Template talk:African American topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary on the article's talk page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within African diaspora. Please rate the article.

Usage note; this template has an (optional) argument: [[Template:AfricanAmerican|left]] is the default version of the template; [[Template:AfricanAmerican|right]] will be on the right side of the page. Septentrionalis 16:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Well, I guess I've done about as much "branding" as I'm gonna do. It's time to feed it to the wolves. In case you don't know what I mean, I'm going to post it to the "African American" page, and it will no longer be an inconspicuous piece for myself to edit alone.

Next time I see this, it will be quite a different beast. Take care my child, become beautiful!

"Not that it need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short.

— Henry David Thoreau

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 3 August 2005


::sniff::     It's been a while since I've visited this page. It seems to have really taken off and, though it doesn't look nearly the same as when I created it, I'm very happy to see that many of my links and categories are still there. I take it as a compliment to my organizational skills.

What's more, the logo has stayed the same. I'm really proud of that, since it was completely made up.

Take care.

Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.®

— Garrison Keillor The Writer's Almanac

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 18 September 2006


[edit] Template for alternating rows

Use the following lines for new alternating rows, just copy them right off of this page, and paste into your editor, and fill in the Wikipedia links:

| style="font-size: 90%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:center;"

| [[]] &nbsp;&amp#183;&nbsp; [[]]

|-

| style="font-size: 90%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #ffffff; text-align:center;"

| [[]] &nbsp;&#183;&nbsp; [[]]

|-

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 6 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)


Note . . . this has been replaced, for the most part, by templates: {{altline light purple}} and {{altline white}}

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep it Narrow

Keep the scope of this template in mind when posting on pages, or adding links. Although I don't think I've done it very well myself, please limit the content to only American topics.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huge

Wow, this is huge! I think some of the naps need trimming back. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's just too big.--JW1805 20:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
and it _takes over_ a page. I think that it's important to use this carefully on core pages... Rick Boatright 05:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This shouldn't be posted on stubs or most smaller articles due to the size. Michael 06:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Should it apply to all people, or-how should it be distributed? Michael 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ebonics" --> AAVE

What do you think of changing that? "AAVE" is less potentially offensive than "Ebonics"; I know I flinched when I saw it. --FuriousFreddy 19:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Originally, AAVE was spelled out, and must have been changed to Ebonics ... I think you may've been right to change a controversal term to an acronym for the title of the article that the link points to. Thanks.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     16:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of Vandalism

The "edit this" link on the bottom may be a good idea for now, until the Template becomes a bit more concrete, but I have just found that it was removed from the Template:Jew page for frequent and repeated acts of vandalism. They even got a sysop to lock down the template for a while. *sigh* This page may end up being just as prone.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     23:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Icon Options

Personally, I found that the African Nationalist Flag, and American Flag side-by-side was kinda hokey. I did up a quicky overlay, which was then reverted. So, I have some ideas for a nicer one . . . but still wanted to create a stub for open forum discussion.

My "releases" to date:

Image:86px-Flag of the African-American.png Image:AfricaAmerica.gif Image:AmericaAfrica.png

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

Number three works best, I would say. --FuriousFreddy 17:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I would say it's the least controversial. Michael

The third image -- of course. deeceevoice 13:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEWS 25-Aug-05

[see Talk:African_American_literature ]

African American Literature will be on the Main Page on 25-Aug-05!

This template is sure to get quite a bit of vicarious exposure that day . . . be active!

