5
• Gill, LaVerne McCain. African American Women in Congress: Forming and Transforming History. Rutgers University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-8135-2353-2
• Middleton, Stephen. Black Congressmen During Reconstruction: A Documentary Sourcebook. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002. ISBN 0-313-06512-8

Perhaps the most comprehensive and authoritative source is:

• Wasniewski, Matthew editor. Black Americans in Congress, 1870-2007. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2008. ISBN 978-0-16-080194-5.

Website, regularly updated - Black Americans in Congress

Free book - H. Doc. 108-224 - Black Americans in Congress 1870 - 2007.

Since the Congressional Research Service maintains "Black Americans in Congress, 1870-2007," it would be better to contact them regarding Antonio Joseph's non-inclusion among African-American congressmen or Hispanic Americans in Congress. Contact Jennifer Manning at JMANNING@crs.loc.gov for the Congressional Research Service. I've contacted her regarding discrepancies present in federal publications. She was always prompt in her responses to me.

I know this is not the response you were seeking. But given the number of written works on this topic, the non inclusion of Antonio Joseph in those works, I am currently leaning towards Wikipedia:No original research for the proposed edit. But, I still want to more thoroughly examine the sources you've listed to better understand your position. Thanks again. Mitchumch (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I agree with you that Wikipedia is no place for original research, and I certainly don't have the time or inclination to research 19th century birth and baptismal records to try to confirm Antonio Joseph's ancestry. What I was thinking of doing was citing research carried out by others who have researched and written about the subject (i.e., New Mexico historian Malcolm Elbright and genealogical researcher Ceferino Ahuero-Baca) to point out that Antonio Joseph was African American. The fact that earlier treatises on early African-American Congressmen did not discuss Antonio Joseph does not mean that he was not African American: It is likely that the authors did not know that Joseph, who was "passing" for white, was the son of an African-American slave woman, and, even if the authors knew about his parentage, they may have decided, on philosophical or editorial grounds, to exclude Joseph because they believe that only those whom contemporaries knew were African American faced the hurdles that made their service in Congress such an interesting subject.

I would posit that an encyclopedia, particularly one edited by the public at large, should seek to avoid such viewpoint-based judgments, and include in an article listing African-American congressmen all persons of substantial black or African-American ancestry that served in Congress, irrespective of such person's relationship with his or her blackness. (I think that only those with "substantial" black or African-American ancestry should be included, given that the "one-drop rule" not only is nonsensical but would lead to persons such as Barack Obama's mother to be deemed African American because her 11-great grandfather was early 17th-century slave John Punch, making her 1/2048th (0.05%) black; alas, Ann Dunham was categorized as "African American" in a Wikipedia article on Americans with one African parent and one African-American parent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_African-American.)

We don't need former Congressman Bill Clay to tell us whether a person whose mother was an African-American slave in the U.S. South should be considered an African American, although, as I said at the outset, it is possible that the consensus reached is that Antonio Joseph was African American but that he should be relegated to a footnote in the article on African-American members of the U.S. House of Representatives given that he "passed" as white during his entire adult life. While it certainly would make this debate academic if Matthew Wasniewski were to add Antonio Joseph to his compendium on "Black Americans in Congress" (and if you have corresponded with Wasniewski in the past I would be much obliged if you sent him what Elbright and Ahuero-Baca wrote for his consideration).

So thank you once again for your response, and I welcome additional comments from you or from other editors interested in this subject, both on this talk page and on the one regarding Antonio Joseph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antonio_Joseph_(politician) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Espaillat has won the Democratic Party nomination for New York's 13th Congressional District (the Harlem-based district that has been represented by Charles Rangel since 1971 and, before that, by Adam Clayton Powell since 1945), and almost certainly will be elected in November in that safely Democratic seat. Espaillat is a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from the Dominican Republic, and clearly is a descendant, in large part, of African slaves (as is the case for many, perhaps most, Dominicans). Had Espaillat been born, with the same parentage, in Haiti instead of the Dominican Republic (both of which are on the island of Hispaniola), there would be no question that he would be considered an African American (as well as a Haitian American), and we would be getting ready to add him to the List of African-American United States Representatives come January 3. However, because Espaillat is indubitably Hispanic, some people would claim that such fact disqualifies him from being considered an African American, despite the fact that "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race, and that Hispanics can be of any race (including black). But others would say "he's an American, and he's of (non-trivial) Sub-Saharan African descent, so of course he's an African American."

So, the question is, what should we do on January 3? Should we wait to see whether Espaillat joins the Congressional Black Caucus? Of course, several African-American Representatives never joined the Congressional Black Caucus (to wit, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott and Will Hurd), so membership in the Caucus is not dispositive as to whether someone should be considered an African-American United States Representative. My vote is for adding Espaillat on January 3, but I wanted to hear from others to see what they think.

-- AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican: The Office of the Historian for Congress will make that determination and they maintain an up-to-date list of African Americans in Congress. Another argument is all humans are of African ancestry. We should let reliable sources that research African Americans in Congress to be the sole determinant for such arguments. To do otherwise is original research. Mitchumch (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Lisa Blunt Rochester, Anthony Brown, Val Demings, etc. included on the list of African-American Representatives? The Office of the Historian for Congress has not yet deemed them to be black, given that they do not appear on the list to which you linked. I thought that you said that it was "original research" to point out that an American of sub-Saharan African descent that has been sworn in as a United States Representative is an African-American United States Representative.

I don't mean to be snippy, particularly to you, who has done yeoman's work on this article and whose opinion I respect, but Adriano Espaillat is black every day and twice on Sunday, descends from African slaves on both sides, and is a naturalized American citizen, so I think that it is demeaning to Hispanics and African-Americans alike to refuse to consider Congressman Espaillat an African-American unless and until the "Office of the Historian for Congress" catalogues him as an African-American. (For the record, the Office of the Historian for Congress is the same entity that risibly deems Azorean-Americans Tony Coelho, Jim Costa, Devin Nunes and David Valadao (but not Richard Pombo) and Chamorros Ben Blaz, Robert Underwood and Gregorio Sablan to be "Hispanic-Americans" while excluding Americans of Spanish or Latino descent such as Congressmen Albert Estopinal, Charles Rangel, Charles Bouligny and several others, and I see no reason why it should be the sole judge of whether a U.S. Representative is an African-American.) I do not believe that acknowledging the obvious constitutes "original research."

But in case there are any lingering doubts about Congressman Espaillat ancestry, let's read what he has to say about his racial identification: "I am a Latino of African descent. It doesn't matter if you're from Cuba or the Dominican Republic or South Carolina or Alabama, the roots are the same and I hope we can build upon that,” he said, adding his first political mentor was an African American Baptist preacher and civil rights leader." [1]

My humble suggestion is that the article titled "List of African-American United States Representatives" list U.S. Representatives that meet the generally accepted definition of "African-American," as described by you in the first paragraph of the article (and with which my only quibble is that the phrase "at least partial" is too broad, since it would include someone who is, say, 1/256th black), and not limit itself to persons that the Office of the Historian for Congress deems to be an African American. Congressman Espaillat isn't someone "passing as white" or whose African ancestry is neither known nor apparent, and it should not be controversial that he be listed as an African-American U.S. Representative in an article devoted to African-American U.S. Representatives.

AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican: I checked the linked I listed above. Use the filter on the left to select by U.S. state they represent. Every person sworn in yesterday are listed in the directory. I checked for Adriano Espaillat. He was not listed as an African-American Congress person that represents New York.

I understand your line of reasoning. But, your line of reasoning is not the determent for who is or is not included on this list. If it were, then this list would significantly overlap with List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress. Your line of reasoning is only WP:Original Research. By the way, Adriano Espaillat is listed in the up-to-date list of Hispanic Americans in Congress produced by the Office of the Historian for Congress. Mitchumch (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that acknowledging that a person of not-insignificant sub-Saharan-African ancestry who is an American by birth of naturalization is an "African-American" meant that I was engaging in "original research." I'll keep that in mind from now on. "Hey, there's LeBron James's son. Let me ask the Office of the Historian for Congress whether he's African-American, because using my eyes or my brain would make me an 'original researcher.'"

I also am astounded at how discrimination against people simply because they speak Spanish is deemed acceptable by the black political class in America. A person whose ancestry includes African slaves and free whites in Guyana (Shirley Chisholm), Trinidad (Mervyn Dymally), Bermuda (G.K. Butterfield), Jamaica (Yvette Clarke, Colin Powell) or Haiti (Mia Love) is included as "African-American," yet a person whose ancestry includes African slaves and free whites in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Panama, Venezuela or Colombia is excluded from such list, *simply because they speak Spanish*. (Such discrimination is evident in the article to which I linked above, in which black Harlem politicos say that Harlem no longer will have an African-American Representative (sic) because a black Dominican is not "one of them.") But given that the Office of the Historian for Congress accepts (nay, celebrates) such cultural prejudice, you should modify the definition of "African American" in the first paragraph of the article to add "unless they speak Spanish, in which case they're either not black or not American, because to say otherwise would tick off the Harlem Democratic establishment," or simply say that the article is a list of people deemed by the Office of the Historian for Congress to be African-American Representatives, subject solely to the whims and caprices of whomever makes decisions in such Office. If we went by the perfectly reasonable definition of "African American" at the top of the article, then the list provided below is incomplete, so if the list can't be updated then the definition has to be made less reasonable and more biased.

