Template talk:African American ethnicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Nov 2006 2 Text changed to match image 3 Include AAVE under language? 4 Third Line of Photos 5 First African-American presidential nominee 6 Hispanic

[edit] Nov 2006

I've created this template to facilitate access to editing on the ethnicity templates. It can be a bit daunting to have to tease out of an article what to edit in a traditional {{Ethnic group}} template format. This method allows for folks to be able to concentrate on just the infobox itself. (→Netscott) 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text changed to match image

no Npov changes have been made. no wiki violation so pls let it b.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, your edit summary is "replacing with real American heros with legacy and contribution to the race, offensive condi and powell two coco's". That is a textbook example of a POV edit which, if I'm not mistaken, is a violation of a core Wikipedia policy. When your edit was questioned by me, you chose to simply revert back with no discussion and the edit summary "look before you jump". Exactly - discuss potentially controversial changes before making them. Natalie 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with Natalie here... I too understand Halaqah's edit (and on a personal level tend to support it) but templates have to abide by WP:NPOV just like any other article content. (→Netscott) 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is my personal explaination but the edit was ligit. I didnt change it for that reason alone. Like when i said revert clown, might violate the civility code but it doesnt make my change illegal. See the guy that added a monkey image. look b4 u jump, means see why i changed the text. Look at why the edit was made. the text matches the image.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have changed the text to match the image, which makes sense. I'm fine leaving it like that. But the point of an edit summary is to explain your edits, not to make some tangentially related comment. No one's personal opinions are relevant here - it's not Nataliepedia, or Halaqahpedia, or Netscottpedia. In the future, just leave an edit summary along the lines of "changed caption to match image" and all with be well. Natalie 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I see the point, someone's changed the image and the text below doesn't match the new image. I believe there was a previoius image showing those individuals... but per the image displaing now Halaqah's edit is correct. (→Netscott) 00:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Include AAVE under language?

Would it make sense to include African American Vernacular English in addition to American English under the "Languages" heading of the template? (As context, AAVE's listed under the "Languages" heading on Template:African American topics, alongside English, Gullah, and Creole.) - Anirvan 18:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Line of Photos

Many ethnicity templates are now including a third line of renowned members photos. It seems appropriate to do the same for the African Americans template. Without a doubt, Colin Powell should be included. Powell was the highest ranked African American in the history of American government as the first black US Secretary of State and he was also the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military official in America. It is also very sensible to include Condoleezza Rice since she is the first black woman to serve as Secretary of State and only the second black Secretary of State after Powell. One can't reasonably say that Rosa Parks, for instance, who, while important in the civil rights movement, is as consequential as either Powell or Rice (while the other civil rights leaders -Dr. King, Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois- are much more important). The third spot on the new line should probably include one of Thurgood Marshall, the first black member of the Supreme Court of the United States; Jesse Jackson, the first competitive candidate for a major party nomination for President of the United States; Ralph Bunche, the first black recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize; Guy Bluford, the first African American in space; Hattie McDaniel, Sidney Poitier, Count Basie, or Ella Fitzgerald, all firsts and leaders in entertainment; Toni Morrison, the only African American author to win the Nobel Prize for Literature; DeHart Hubbard, Alice Coachman, Jackie Robinson, Althea Gibson, or Tiger Woods, who each paved the way for African Americans in sports (I'd have to caution those who think Tiger Woods is best -- while he might be best, we should remember we are judging his impact from today's point of view and, as such, I think an historic candidate is probably best); Booker T. Washington, pioneer in education; or Madam C. J. Walker, the first black millionaire.

So we definitely have Colin Powell. Do we have Condoleezza Rice? I think to fail to include her would be not only short-sighted, but also a non-NPOV to the point of being stupid. But we'll see what folks think. Who should be the third? FEastman (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that we need a third line of photos. Take a look at White American (two lines) or Jew (one line). I think simpler is better.

But if consensus is for three lines... (a) the photos should be in black and white, like the others in the template and (b) I think contemporary figures should be avoided (short-sighted and NPOV, as you wrote). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on having a third line. but I do wonder how we would define contemporary. Also, could we try to have photos from a variety of types of achievements? Right now the people on the template are mostly political figures. Perhaps we should branch out a bit and include people from different fields. Science, education, fine arts, and athletics would be good places to start. Natalie (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a broader range of accomplishments might be more appropriate. I would consider people who are still in the public eye to be contemporary. Edward Brooke, who I was surprised to learn is still alive, is fine. Powell, who is retired, would probably be good. Rice or Obama or Tiger Woods, probably not. But that's just my opinion.

One other thing. From a strictly aesthetic point of view, pictures on the far right should face left; that is, they should face the text of the article and not the edge of the computer screen. (This is recommended in WP:MOS#Images, and it makes good sense.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

That makes sense. Thinking about it a little further, I think we should also try to represent a few more time periods, since at the moment we only have twentieth century figures, and perhaps find another woman. Since we're essentially trying to represent the totality of African Americans through 6-9 pictures, having the most variety we can would express, IMO, the great diversity among African Americans. I think your standard for contemporary seems fine.

So who are some other people we could diversify the template with? Some people I think we should consider are Arthur Ashe, Jesse Owens, or Muhammad Ali for an athlete; Richard Wright, Zora Neale Hurston, or Phyllis Wheatley for writers; and Benjamin Banneker for a scientist/inventor. My knowledge of notable educators and artists is pretty slim, so I'm not sure who some good choices for that would be. And I haven't actually checked to see if we have pictures of these people. Natalie (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we have good pictures of Owens, Ali, Wright, Hurston, and Wheatley, a not too great photo of Banneker, and no photo of Arthur Ashe. Natalie (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If a consensus develops that Banneker should be included, we'll get a better picture of him. [1] [2] [3] — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I might replace the picture on the article with one of those. Natalie (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First African-American presidential nominee

Could you explain your opposition, Malik? You immediately reverted without so much as a mention here or on my User Talk page. Shem^(talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary was sufficient discussion ("Please discuss changes on the Talk page"), and I'm sorry if it wasn't. As you can see from the preceding section, there isn't agreement about whose pictures should be included in the infobox. Some people want Condoleezza Rice and you want Barack Obama. I'd prefer (a) if we try to reach consensus before making spur-of-the-moment changes ("Sorry, have you not seen the news tonight?") and (b) if we keep partisan politics out of the template.

Obama is clearly a historical figure, but so was Edward Brooke, the senator whose picture you removed (do you even know who he is?). Obama is also running for public office, and his appearance in the infobox may seem to some readers to be an endorsement of his candidacy. I think staying away from people who are active in today's politics — which means Rice and Obama — is the best course. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Do you even know who he is?"

Is it your default reaction to drop veiled insults toward those whose changes you dislike? Shem^(talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry, have you not seen the news tonight?"

No, is it yours? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanic

What the hell do Hispanics have to do with this? I'm erasing it. Fclass (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)