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

Huh? Not so far.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     23:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I just reverted some extensive reformatting, and wanted to create a stub for open discussion on the talk page, to discuss formatting changes. --Jndrline 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Something people might not notice is the {{{1}}} that I added sometime last week. This is an alternative to the current Template:AfricanAmericanR and Template:AfricanAmericanL, which I was planning to have removed. Having multiple embedded templates makes it more difficult for Wikipedians to find the orginial, and probably strains the server (don't know). The plan was to go back and edit the references to use the template parameter, rather than embedded templates. So, {{AfricanAmericanR}} would now be typed {{AfricanAmerican|right}}. Currently, both are compatible, and using either would work. --Jndrline 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Embedded templates for alternating lines (such as {{altline light purple}}) are used in other templates, clean up code so that it's more readable, and seem to help the template load faster. --Jndrline 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" that you see are on rows that start with an exclamation point (!), and deliniate a header, so that they are quick to find. I'm unsure if this interferes with anything, but it hasn't appeared to on any computer I've used. If so, it could be commented out, and still provide an easy visual aid. --Jndrline 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just reverted the formatting change to the Sept. 3 version by Ed g2s b/c somewhere along the way, the formatting of the template messed up. As a result, it was left justified and made massive amount of white space on every page that uses the template. I believe that we need to keep the template right justified (as is the standard with these types of templates).--Alabamaboy 20:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Jndrline--Whatever you did also fixed the problem. What is the R version of the template for?--Alabamaboy 20:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Back when I didn't know about parameters in templates, I set up two templates Template:AfricanAmericanR and Template:AfricanAmericanL - which aligned the whole thing right or left. I got the idea from Template:TOCright. But, now that I know about parameters, there is a much simpler way to do this, that is certaintly less server-intensive, though I don't know it for sure. I replace align=right with align={{{1}}} - so that the first parameter fed to the template will align it that way without any other templates.
{{AfricanAmerican|right}} right of the page
{{AfricanAmerican|center}} center of the page
{{AfricanAmerican|left}} left of the page


— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

[edit] Gullah & Gullah language

I've changed Gullah (under languages) to point to Gullah Language. I expect this will be uncontroversial, but I thought I'd point it out incase the original Gullah link should be included somewhere too. --Cherry blossom tree 16:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latino template

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim 1m 03:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of African American subcultures

This item is basically meaningless. It should either be removed from the template and made a redirect, or else radically rewritten. Please see Talk:List of African American subcultures.--Pharos 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I've removed it from the template.--Pharos 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret that I never saw the original list before it was removed from the template, Pharos, but based on my researches and understanding of African-American history, I believe there are at least four major black subcultures that grew specifically from the descendents of African slaves brought to the United States, three of which intermixed racially and culturally with American Indians and whites, one of which simply stayed separate from the black mainstream on the mainland. These four groups start with 1) the Gullah peoples on the Sea Islands of the coasts of southern North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and northern Florida. 2) The Florida Seminole Indians. 3) The Creoles of Lousiana. 4) Lastly, the Melungeon -- a racial admixture of Indians, blacks and whites so widely scattered throughout the East and South United States. If this lising pleases you I would be happy to do more research add my contributions to others. Askia. 09:53, 08 July 2006.

Well, we have articles you would probably be interested in on the Gullah, the Black Seminoles (a featured article), the Louisiana Creole people and the Melungeon. I'm still not sure what the great value of a list of these groups would be.--Pharos 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A waste of time and effort

This template is a useless and worthless thing. Superslum 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is userful somewhere. Michael 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My wife is a black Jew. We have a son. While I know plenty about Judaism, I wasn't sure what extent of knowledge I have about about everything African American, and how much of that I will be able to reinforce for him as he grows up. Going to a liberal public school in California could only teach me so much. Living in DC taught me a lot more. Certaintly, nothing will never teach me what it is to be a black man in America.
When I created this template, I was hoping to make sure I caught and read every African American Wikipedia article out there. I would not say that this is a waste of time by any means. There are articles I never would have known about, had they not been added to this list. I want to thank everyone for helping me learn, and continuing to help me. I can only hope that this will draw people to read more than one article about African American culture, literature, music, history, and life.
That is is what this template is supposed to do. It is supposed to draw the casual reader to similar articles, based on what they are reading.


— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    
You're welcome Ccson 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is messing with the image now?

