Talk:Timeline of African-American firsts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stepin Fetchit

Stepin Fetchit was the first African American to receive a screen credit, and the first African American actor to become a millionaire. If anyone knows the year in which these events occurred, they should be added to the list. 131.142.52.246 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If these can be verified, absolutely. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

iVote

Mark your vote as to whether you believe professional wrestlers should appear on the article. If yes, please bold the text (below) and if you wish, include specifics as to your criteria for why professional wrestlers and how many potential "firsts" could ultimately appear on the article. If no, simply bold the text and add any supported reasoning if you desire. In both instances, be sure you sign. I will refrain from voting for a bit as to avoid influencing the vote. Voting shall remain open for 5 days, unless concerns are raised that 5 days is not long enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepppep (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Vote

Yes / No - signed (vote below this text)

• Strong no As fully explained in the above discussion, pro wrestling is scripted entertainment which assigns "accomplishments" to fictional characters played by actors. The firsts in pro wrestling are no different than firsts that occur within a TV show, movie or stage production. See Professional wrestling. If the list includes pro wrestling people, then it should include George Jefferson, the fictional TV character that was played by actor Sherman Hemsley on the TV show The Jeffersons, for First African-America Dry Cleaner of the Year in the U.S. And J. J. Evans, the TV character on Good Times portrayed by actor Jimmie Walker, for First AA National Young Artist Award winner. And Apollo Creed from the Rocky movies. And many more. They're all firsts within a fictional production. And even if a wrestler uses his/her real name (which most do not), it still wouldn't matter at all because all the "accomplishments" are still within a scripted, fictional production. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 01:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong no The only exception would be for cultural reasons - such as first AA to star in a prime time series. That is a fairly weak argument and would only apply to the first wrestler, if at all. Mcusa (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That makes total sense. Because listing the first AA to star in a prime-time series is a real-life accomplishment of an actor, not the accomplishment of a fictional character being portrayed by an actor. And I also agree with your point that a listing for First AA Professional Wrestler would be fine because, again, that's an accomplishment of an actor/performer in a specific entertainment genre (professional wrestling), not an "accomplishment" of a fictional character within a scripted production. By the way I did some quick research and noticed that Bobo Brazil, the character portrayed by Houston Harris, has been called "the Jackie Robinson of professional wrestling." I don't believe he was actually the first AA in the industry, but I think he was the first prominent AA. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First, we don't decide things on Wikipedia by voting. Second, if you're going to do a Request for Comment, please go to that bluelink and do it the proper way. This is meaningless otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, it's no surprise at all that you oppose Zep's excellent, appropriate and good faith efforts. First, you should educate yourself on WP:!VOTE. While using the term "vote" is definitely not preferred, it is also not prohibitied. Zep is conducting a poll, which is totally acceptable. And voting, as I'm sure Zep knows, is simply submitting a recommendation. Zep's purpose is to encourage feeback and to build consensus. And I'm also sure that Zep fully realizes that we don't count votes; we attempt to reach consensus. Second, Request for Comment does not apply here. This is a standard talk page discussion about improving the article, not an issue that requires outside dispute resolution. So, contrary to your baseless and unproductive statement that this is "meaningless," what is actually meaningless are your comments. You apparently need to be reminded again that you do not own this article. If you'd like to submit a Yes or No, or comment, on the issue at hand you are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, perhaps you want to explain your glaring avoidance of the issue of professional wrestling firsts being included on the list. In any case, we will continue with this process of trying to improve the article. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the section title to "!Vote" to clarify that this is not a vote-counting process, but rather a means to help determine consensus as part of the ongoing discussion. For clarification, see WP:!VOTE, WP:VOTE and !vote. