Talk:Phill Lewis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.


Contents

[edit] Possible racial profiling issue

Why is it that all American actors when they are of black ancestry are usually referred as "African American"?

Why is that when actors are Jewish, Italian, French or any other ascendance (always of Caucasian race) are labeled only as just "American"? I have yet to see to actor/actress labeled as a “Jewish American” (or “European American” for that matter).

Is that a subtle way to say that U.S.A. is composed of "Americans" (anyone of Caucasian race, of course) and some "African American" (same as "beware: is American BUT a black american")?

Maybe Phill Lewis is British-American?

he emirgated from England to the U.S. in the early/mid '90s.

Nonsense, he's the son of C&P Telephone executive, and former U.S. Ambassador Delano Lewis. He's African American, and grew up in and around Washington, D.C. David in DC 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken from 9/1/91 Washington Post (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1082864.html): "This won't be just another new television season around the Lewis household. It figures to be so festive, in fact, that Gayle Lewis and husband Delano will be sending out 300 greeting cards to mark the occasion.

"It's exciting, isn't it?" said Delano Lewis, president and chief executive officer of C&P Telephone of Washington. "It's terribly exciting, isn't it?"

you'd be thrilled too if your son, the youngest one, the actor, had landed the lead role in a TV series. So the Lewises are sending cards from their Potomac home to invite their friends and relatives to tune in to CBS on Sept. 18 ..." David in DC 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NBA Player...for who?

This article states that Lewis played in the NBA.

If so, we need more info, such as stats and who he played for.

(Could we add a picture of him during his playing days?)

WAVY 10 13:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He didn't. I've deleted it. David in DC 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DWI/Manslaughter Charge

Who'd have guessed? (Apparently, Disney doesn't do background checks on cast). WAVY 10 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Manslaughter Info

Someone deleted all of the information related to Phill Lewis' conviction for manslaughter. It was true, sourced and notable. Please discuss proposed changes here and acheive consensus before attemprting so drastic a change. David in DC 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It happened again. I reverted again David in DC 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened again. I reverted it again. David in DC 00:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

71.231.224.47: Thank you for improving the sourcing of this article. Nice work. David in DC 13:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C&P Telephone

Chesapeake and Pacific? Not a very helpful edit, when looking it up on wikipedia would establish the fact. Please do the most basic of research before reverting a new editor's correct edit. This is the kind of thing that turns off newbies. Please check out WP:EM. It's not a policy, just an essay, but it's sheer gold as advice. David in DC 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Understand that there is significant vandalism on this article. Lots of vandalism is IP editors corrupting facts. Making a change without changing the cite that follows is a pretty strong tell. A note in the edit summary, like you did, can head off a lot of misunderstandings. A revert with a request for a cite is usually not out of line. --NrDg 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Particularly to an editor with a history of vandalism, like this one was. --NrDg 18:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the history of this article or of this talk page, you'll see I'm no stranger to the vandalism on this article. I'm the editor who put in the material that's most often vandalized. And one, like you, who has reverted the vandalism.
Nonetheless, the assumption of good faith is key here. It's MUCH more important to check if the edit is correct than the editor's history. That stands the assumption of good faith on its head.
It's easily done here. If you're from somewhere outside the U.S., you might not know that Chesapeake and Potomac is infinitely more likely than Chesapeake and Pacific, but at least you could check out the Delano Lewis article for confirmation. It's a working wikilink, for heaven's sake, right in this Phill Lewis article. Instead, you assume bad faith based on a "profile" Heavily vandalized page + anonymous editor = revert first and ask questions later. Nah, don't even bother to ask questions. Demand that the anonymous editor prove his edit.
But then, when I look and also find out there's actually a C&P Wiki-article, and rather than check it out, you start from the assumption that an uncited edit by a random editor is wrong and should be reverted, demanding that the editor prove his point, well, it leaves a very bad taste.
Even if this IP address has a history of vandalism elsewhere, that's something you couldn't know unless you started out checking out the editor instead of his fact. Please read WP:EM and maybe even my cri de coeur on its accompanying discussion page. David in DC 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I read WP:EM and your comments, I generally agree. I understand your point and generally check out facts before I revert particularly with editors with no history. I do check the editor's history first though and generally don't bother checking edits that are dubious to begin with and made by an untrusted editor. For known vandals the good faith presumption is sorely tested. In this case I just reverted and asked for a cite. I did not add a vandal warning to the editor as I did not know for certain and might have been a good faith error. I believed that the since the fact was cited, was there a long time and therefore presumed true that any changes to the fact cited would likely be corruption. Whenever I see a cited fact changed I want to see a change in the cite to support the change. --NrDg 20:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In the words of my idol, and the man I credit with teaching me to read, Stan Lee: 'nuff said David in DC 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guess Which Idiot?

I just looked back to June 3, 2007, prompted by NrDg's point about the Chesapeake and Pacific error being of such long standing as to suggest it was correct. For all his talk of geographic improbability, guess which idiot introduced the erroneous "fact" in the first place. Yup, you guessed it ------> David in DC 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)