How can a writer, a living writers image be representive or NPOV be used to sum the AA experience. If you had to put someone add Malcolm X, King, Dubois, someone of epic impact on defining AA experience. But the best thing is to put no human to avoid the issue of "who", the solution is to put the colors of Africa on the map of America. I dont think that is black nationalist. And i wish admins wouldnt for no reason revert edits because esp blindly, some ip comes in and messes with a template which is more than 8 months old.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Limit the template to popular things

The template cannot fit everything, Ausset Sect etc is not popular by any def, so it cannot go on, small groups, etc. there needs to be a criterion for entry or else this list would be endless.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] REQUEST SEMI PROTECTION

R Semi protect. that will fix the problem.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Great Migration to Template

I was wondering what everyone thinks about adding Great Migration to the template? I tried doing it myself but I'm not very experienced with templates and I messed it up so I reverted it back to an earlier version. However, I think the Great Migration is an extremely important event and should be added to the list.

I wrote the above comment but forgot to sign Oneworld25 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Muslim vs Islam

I changed it back to the version by Sefringle because I feel the template should reflect how these religions relate specifically to African Americans. For example, Black church is used instead of Christianity. What I do think needs to happen is the Black Muslims article should be expanded to explain that all Black Muslims aren't affiliated with some radical separatist movement.CJ 10:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing so would be WP:OR. Black Muslim already has a specific meaning, and as the article says, "Some use the phrase to describe any person who is both Black and a Muslim, but Muslims are unlikely to do the same." As I wrote in my edit summary, 30% of American Muslims are African-Americans. Those are Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, not NOI Muslims (i.e., "Black Muslims"). It is appropriate to have a link to Islam. If you want a link to Black Muslims, add one. But linking Islam to Black Muslims is duplicitous at best and slanderous at worst. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Black Muslim does not mean NOI. It doesn't even refer to any grouping of Black nationalist Muslim groups. The article in it's current form reflects this. The first line is "Black Muslims may refer to a number of different religious and ethnic groups." How is it duplicitous to point to an article that explains what Black muslims are? They aren't just NOI. They aren't just militants and separatists. There are Black Sunnis and Shi'as and that Blacks make up 30% of the Muslim population in America. The Islam article isn't going to say that because it would be off topic for it to. It's just like the Black church article. There are both separate and distinct Black denominations, there are predominantly Black churches within predominantly White denominations and there is the community of Black Christians as a whole. It's the same type of terminology. CJ 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The duplicity is having a link that says "Islam" that sends the reader to an article that isn't about Islam; in fact, the article says that Muslims are unlikely to use the phrase to describe African-American Muslims. If you want a link to Black Muslims, make a link that says "Black Muslims". Unless there's an article about African-American Muslims — which Black Muslims hardly is — "Islam" should link to Islam. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok that's fine, but at this point I feel it should replace the Islam link to fit with the context of the template. Black Muslims is "trying" to be an article about African American Muslims and not NOI or any one specific muslim group or type of groups. It still needs a lot of work but at least it's covering the spectrum: Black people who are Muslims.CJ 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What makes the cut?

What criteria were/are used to decide what links are put in the template? For example, Sigma Pi Phi is included, but none of the other Black fraternities or sororities. The Black Panther Party but not the National Urban League?

I don't think the template should be loaded with every article about African-Americans, but the relative importance of organizations, religions, etc. should be considered. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to link Black fraternities and soroties to The Divine Nine article and maybe have some kind of consensus on the most signifigant Black organizations. CJ 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. In some sections of the template, I wonder whether editors inserted groups that should be important (such as Woodson's ASALH, which I had never heard of before, although I know who Woodson was) rather than those that are most important to a reader who wants to learn about African-American subjects. In the religion section, it seems as though editors wanted to be exhaustive and include every belief system that has Black adherents in the United States, no matter how few [although they somehow omitted the CME Church :-) ].
Maybe a little discussion would help us arrive at a consensus about which links are most important, and we could set up Categories or Lists (such as Category:African Americans' rights organizations) where the template can't include everything under the sun. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea Malik. Perhaps the section titles could link to a category or list and there could still be a list of the three or four most signifigant groups.