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Those policies say "polling is not a substitute for discussion" and that "Straw polls regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious … a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." So I think you're making my point for me: This is meaningless. Call for an WP:RfC if you're serious and want to get input from a variety of Wikipedians. I, certainly, would very much welcome that and I believe most people who have edited this article through the years would also. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, what a surprise that you are again fighting the productive efforts of other editors who are trying to improve this article, something that you have proven you don't care about. And, yet again, you are completely speaking out of context and self-servingly with regard to polling. People can read the guidelines for themselves and see what your intentions are. Have you gone into the thousands of other articles that have polled to lecture them, too? And thanks for telling us that polling is not a substitute for discussion, as if we didn't know. Have you noticed all the discussion above? Why are you so afraid to address the issue of professional wrestlers being on this list? Stop acting like you're the final word on everything in this article and that all edits need to go through you for approval. You're not and they don't. If "this is meaningless," as you keep saying, then why do you keep coming here to post your useless comments? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll thank you to stop questioning my personal motivations and stick to the substance at hand. I've proposed you do an actual, constructive thing — a Request for Comment — instead of taking a straw poll, which is meaningless. I truly cannot imagine how anyone could denigrate someone who's proposing something actually constructive, instead of an empty exercise. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The "substance at hand" is whether professional wrestlers should be on the list, something that you have continued to completely ignore. It's very simple, you say yes or no. Have you done that? <silence> Have you given any feedback as to why professional wrestlers qualify for the list? <silence again> So, your motivations are abundantly clear. This is now the third time you've called Zep's poll "meaningless," which is childish and pathetic. Yet you keep coming back to post your pointless comments. Haha. What's your personal motivation with that? Do you think no one got your point the first two times? Interesting how you are the only editor fighting this process and contributing nothing productive to the discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Having this iVote is actually being far more than courteous. Fictional entertainment characters and their fictional accomplishments should be removed without any discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 01:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I know article's don't have content based upon popularity or majority rule. I was simply wanting to work towards consensus. The item that seems most talked about is whether professional wrestlers should be included or not. I don't see much in the way of support for them but I do see much written about support against. I was simply wanting to see if there was any other method others' viewpoints could be solicited. Notice that it doesn't state straw polls/votes are outlawed. If editors here can handle one, then it could be a very good tool. Strong reasons need to be posted for those who are "for" pro wrestlers being included. Zepppep (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If no one can present any strong reasons why professional wrestling characters should be listed, then they need to be removed. And here's a good example of how successful polling works. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For the vote I posted, please see "Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. I think someone reading posts from me will see that I was acting in good faith. From WP's Consensus page, it is stated: Consensus is not unchangeable, and matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before. On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal. The argument of "that's what has been done in the past" may not be applicable to keep this article the way it currently exists. Those involved in creating the article in the past and "building consensus" does not determine what the article looks like in the future. I believe it would be beneficial to this article to define a strict definition for inclusion; on a lesser note, it is important for those who wish professional wrestlers to remain in the article to state their reasons. Zepppep (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not removing stable content without a consensus to do so. Personally, I'm not wild about including pro wrestlers, but I'm flexible enough to see the point of those who included them. However, if they were to try to include "First AA pro wrestler to win a bout in Los Angeles" or "first AA pro wrestler to win an award for Best Smile," the same arguments would apply as against including first AA Olympic gold medal-winners in every single sport.

