Template:Did you know nominations/Shadism


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Shadism

 * ... that shadism is a form of discrimination common in Aboriginal, African, Asian, Hispanic and Indian cultures?

5x expanded by Shaina390 (talk). Nominated by Jaobar (talk) at 14:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
 * ALT1: ... that Academy-Award winning actress Lupita Nyong'o felt the effects of shadism, as she was teased about her dark skin as a child? 64.231.163.79 at 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article: On 27 February 2014, when this article was nominated for DYK, it had been expanded more than five times from the previous version. It also appears to be adequately referenced. However, the difficulty I have is that the references neither appear to use the term shadism at all, nor state clearly that shadism is "common" in the cultures mentioned. For example, the article referred to in footnote 1 uses the term colorism. (The full versions of many of the references – such as those mentioned in footnotes 2 and 3 – are not available.) I therefore fear that the article is the product of synthesis.
 * Hook: Subject to what I said above, the hook is of appropriate length and is supported by offline references which may be accepted in good faith. — Regards, Truth's Out There  (speak the truth) 21:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thank you for your comments. I recognize that the only source I had that explicitly mentioned the term 'Shadism' was my Bim Adewunmi piece from The Guardian. I have added more sources that explicitly name and describe the term 'shadism.'  Shadism is different to colorism, as shadism is usually intraraical or internalized and deals with skin tone within race and not race itself, as opposed to colorism, which is usually interracial and deals with discrimination based on race, as opposed to different skin tones within a race. The term shadism is well known and often used in race-based communities, but is still being developed in academic writing. It is a term that certainly exists, and should be recognized apart from colourism or racism, because it is not the same thing. To my article, I added a piece from The Toronto Star in which black high school students discuss spreading awareness of shadism in their school during Black History Month, another in which Indian-Canadian playwright Anita Majumdar discusses her fear of the sun's impact on her skin and in turn her life and success, and a paragraph on the Canadian documentary 'Shadeism', which revolves around the topic and how it affects 5 young women of different ethnicities. I am quite passionate about this subject, and I very much want my page to demonstrate that there is a name for this discriminatory practice that people, particularly people of colour may notice, and that that name is shadism.--Shaina390 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's laudable that you have put a lot of work into creating this article, but my concern is that other more experienced editors will feel that there is too much original research and, in particular, is the result of synthesis. As that guideline states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. 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 a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." I will leave it to an experienced editor or the DYK administrator to determine whether this is the case. I would suggest that you have a section right at the top of the article defining what shadism is and citing the three sources you mentioned above.
 * I also notice that you have (or someone else has) deleted the original hook and replaced it with a new one. Unfortunately, this hook is currently not acceptable because (1) I don't think external links are accepted in hooks; (2) the information in the hook does not appear anywhere in the article; and (3) even if you included it in the article and provided the YouTube video as a reference, the YouTube video does not mention shadism at all. Furthermore, it appears to be a copyright violation, in that it was uploaded to YouTube by someone other than the copyright holder of the video. Note that "Did you know/Reviewing guide" states: "The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source." — Regards, Truth's Out There  (speak the truth) 15:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg An experienced editor should assess whether the article is the product of synthesis and thus amounts to original research. — Regards,  Truth's Out There  (speak the truth) 15:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I've read through the article and note the page creator's expansive knowledge of the subject of skin-tone discrimination and also the inclusion of lots of sourcing. I don't think this is a question of original research, but of whether Shadism and Colorism should be merged. Both articles use the same definition for the subject: discrimination due to skin tone. If Shaina390 can explain the difference between Shadism and Colorism, and provide reliable sources to back it up, it should be stated clearly in the lead, even with a few sentences or a whole paragraph. Otherwise, as Truth'soutthere noted, most of the sources being used for the Shadism article are referring to Colorism, and since the Colorism article isn't so well-referenced, it would be a good idea to merge the information in Shadism to Colorism. Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello; I would argue that colorism is like racism in that it deals with the color of a person's skin (black, white) but not their shade, or how light or how dark their skin is within their race and the stereotypes that comes with that. While this difference may sound insignificant, it is actually very prevalent and meaningful.  Because shadism very often comes from within one's own race (Indian with light skin, Indian with dark skin), it is a different form of discrimination that I would argue warrants it's own page.  The 'Discrimination based on skin color' page, in my opinion, is describing a broader form of discrimination, which is racism.  Shadism is very often intraracial, and internalized.  Please also see my response to your comment on the shadism talk page.--Shaina390 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you are giving us a much more fine-tuned definition of shadism, Shaina. But looking through your sources, I can't find that many that verify that point. In fact, the article seems padded with blog pages or chat columns in magazines that really aren't saying the point you're trying to make. Now I understand and accept Truth'soutthere's original point that the article is based on original research. You may very well want to argue that shadism (which, by the way, should probably be spelled Shadeism, as one of your sources has it) is different from colorism, but on Wikipedia, your sources have to state it explicitly and prove it, not you. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Also, as regards the ALT1 hook, I think it may be a problem that the source for the hook only mentions that Nyong'o was teased about her dark skin as a child. The fact that she thus felt the effects of shadism is not mentioned in the hook, but is a conclusion drawn by the article's author(s). — Regards, Truth's Out There  (speak the truth) 12:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article now has both "original research" and "merge" templates on it, which basically stops this nomination in its tracks. The former, if not dealt with, is enough to sink the nomination, and needs to be resolved soon. The latter will delay the nomination until the merge is either rejected or completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No action for a six days, tags unaddressed. archived. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)