By the way, the greatest African-American historian of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Arturo Schomburg, was Puerto Rican (born well prior to Puerto Rico becoming part of the United States, but a longtime U.S. resident and a naturalized U.S. citizen). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Alfonso_Schomburg It's sad that had he been elected to Congress he would have been excluded from the list of African-American Representatives because of the ignorant claim that "he's a Latino and he can't be both." (Curiously, there is no similar hand-wringing regarding persons who identify both as African Americans and Asian Americans, such as Congressman Robert C. Scott, Senator Kamala Harris or former Congressman Hansen Clarke.) I guess that Molefi Kete Asante, professor in the Department of African American Studies at Temple University, founder of Temple University's PhD program in African-American Studies, founding editor of the Journal of Black Studies, and president of the Molefi Kete Asante Institute for Afrocentric Studies should be laughed out of academia for having named an Afro-Latino, Arturo Schomburg, to his list of the 100 Greatest African Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_African_Americans

In conclusion, it's a shame when Wikipedia, instead of serving as a tool for spreading knowledge, is used merely as an organ for regurgitating the biases of a government institution with a peculiar agenda and of a political class that is afraid of immigrants. We can do better.

@AuH2ORepublican: Please see Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Please find WP:Reliable Sources that explicitly states that person A is an African-American Congress person. Or a reliable source that compiles a list of individuals as African-American Congress persons. Those are the only acceptable sources that will be entertained. Mitchumch (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to find two WP:Reliable Sources, one that explicitly states that person A is an African American and a second that explicitly states that person A is a U.S. Representative? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican: Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

Simply put, no. Mitchumch (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally crazy to me. You're wielding guidelines around as if WP:SENSE doesn't also exist. Espaillat identifies as black. Period. I know you perceive that you WP:OWN this page but Espaillat belong on it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Therequiembellishere: Rachel Dolezal also identifies as black. I fully addressed this issue. Mitchumch (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a totally ridiculous comparison. You cannot seriously be saying Espaillat is faking like Rachel Dolezal? This is a wild leap you're making to keep the page adhering to your own personal opinions of who is black enough for inclusion. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican:

Mitchumch isn't saying that Adriano Espaillat is insufficiently black, nor that he isn't an American. He's saying that the "Office of the Historian for Congress" did not include him on his list of African-American members of Congress, so for anyone to acknowledge, based on reliable sources, that Espaillat is (i) of substantial sub-Saharan African descent (and a descendant of African slaves, mind you), (ii) a naturalized U.S. citizen (and thus an American) and (iii) a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and hence that Espaillat is an African-American United States Representative is for such person to engage in "original research." Only the "Office of the Historian for Congress" can determine whether someone is an African-American Representative, because ... well, that part isn't very clear to me.

It seems to me that the Office of the Historian for Congress basically will categorize as African American those persons who have been invited to the Congressional Black Caucus, which is an official congressional caucus and thus has congressional imprimatur, except for African Americans who served prior to the creation of the CBC, of course; and the CBC won't let Adriano Espaillat join because a majority of its members are upset that he dared challenge CBC founding member Charles Rangel in a primary and later defeated Rangel's (black Anglo) preferred successor. The members of the CBC know full well that Espaillat is black--he clearly has more African ancestry than did his House predecessors Charles Rangel and Adam Clayton Powell, and, ironically given the CBC's stance, is the first member of Congress from Harlem to have Afro-textured hair--but politics trumps racial solidarity, and urban CBC members don't want these Spanish-speaking interlopers horning in on their gig. Had Range's Puerto Rican father not abandoned his family when Charles was a young boy and thus Charles had been fluent in Spanish, and had the Congressional Black Caucus been in existence (and supported Adam Clayton Powell despite his corruption allegations) back in 1970, perhaps the CBC similarly would have excluded that "Latino interloper" Rangel who defeated Powell on the strength of Hispanic votes. Ah, the vicissitudes of history.

In addition, the fact that the Office of the Historian for Congress has shown profound ignorance in compiling its supposed list of Hispanic and Latino members of Congress (including Azorean-Americans and Chamorros, who are neither Hispanic nor Latino, yet excluding quite a few persons of substantial Spanish descent) should give one pause before designating that office as the end-all, be-all of African-Americanness. I do not believe that the Office of the Historian for Congress is a particularly reliable source for these matters, much less the *only* source that should be accepted. Why shouldn't the opinion of the African American Registry--which describes Espaillat as an Afro Latino American (much like Congressman Mervyn Dymally was Afro-Trinidadian)--count for something? http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/afro-latino-adriano-espaillat-born

That being said, Mitchumch won't budge regarding the inclusion of a person whom the "Office of the Historian for Congress" has not added to its list, and I'm not interested in starting an editing war, much less against someone with whom I disagree strongly on this particular instance but who otherwise is as serious and fair an editor as I've encountered on Wikipedia. So, if we're voting, I strongly support the inclusion of Adriano Espaillat in the article devoted to African-American United States Representatives, but I'm not going to add him to the article unless there is a consensus that he should be added. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Therequiembellishere:, @Mitchumch:

Dwight E. Evans needs to be added. He was elected as a Congressman from Pennsylvania's Second Congressional District in November 2016 and was sworn in that same month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasalleexplorer (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasalleexplorer: Please double check list. You appear to have overlooked his name. Mitchumch (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]