If stable content is removed without consensus and without an RfC, that will be a serious action that will result in admin intervention and all of us going into dispute resolution. You make your case for removal, and if there's consensus it's removed. We do not remove stable material unilaterally if there is any contention about its removal, as there is here.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And I see there's an RfC now. Put it in its own section: Adding it belatedly to where a "straw poll" discussion has begun is misleading at the least and dishonest at the most.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good citing, Zep. Regarding the wrestling inclusions, Tenebrae claims the issue was previously discussed and that he understood the "point" of those who advocated for their inclusion. But I see over <50> talk page discussions and not one of them is about the wrestling issue. And Tenebrae has yet to tell us what those advocation "point" was. So, we still have heard not even a single reason why people in wrestling should qualify for the list. Yet overwhelming evidence has been presented as to why they should not be included. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all Tenebrae, here you are again acting as if you think you are the almighty ruler of this article, when in fact you are not. Actually, all the wrestling people will be removed unless there are strong reasons presented as to why they should not be removed. And so far, not even one good reason has been presented. Not one. Why is that? And when you allude to "stable content," one must ask, who's definition of stable are you using? Imaginary accomplishments are the opposite of stable. And you claim you are "flexible enough to see the point of those who included them," yet completely fail to tell us what that "point" is. So what is it? <silence> And let's get something straight, since you apparently have little understanding of pro wrestling, or are purposely refusing to acknowledge what you know to be true. Wrestlers do not "win" bouts or championships or anything else. Entertainment producers write a script where an actor "wins" one of those things. It is not real. It's all an entertainment fantasy world. Do you seriously not get that? Or are you just being belligerent? George Jefferson did not really win AA Dry Cleaner of the Year on the TV show, The Jeffersons. Jefferson is a make-believe character who won a make-believe honor. Hulk Hogan did not really "win" any championship titles in the WWE. It was the actor Terry Bollea who was told by the writers and producers that his character, Hogan, would play the role of a champion. If wrestlers are on the list, then every AA first by a TV, movie, stage or other fictional character will qualify for the list. So, once again, we'll tell you that even having this discussion is being far more than courteous. All the wrestling people should never have been on the list in the first place. They should've been removed without discussion. All good faith editors know they're pretend accomplishments by pretend characters. And, most importantly, there has yet to be even one legitimate reason presented as to why they should qualify. You proved a long time ago that you are here simply to fight for your own ego's sake because you have presented zero evidence to support your position. So nothing you say means anything because it all fails to address the issue. The clock is ticking. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, please clarify: to whom are you speaking to when you state "you make your case for removal, and if there's consensus it's removed." I believe reasons have been stated at least a few times previous to your post. On a different note, I'd like to know your reasons for not being wild about having pro wrestlers included. Thanks. Zepppep (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This hasn't been run as a proper RfC, as I explained before. I think an admin, once apprised that the RfC box was added after-the-fact to a straw poll, would see through the deception. That's not the way to build consensus. If we're doing an RfC, we start the RfC in a new section. That's the way it's done ... honestly and clearly. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware, but I didn't add the iVote tag or any of the special boxed stuff. I have been involved in numerous "votes/straw polls" what have you on WikiProject talk pages. While I realize this is not the same, I thought going about some way of gathering opinions in hopes of understanding what the consensus was -- if there was one -- was the right way to go about it. Any admin, or folks like yourself, would see I'm not trying to deceive or pull the wool over anyone's eyes. If not, I'm ready to face the fire and would be very comfortable explaining my actions to any and all who may inquire. Additionally, as mentioned (below), I put an invitation for comment on roughly 6-8 WikiProject Talk pages. On another note, am I right in my understanding you're not wild about including pro wrestlers? Would you care to elaborate (that is, why are you not wild (as asked above)? Would you also provide me more insights into your mention of "stable content" (I think the IP user asked as well)? When is content defined as "stable" and why are you agreeing to keep something in the article if it's something you, and current users involved with this talk page, do not see in line with the gist of the article? On another note, I don't see clear consensus (note I'm not saying 100% agreement) re: either Barksdale or Douglas, yet I see two editors reverting changes to the article and referencing "see consensus on talk page." I guess I'm just trying to find that "consensus" on the talk page, because to me, I don't see it and the revert reason thus seems suspect. Zepppep (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Your games continue, Tenebarae. All you do is complain about the process, fight every recommendation, and completely ignore the issues. The RfC was only added because you begged for it, even though it's totally unnecessary since the issue is over adding pretend accomplishments. We can remove the RfC or not. It means nothing because no one, including yourself, has presented even a single reason for including wrestling people. If you wanted an RfC your way, why didn't you do it yourself? Haha. The funniest thing about this whole discussion is that there is not one editor supporting you in this wrestling issue. But then again, it's hard to support someone who has presented zero reasons for his position. So we now have three strong positions against inclusion and none for inclusion. And so we move on. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gotten sucked in, but most editors of this article, certainly the longtime editors, are ignoring this since it's such clearly going against Wikipedia comment and consensus-building policy that an admin would simply tell us to do it right. As Malik said, if you want to make contentious, non-consensus edits to a stable article, you can. They will likely be reverted and this will almost certainly end up in formal dispute resolution.