And ye who does not sign their posts using ~~~~, The CME church is discussed in the Black church article that is linked in the template. CJ 19:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that now. I was just teasing about it not being there, since it seemed like every other religion was there.
And I do sign my posts, but when I read other people's messages I sometimes find it interesting to see their Talk page and contributions, so I added that to my sig. :-) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
my bad I thought that was someone else. CJ 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College football classics

I think the article List of black college football classics doesn't need to be added to the template. The divisions, which include all college sports, are already included. Adding that list to the template provides undue weight. CJ 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only does it add undue weight, it's one more step toward turning this template into a list of every article about African-Americans. (See the Religions section for an example of that phenomenon taken to an extreme.) The purpose of this template should be to bring to the reader's attention the most important articles about African-Americans. I don't think we want it to turn into a behemoth like Template:Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I pulled AME and COGIC from the template. CJ 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with creating a template for African-American topics, we are so diverse you can't cover one area and call it significant. Not all colleges are a part of the different divisions, and black collge classics seem to be a part of most schools (even those non conference schools). I recommend the List of black college football classics be readded under sports.
Absolon S. Kent 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the major sports schools are in division I and are in either MEAC or SWACC. CJ 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If that is your rational then CIAA and SIAC should be removed from the template (both contain division II schools). Meanwhile, you leave out schools that have been denied membership or choose to join other conferences. I think the football classics list is more representative and inclusive.
Absolon S. Kent 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black supremacy

Is this really part of African American politics/history, and does it really belong on this template? It's presence is kind of minor compared to some of the other ideologies. I suggest its removial from this template. Yahel Guhan 04:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is.--Mostargue 04:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, prehaps you can explain how. Yahel Guhan 04:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kirbytime. The burden of proof is on you, Mr. Guhan. Your behavior needs to cease or I will report you.--Mostargue 05:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

speak for yourself, stalker. You never edited anything related to this. Obviously you're just following my contribs page, just reverting every one of my edits. Yahel Guhan 05:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is not particularly a highlight, it does have historical significance and is a constructive link on the template.--Old Hoss 05:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What historical significance does it have? It isn't like Black power, or black nationalism which actually is of historical significance. Black supremacy is just the extreme, and is only fringe group of anti-white, anti-Jewish groups who have no major significance in the african american community, past or present. So how are they of hisorical signigicance? Yahel Guhan 05:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It serves as further background regarding black political, religious and social movements to dignify its placement on the template. I think it is very important in the context of the times, especially since the movement was also used in a positive manner "because of its message about black self-respect, black self-sufficiency and black economic improvement". Anyone else?--Old Hoss 06:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets not confuse black power or black nationalism with black supremacy. Black supremacy refers exclusively to the racist form, which says blacks are dominant to whites/other races. I don't think this really is that significant in african american history, culture, etc. Yahel Guhan 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Yahel Guhan; I don't think it should be here. Black supremacy is an ideology that has sometimes been associated with some of the political movements and religions in the template (Black nationalism, Black Power, Nation of Islam, maybe Garveyism and the Black Panthers). But it's not a "political movement". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's far too marginal, and not even a real political movement. futurebird 12:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Project afrp

[edit] Template reformat?

User:Absolon/African American topicsI know the issue of "which topics to include" will continue, but I wanted to take a moment to addresss the template size on the individual pages.

Even at its current size this template is often taking up much of the page space on the individual articles. I took the liberty of making the template collapsible (no change in content or topics).

Please take a look and provide feedback on the draft template discussion page located at User:Absolon/African American topics. Thanks. Absolon S. Kent 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the template we have currently works just fine. I see no reason to collapse it, nor do I see why it is necessary. It isn't like it is that big anyway. Yahel Guhan 06:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Being that this is more of a "macro" template, i.e., it covers the big picture of AA topics, it might be appropriate to scrap the infobox style and switch solely to the {{Aafooter}} navbox. That would free up space at the top of the article and allow for a consistent appearance to the encyclopedia as the current census seems to favor. Infoboxes nowadays seem to be used more for "micro" topics, or (most commonly) info specific to that article, for example the infobox on Ulysses S. Grant or the Green Bay Packers. The {{Aafooter}} navbox has been there for awhile but is used only on one article. Is there any intention to utilize that template? Regards.--Old Hoss 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we can have both. as an example of an article that uses both, see Antisemitism (which uses {{Antisemitism}} and {{Antisemitism topics}} quite effectively). The {{Aafooter}} template should be placed in most of the articles, and has the potential to be used when the main template is too big. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I just want to say thanks to whoever made this thing smaller, it's been buggin' me for like a year! futurebird 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel, it is "that big" it's longer than some of the articles! futurebird 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

