Talk:Black Birders Week

Capitalization on Black
I'm not 100% sure, but I think Wikipedia's style guide expects Black to be lowercase, i.e. "black", unless it is part of a proper noun.

So, for example when used as an adjective, "black scientists" and "black birders" would seem to be preferred, but Black Birders Week is still fine.

For examples of current usage, there are articles like Race and ethnicity in the NBA and African Americans in the United States Congress, where "black" appears predominantly in lowercase. Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be a convention on using upper or lowercase based on Wikipedia style guidelines. See Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal) and the manual of style on identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity). The most conventionally used and culturally appropriate terminology should be used. Using the uppercase Black denotes the history and significance of racial identity for Black Americans, and would be appropriate for this article since it is a movement centered on highlighting Black scientists and birders (with all the historical context of exclusion and marginalization for Black scientists and birders in those spaces). I believe it should be capitalized.  Marcinus PhD (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Separate page on Christian Cooper's Central Park incident
There's now a separate page titled Central Park birdwatching incident for the May 25th confrontation between Amy Cooper and Christian Cooper.

Press mention of Wikipedia article
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html

Point of View template removed
This page had POV and Peacock templates attached in August 2021, but no discussion about them on this talk page. Following the recommendations in WP:WTRMT about when to remove neutrality templates, I have removed the templates. If other editors have a concern about neutrality, please raise it here. Newystats (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

wording of murders of African Americans
In the section of the article "and the murders of African Americans" I believe that the wording "Killings" would be more suitable, at least legally. While under US courts, both Ahmed Aubrey and George Floyd's murders have been treated as such, the police killing of Breonna Taylor was not considered a murder and the Wikipedia article is titled Killing of Breonna Taylor. Labelling Breonna's death as a homicide would be (at least legally) incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:F80:1A00:D450:B800:78B4:7EE1 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Advertisement and Close Connection templates
These templates were added to the article - I don't see any problems with the article as it is. Editors who do see such problems, could you please identify the sections of the article of concern here on the talk page. Newystats (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. The sections of concern are, for example, the media coverage which is extensive, citing just a lot of media sources without any in-depth information, raising concerns for a possibly promo-like article. The section of 2021 series is almost empty and 2022 series include some information like "The National Museum of Natural History hosted a panel with Chelsea Connor, Lynette Strickland and Amelia-Juliette Demery with opening remarks by Dara M. Wilson" which seems promotional citing names of scientists without significant information value. Actually, in most sections of the article there are promotional-like issues, like citing numerous people, scientists, hashtags or events, without saying how these are rich and valuable in information context. Close connection issue may be an issue since the article has been created and mostly edited by users with a significant interest on such specific topics (biology, chemistry, nature sciences, etc.) and may raise a Conflict of interest problem. Chiserc (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I see your reasoning for the advert, but an interest in the topic does not make a close connection or conflict of interest. I've looked through the top 5 contributors to the article, and none of them have a close connection.  Most wikipedia editors are interested in the topics they edit. Newystats (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The only problematic section I see is the media coverage section. Wikipedia uses media coverage as citations rather than write about it for its own sake. I'd recommend cutting that section, copying the references to the talk page, and removing the advert tag.
 * created and mostly edited by users with a significant interest on such specific topics (biology, chemistry, nature sciences, etc.) and may raise a Conflict of interest problem No, having an interest in science doesn't give you a COI when it comes to science. It makes you one of the best people to write about science. We want people to write about the areas of their expertise and we want people to follow their interests. If someone were directly connected to BBW then there would be a COI (and even still it's possible that they could edit the article neutrally -- they'd just need to disclose that COI).
 * "The National Museum of Natural History hosted a panel with Chelsea Connor, Lynette Strickland and Amelia-Juliette Demery with opening remarks by Dara M. Wilson" - one of the most famous museums in the world holds an event explicitly related to the subject of the article, and there's a problem with presenting the most basic information about it? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)