Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Blackface

This article was nominated back in December (see Archive1), and failed. The two basic reasons were (1) a lack of references, and (2) complaints about section headers. Both of these problems have been fixed. It's a well-written article on an important and lesser-known part of American culture. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, a clarification: the section headers were changed satisfactorily during the old FAC process. deeceevoice 11:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• mild object Support The lead section is too short for an article of this length. While it is difficult to present material on this subject in an NPOV manner, the prominence of the terms "darky" in a section header and "nigger" in the Related Topics section stands out and overshadows the rest of the prose. As I read the article, I found it hard to ignore these terms. slambo 18:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote most of the article in its current form -- and, in particular the lead paragraph which contains the language about which you express concerns. I am an African American and chose the words purposefully, as they go to the heart of what blackface is. (The original version read, "Blackface is a type of character performance in which performers paint their faces black (with burnt cork or greasepaint makeup) in a manner that presents a crude caricature of African features," which I viewed as completely unsatisfactory and did not address the essential, core racism of the genre, both in its style and substance.) I was not aware that the article would be resubmitted for featured article status and did not review it thoroughly beforehand, but noticing some activity with the article (during which time I, curiously, was inexplicably blocked from editing only it), I did notice that someone (when, I do not know) had included Nigger in the "Related topics" section. Once I was able to edit the article again, I removed the reference because I thought it gratuitous and inappropriate, before I even read your remarks. Generally, I share your concerns about the use of blatantly racist terms; however, one cannot frankly and honestly write about a subject such as blackface and not use them. (Contrast the treatment of the subject in this article and the treatment of it in Minstrel show, where "racism" was not mentioned even once before I interjected it after commenting on the piece oin the article's talk page and waiting and waiting to see what happened with the piece. The excuse given for the glaring omissions in the article was that the writers wished to avoid controversy. I think it is best to address such matters head on. To date, Blackface actually has generated little controversy of the type the contributors to Minstrel show feared -- nothing beyond the usual editing issues. While I often have critical things to say about this web site, I think Wikipedia editors and our readers are to be credited for the manner in which this article has been both created (by many editors) and received. The piece thus far also has not been the target of the usual racist vandalism that is so commonplace/pervasive with articles treating African Americans and blacks, geneerally, on the web site -- though that likely will change should "Blackface" be granted FAS). The Minstrel show, IMO, it remains weak and antiseptic and completely fails to address the pervasive influence of the form on race, race relations and the perception of blacks -- which is a travesty. The article, IMO, is little more than worthless and reads like something out of the 1940s. It's a dismal failure. Sorry, but that's my opinion.) Blackface, on the other hand, I think, is exemplary -- because of a spirit of openminded collaboration and, I think, a desire on the part of all involved to examine the topic honestly and directly. I may be mistaken, but such does not happen often on Wikipedia in potentially sensitive matters of "race" and ethnicity -- at least not in my experience. Once I realized the article had been resubmitted, I made other changes, as well (as have other contributors), to which I hope there will be no objection. I think the article in its present form is certainly featured article caliber. deeceevoice 10:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the lead section should be expanded. I'm not sure what to do about the "darky" and "nigger" complaints though. It isn't really possibly to fully cover the topic without those words. I'm sorry that overshadows the prose for you, but I'm not sure what to do about it. 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is tough on a subject like this to be uncontroversial. The terms should be included as they are a part of the culture of the time, they're just a little jarring to me. I'll re-read it later tonight and see what I think again. slambo 11:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update - I have expanded the intro. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The introductory section has been extended and then that has been revised extensively to be more general/inclusive. I think it's good to go. deeceevoice 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just re-read the article, and upgraded my vote to Support. Well done! The only thing that I can think of that may be left to mention is that many collectors are now specializing in the black icons from the first half of the 20th century. Whether it's to preserve history or out of a fascination for the subject is up for debate, but interesting nonetheless. BTW, as I grew up in Los Angeles, we often ate at the local Sambo's restaurant (themed on the story of Little Black Sambo). I remember the iconography and when they tried to clean it up (and before you ask, that's not the source of my online handle; that came from putting my first initial (S) and last name (Lamb) on my gym clothes in 6th grade (it looked like "SLamb"), and since Rambo was popular then, it was only natural to add the o). slambo 03:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