like which one? I'd suggest rather than collapsing everything, thus making it a little harder to reach the links, why don't we just remove a few things. Prehaps black muslims and black jews (both of which should include non-african american blacks- thus making them irrelevant to this article) Yahel Guhan 06:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Those articles are international in focus, not American. Also, I don't know if Black Buddhists need to be in the template. While it's an African-American article, I don't know if it's significant enough to include. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 08:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
consider them removed. Anything else that is minor and should be removed? Yahel Guhan 08:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
futurebird, if you think the template is too long for a short article, you can use Template:Aafooter, which is a horizontal version of the same template. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 08:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try that. futurebird 13:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My only concern with removing the Black muslims article is that it creates the impression that the Nation of Islam is larger than it actually is. I think it would be better to leave Black Muslims and link it to the United States section of that article. CJ 11:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree too many people don't know the difference. futurebird 13:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the discussion has moved back to content in the template...but again I was asking for feedback if making the template a little more compact was a good idea. I'm aware that the footer template exists, but I think the sidebar is definately a better attention getter which is what we want if we want to direct others to these topics. Absolon S. Kent 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Originally I supported shrinking the template. But If the real problem of the template being too cumbersome can be solved without shrinking the template then that seems acceptable to me. CJ 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slavery

Do we really need Atlantic slave trade, Maafa, and Slavery in the United States on this template? Isn't this just a little bit repeatitive? Yahel Guhan 06:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one will suffice. CJ 11:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
agree, the first two are international. futurebird 13:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political movements

I'm thinking we should remove one of the political movements in order to make the template slightly smaller. Any opinions as to which one? Yahel Guhan 01:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What if we take the word "black" out of most of the titles? Like "black conservatism" could just be "conservatism" etc. Of course we can't change the Black panthers to just "panthers", though! futurebird 01:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
that is a good idea. Yahel Guhan 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Very good idea. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NBA/NFL?

NBA NFL

I know they have black folks, but why should they be on the template? Negro leagues, now that makes sense... but the whole NBA? NAH! futurebird 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

agree. Yahel Guhan 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Select an appropriate image?

I suggest that those who have the greatest ownership in this page select an appropriate representative image for the template. I noticed it was using a gorilla (seemed odd showing up in African American Military History so I traced it back here.) I suspect this was vandalism that went unnoticed, so I removed it. Once you select an image, you might have to lock it. Cheers! Red Harvest (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the administrators, I was not trying to vandalize the sidebox, I was merely getting rid of an offensive image that has nothing to do with the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.88.2 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minstrel and blackface

Classifying Minstrel show and Blackface as part of African American culture is obviously unacceptable. They are part of white American culture maybe, but racist depictions of blacks is not and was never part of African-American culture. Its tantamount to putting Goebbels's propaganda into a template on Jewish culture. They could be replaced by the article on African American musical theater. Am86 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Yahel Guhan 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Have you even read the article thoroughly from beginning to end? I wrote much of it. Minstrelsy was grounded in African American culture -- though, of course, it was distorted. African Americans also performed in blackface. One of the most famous black theater performers of all time was a blackface performer. And blackface was a springboard for a lot of black actors and musicians who made it into other theatrical and musical art forms. Additionally, the article discusses the precedent set by blackface in disseminating African-American culture throughout American and world popular culture and goes on to discuss further developments of that sort along that continuum. At least the article did the last time I checked -- although there have been some "other" folks who have been hacking at it to delete that information because they somehow find it objectionable to discuss the global impact of African American culture on world pop culture and how much of what passes today as pop culture is deeply rooted in the African American experience. This is the same sort of mind-set I had to fight when beginning cultural appropriation and while fighting to get an article started and properly focused on the cool aesthetic and to put a halt to the total whitewashing/Jewifying of the article on jazz, which was demoted from a featured article because it had been gutted. And it still isn't up to the standard of quality it once was.

