Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackface/Archive1

Blackface
Self-nomination. I simply think it's a damned good article. Comprehensive. (Note that there's a separate article on minstrel show -- which, IMO, needs help.) I've also got another photo I'd like to include (as soon as I figure out how; I'm a techno-idiot newbie). deeceevoice 02:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. No references. Johnleemk | Talk 03:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I a very well written, very interesting article. However, the headings are POV (even if I agree with them), and there are no references. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: same reasons as previous users. Filiocht 08:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Serious question: What is POV about the subheads?  Is this about (seriously) your ignorance of the subject matter?  Is this a function of the "no references" thing?  For me (history buff, collector of black americana), it's a no-brainer.  Talk to me.  About "well-written" -- while I'm certainly not the only contributor -- thanks.  deeceevoice 10:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, well, firstly (and this isn't to do with POV) the headings aren't as clear as they should be. Headings should be boring and just explain what the section is going to deal with. They shouldn't be long-winded. "Illusion and art: the shaping of racist stereotypes" is passable: barely. It seems to be pushing a anti-racist agenda, which though I most definitely agree with, is not really acceptable on Wikipedia. We don't push that POV. We only describe it and detail it, and people's opinions of it. "Darky iconography: the enduring legacy of blackface minstrelsy" "The enduring legacy" is a POV. Just call it "Darky iconography and blackface minstrelsy". "Blackface minstrelsy and the "browning" of American and world pop culture" OK, seems good. Far too long for a title however. Incidently, you are correct that I am ignorant of the subject matter, but I can pick a POV phrase/title a mile off :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. It is well written, Deecee, but it is also very POV. Illusion and art &c. should probably just be titled History; the Darky iconography section goes off on a related tangent, which may be best trimmed or relocated; what remains coudl be titled Iconogrpahy or better Symbology (or something even better!); and Blackface minstrelsy and the "browning" &c. is probably best titled Modern influence. The titles should NOT shape the reader's interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 10:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks, for the useful advice -- and especially Dhartung for taking the time to explain. However, on one point I must take issue.  I don't think the iconography segment is a tangent; it is seminal to the subject and treats the significance/impacts of blackface.  If the article were more lengthy, I might see the need to truncate it, but as it stands, I don't see the information as tangential or excessive.  (Is there serious disagreement on this point?)  Will work on subheads.  Will that address the POV?  Again, I'm not being intentionally obtuse; to me, this stuff is "old hat." deeceevoice 11:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section is not going on a tangent. I would advise to keep it. I think people's opinions on tangents can be affected by headings... - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments, Ta bu shi da yu -- and for your concurrence with me regarding keeping the article intact. So, headings should be "boring"?  LOL  Actually, people, that's precisely what I was trying to avoid!  Truly, there is nothing incorrect or off-the-mark with any of the subheads in this piece.  As with any work, the subheads say what the subsequent information presents -- and are borne out by the information presented.  As long as the information is borne out by appropriate references, what's the problem?  (I'm working on that.  The information I've presented is straight out of my head -- stuff that's an accumulation of information acquired over time.  I'll work to find appropriate backup.)  Are the headings interesting/provocative?  Yes, by design.  The subject matter itself is provocative and potentially explosive.  Name me one thing dealing with race relations in the U.S. that isn't. :-p That the images and portrayals of black folks concocted and purveyed by blackface minstrelsy were racist is not a matter of contention anywhere that I'm aware.  It's simply an ugly fact of history.  The article, however, does put such things in context in the sense that it states from the outset that virtually everbody got trashed onstage in some stupid, stereotypical manner.  Such were the times.  It seems there is a tendency on Wikipedia to dance around such subjects -- as in the minstrel show piece, which I view as shamelessly bland and intellectually dishonest at its core.  (What ever happened to "BE BOLD!"? :-p)  It speaks in general terms about stereotypical portrayal, but doesn't even once mention "racism."  And that is appalling/a travesty, given minstrelsy's importance in helping to shape atavistic attitudes about "race" that plague this nation, still.  And, no, this isn't my stubborn attempt to keep every single word as is.  I will take a second look at the subheads -- particularly the "browning" thing since a lot of people may be unfamiliar with Richard Rodriguez -- and see what I can come up with.  I just want to make the point that Wikipedia can be factual, substantive and scholarly without being bland and ponderous.  Peace. deeceevoice 12:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a great article. The writing is compelling; the subject matter is fascinating and important; and the wealth of detail makes you want to keep on reading it. I'd like to see more inline references, so that if a reader or editor wanted quickly to check a few of your claims, they could do so easily. But that's not an objection. I feel this is exactly the kind of article that people will come to Wikipedia to read. It's lively, not POV. I hope you find some time to work a bit more on this to remove some of the objections. I've put articles up myself for Featured Article status, so I know what these objections can feel like. But don't be disheartened! Try to incorporate some of them and push ahead for this to become a Featured Article. Slim 10:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I likely won't have time to do anything more on this anytime soon. Stuff always tends to pile up just before the holidays, and this year's no exception.  I'll eventually provide references -- and may apply for featured article status later.  It's just not that important to me -- something I did on a whim.  Peace -- and happy holidays, all.  deeceevoice 02:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object until it has proper references and the extra-long headings are shortened . Otherwise, an excellent piece on a difficult topic. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I shortened the subheads. Hopefully, they meet with approval.  Will work on references probably after the holidays and then resubmit. deeceevoice 14:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Great article and the recent edits bring it into the encyclopedic - Trick 23:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support I shouldn't say too much because I started the article, but it has matured and expanded with much help from others, particularly deeceevoice and I'm proud to be a part of it. Ortolan88 18:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow. This has improved heaps since I last saw it. But no References? Are any of the external links references? Object for now.--ZayZayEM 10:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Lacks enough references. There is only one inline reference that I can see. Otherwise it looks very well done. It needs to have references that confirm the material in the article, ideally by multiple inline citations. - Taxman 05:46, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)