support The suggestion in the article that Zwarte Piet is very controversial has been corrected, but I find the "references" for Zwarte Piet unscholarly and flimsy: just an article on a website. I could easily go to the library and find better references (in Dutch language) for Zwarte Piet, please give me more time. Also I think that the lead section could be longer. I continue to object because the references and external links formats could be better. Also the lead section should include Zwarte Piet. Also some information on Zwarte Piet must be corrected: he is not really a Christmas figure. He appears on 5 or 6 December. The article falsely suggests or even says that Zwarte Piet is very controversial in the Netherlands. May be Zwarte Piet should be very controversial but it is only a bit controversial. Also, I find the statement that Zwarte Piet sometimes is associated with satan doubtful. Andries 18:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The article never made a pronouncment about the degree to which Zwarte Piet was controversial; it merely stated the issues on both sides. Andries raised this objection before, and others seemed to take my view. We assumed the matter was settled. However, Andries made a few addition which seem reasonable and which contribute to the article, and I think everyone is now pleased with the article in this respect. Further, the suggestion that ZP should appear in the lead is (no offense intended) ridiculous. deeceevoice 11:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article also includes 7 external links about Zwarte Piet that I think, on the whole, back up the suggestion that it is controversial in the Netherlands and sometimes associated with Satan. I'm not sure that should be removed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have already discussed this on the talk page and I continue to disagree. I will look at the association with satan later. Andries 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Zwarte Piet's association with Knecht Ruprecht is accurate. As a matter of fact, at one time, Zwarte Piet redirected to KR -- before I removed the redirect and started a stub. deeceevoice 11:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The standing objection of Andries that Zwarte Piet should be included in the lead is a shaky one. There is absolutely no reason to mention ZP in the lead paragraphs of the piece. ZP is relevant to the article only insofar as he is an example of blackface darky iconography. In this manner, he is no more worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraph(s) than the Cape Coons, or Shirley Q. Liquor. deeceevoice 13:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that ZP should not be in the lead paragraph. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • You object, saying that the external links and references sections could be formatted better. I looked over them carefully, but I don't see how they could be improved. Could you be more specific? I take that back; I found ways to improve those sections, and I have done so. I hope this satisfies all you objections about this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, you're tough one. Amazon lists exactly 2 books on Zwarte Piet, and one is long out of print with very little information. I added the other as a reference. I have also expanded the lead section again. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course, Dutch libraries have better info on Zwarte Piet, but as I said I need time to find and read them. I object to your addition as references of a book that you have not read and used for the article. The right section for that would be biblography, not references. Andries 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's been fixed now too. Of course the article can be improved, but have we finally satisfied all your objections? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The image Image:Bert Williams blackface 2.jpg is listed as a promotional photo with known source, but the source is not listed. Further, the {{promophoto}} license is not a completely free license.
  2. The image Image:Al Jolson Jazz Singer.JPG is claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair use images should be avoided if at all possible.

  --Carnildo 18:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm, good point. I'll see if I can find some acceptable PD images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update - I have added three public domain images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, make that two. The pics were moved to, IMO, more appropriate places in the article, and the number of sheet music images reduced to one (the caption was a bit off on one and less colorful, so I chose to delete that one). The only other image I had planned to add was something, probably, of my collection of artifacts -- to illustrate the breath of use of darky iconography in everyday objects. But I don't know when I'll get around to it. I had considered a photo gallery of sorts to illustrate the continuum of development of darky iconography from its beginnings to the present day, but, given the article size already, I don't know how feasible/desirable that would be.) As it stands now, I think the new images are valuable additions. As for the other images under discussion, I can't say. I do know the ones I added are free and clear. If the blackface Jolson cannot be cleared, I'm certain we can find another photo of a white in blackface that will do.deeceevoice 10:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Photo update - Photo of Jolsen replaced w/repro of old minstrel poster (expired copyright). This will do for now. deeceevoice 11:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • With the information I added on blacks in blackface (which also speaks to blackface's origins, or certainly its early days), I felt much of it didn't belong in "The shaping of racist archetypes." Moving that information to "Origins" wouldn't work, so I combined the two under one subhead, "History and the shaping of racist archetypes." ("Origins" was too short, anyway -- especially if one disregarded the photo.) I hope that meets with no opposition. deeceevoice 11:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. It's a good article. But I should say I've been heavily involved in the writing of the piece. I guess, with this vote, I should disclose my inherent bias. :p I'm waiting to hear from another editor about something, but no article on Wikipedia is ever finished. As it stands, I think it's intelligent and thorough and imminently worthy of featured articcle status.deeceevoice 22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support excellent article. Morwen - Talk 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. One of the best articles I have read on the subject. I missed most of the earlier debates (see above) about the article but reading the current version I don't see why this shouldn't be a featured article.--Alabamaboy 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)