So, what? Should we delete articles on slavery, too, because our long night of bondage and servitude was "obviously unacceptable"?

What I would suggest is that some of you who are concerned about A-A topics visit Blackface, read the last version I signed on to and start protecting it against the kind of assaults it's been undergoing by those who would gut and/or whitewash the subject so that the article accurately depicts what blackface was and how it set a precedent for the introduction of A-A culture to the rest of the world that has been repeated in an unbroken continuum of cultural collaboration -- and often aggressive cultural appropriation -- ever since. deeceevoice (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will confess. I have not read the article completely through. You do make a good point as well. It does seem to be very important to the topic. It might be best to add it to "history" though, rahter than "culture." Overall, a "historical depictions" by white people section would be the best place to put it, though it would be at this point a rather small section, and it would be preferable to have more examples. At the same time, I am trying to keep the template from getting too big, so that is a problem that could raise issue to how and whether to include it. I really don't like the option of collapsing the template as a solution. Yahel Guhan 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I still wonder if you've read the article (the version I refer to). What you're suggesting (history) is more appropriate to the article on Minstrel show. Blackface examines blackfaces specifically as a cultural phenomenon and the impact it has had on how black people have been portrayed through the decades (darky iconography) and -- again -- its impact on world popular culture by setting a precedent for the dissemination and appropriation of black humor, music, dance, style, performance art into mainstream American culture and, from there, throughout world popular culture. The article is all about culture.

The problem with a full-on template is that it forces people to make arbitrary decisions about the relative importance of an article to another, which inevitably is skewed/flawed. A collapsible template allows a reader the option of clicking it and seeing a more representative/balanced overview of the articles treating A-A history, culture, etc. deeceevoice (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have to say I take strong exception to User: Am86's comment comparing Blackface to Nazi propaganda. People need to read an article before they comment on it in ignorance. Blackface is one of the few featured articles on African-Americans on this website. And it is (or was before people started hacking at it -- I haven't visited it lately) an excellent one. The only people paying any attention to it, defending it against vandals and those who would gut it have been me and a (white) admin. You guys apparently haven't even bothered to read it, but are busy trash-talking it/miscategorizing it. I pretty much wrote the damned thing, and I'm tired of fooling with people who simply want to gut it. And now I come here and I read this. And not only that, futurebird and I seem to be the only ones dealing with broader wiki issues, like the ANI and RfC and Arb Com cases involving Dbachmann, whose antics have been truly unacceptable when it comes to articles dealing with black (and non-Western/non-white) subject matter. Everyone else has been completely silent/missing in action. (You, Yahel, are pretty much the lone exception.) I mean just Just day-um, people. deeceevoice (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I already told you. I haven't read the article completely. And fine, I'll add it to the template in the cultue section. Still, I would like to remove something of less importance, since I am adding this.
The problem with collapsed templates is it takes more effort to find the article one is searching for, because it is hidden, for one, and and requires more clicking. (since you have to find which section the article is hidden in, it is harder to look). And in my opinion, the collapsed templates don't look as good as the full templates. Yahel Guhan 02:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I do see it is up for FA review. I suggest you work on the sourcing, else it will likely be removed. I will refraim from commenting on the FA review. Yahel Guhan 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't visited the FA review in some time. The so-called sourcing issues were just bunk. IMO, there wasn't anything there that rose to the level of anything serious or substantive. deeceevoice (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced articles are not FA material. If you want the article to survive the reveiw, just source what is there, and it will likely survive as a FA. Lack of sources alone can cause it to fail. Reguardless of content, I never support FA candidates, unless completely sourced. Yahel Guhan 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Reread my post. I haven't asked you -- or anyone -- to take any action on the FA review. It's not in danger of failing anything -- at least it wasn't in the form I left it in. That's not my concern. As I said, I haven't been back to it in quite a while. The fact is editors interested in AA subject matter have completely neglected the article and have allowed, in particular, the same editor who actively tried to whitewash Jazz to attack Blackface without so much as a whimper. Hell, they haven't even read the damned thing -- and you've got one guy here likening it to Nazi anti-Jew propaganda. Jeezus. deeceevoice (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked back to your last version. It seems there were 2 annons, whom I will revert, and one person who added a source since your last version. I will add the {{fact}} tag next to every paragraph/sentence I think still needs sourcing. It doesn't seem like much has happened to the article since your version. If you fix this, I think there will be no more issues with it being a FA, and I will comment in favor of keeping it as a FA. Yahel Guhan 06:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd forgotten. (It's been a while.) The deletions happend before my last edit. But I simply went back and reinserted the info with an oft-repeated explanation on the talk page. I don't know if these people are being intentionally obtuse or if they just don't get it. I saw the first couple (or three) fact tags you placed on the article and promptly deleted them. You put them in the introduction, which is a general overview of the material covered in article. Those points are addressed at length in the article and are properly cited. I didn't read any further. I'll get back to it when I have the patience. deeceevoice (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's about accessing information. If a person isn't willing to simply click something for more information, then, IMO, that's on them. Full templates take up way too much space and provide far too little information. In their extreme selectivity, they do the category a disservice and oversimplify almost to the point of (IMO) Cliff Notes (I'm being polite. I was actually thinking "idiocy.") I'm out.deeceevoice (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also suspicious of the "people won't get this information because they won't click a link" argument. One of the points in Wikipedias favor is each article's interconnectedness - the fact that this website is popular is partially due to that ability to click and get more information. That said, what about a partially collapsed template, or a link to Portal: African American, which has a comprehensive list of topics? Natalie (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we already have a link to the portal. I don't see how a partially collapsed template would be necessary at this moment, as the template isn't too big right now. But if necessary, it could be done if it gets longer. Yahel Guhan 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's not a problem at this point, why are you two arguing about, among other things, the use of a full or collapsed template? Natalie (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I never once suggested deleting the articles minstrel show and blackface as you seem to believe. My complaint is that they do not belong in the sub-section on African-American culture. There is already a link to music which should cover minstrelsy. Why should it have its own link on the template while much more mainstream genres like jazz, rap, hip-hop, ect do not? Blackface would be covered by the section on art even though blackface was created by white artists not black ones. And if you look at the article the section is based on it has sub headings on art, literature, music, dance, ect but no sub headings on blackface or minstrelry. Some might like blackface, but I think the vast majority of blacks not only resent these pernicious depictions but find them revolting. These are good articles and I understand you want to showcase them but their links don't belong there. Blackface was a white franchise - developed and supported by whites - that a few blacks profited from these shows does not make it part of mainstream black culture. Am86 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The points you raise aren't germane to the matter. What does liking (or not) blackface have to do with anything? Again, have you even read the article yet? If you did, you don't seem to have absorbed one of its primary points -- that all of those other musical art forms you mention are mainstream precisely because, in part, of the precedent set by blackface. And, yes, blackface was a common medium for black artists, and the minsrel show tradition greatly informed/influenced black comedy and comedians. Frankly, I couldn't care less if blackface appears in the template or not. What I object to and wrote about was your off-the-wall comparison of the article to Nazi anti-Jew propaganda -- obviously, without having ever even read the piece. deeceevoice (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect

Would it make sense to request permanent semi-protection on this template to prevent IPs and new accounts from editing it, since most (all?) of those edits seem to be vandalism? --Old Hoss (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've nearly suggested the same several times. Red Harvest (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine to me - I'd concur with your assessment that basically all edits by anons are vandalism. There is also a serial vandal that regularly targets this template, using IP addresses or new accounts. And we can always lift the protection at any point that it seems wise. Natalie (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've semiprotected it.--Pharos (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It may make sense to also protect the footer and collapsed template as well. Yahel Guhan 05:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)