See Tenebrae, that's the point. Other editors have no reasons to support including wrestlers. Yet you come here and continue to babble on without stating any meaningful reasons, for or against. All you say is well, they've always been there so just leave them. Haha. Nice logic. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If people aren't coming here to "vote" on this straw dog of a straw poll, there's no consensus. I'm sure we can alert the editors who added the pro wrestling edits if you want to, shall we say, take it to the mat. I don't care for the pro wrestling inclusion myself, but I recognize the consensus of the editors who let them be. There's a larger issue involved than your or my personal preferences.

Well, at least we're getting somewhere. He finally admits after dozens of unproductive posts that "I don't care for the pro wrestling inclusion myself." Why the hell didn't you just say that from the beginning? And explain why you feel that way? Why all the games? Great proof of your disingenous and distuptive participation all along. And what "consensus of the editors" are you referring to? Show us the proof? Why do you want fake accomplishements on a serious list? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you make these non-consensus changes, please be prepared for admin intervention and formal dispute resolution. I have advocated for a proper RfC this entire time, and any admin looking at this will ask you why you didn't do one, and do it properly.

Do things the proper way, and I'll be glad to join the process. I might even argue against pro wrestling's inclusion; as I've said, I'm not wild about. But unless we're doing this the right and proper way, and that means alerting those who have edited this article in the past and deserve a say, I can see we're headed down a long and tiresome road. Hopefully, I'll see you at an RfC. If not, I'll see you dispute resolution. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You sound like you're getting very worried now. Because you know all the bogus wrestling listings will never stand. If you want to regain any credibility you may have had, admit that they shouldn't be on there. And explain why, for all to hear. But stop all the nonsense about "good points" and "consenus." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"You sound like you're getting very worried now"? Oh, for goodness sakes. I am keeping my composure in the face of your childish taunts, but I will say this: It sounds like I'm talking to a 16-year-old. If you are, in fact, an adult, please grow up and talk like one. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria (broad)

Currently, the article's inclusion test is the following: "first achievements by African Americans in various fields historically establish a foothold, providing a precedent for more widespread cultural change. The shorthand phrase for this is 'breaking the color barrier.'"

I have attempted to put together the following so it is better understood to the reader what this list in fact represents, and the degree of importance of accomplishments individuals have indeed made (some might argue, continue to make). I have also done this because looking at the list and talk page, confusion exists in regards to membership of this list. I stated recently the current inclusion criterion/criteria was not well defined, IMO, and offer the following:

African-Americans who have provided notable and historic firsts to American culture at-large and and played a crucial role in the struggle for freedom, racial advancement, and equality of their race are historically significant. The first known individual to have contributed such services plays a vital role in the accomplishments of their people as well as the resulting integration stemming from their efforts. These contributions advanced their people as a whole and more broadly, American society. By their accomplishments, the individual has furnished other African-Americans and Americans at-large with opportunities for professional development, intellectual stimulation, and educational advancement, as well as artistic, literary, and spiritual expression. Some accomplishments may even have brought national or regional changes to existing laws or led to significant legislative action, changes in policies or widespread discussion as the result of their accomplishments. Inclusion is not based upon any one individual's notoriety—either the person themselves or the accomplishments he or she may have made—but rather the accomplishment played an integral role in the advancement of black peoples in the United States. Zepppep (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You've taken time and effort to craft something positive. This particular draft may not ne the most workable since it's written in a non-neutral, WP:SOAPBOX way that does not represent encyclopedic WP:TONE, whereas the current lead is concise, well-cited and of neutral tone. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is not advocating, propagandizing, or recruiting. It is not an opinion piece, scandal mongering, self-promoting or advertising. It does not use colloquialisms, legalese, slang or jargon. It is not written from a first- or second-person perspective. Please cite your specific gripes in regards to how you feel the above violates the two policies which you referenced. On another note, what do you suggest? Also, I utilized existing encyclopedias for inspiration. I would've thought their peer-reviewed qualifications might be good enough for ol' WP. As of right now, the lead is ill-defined. The lead does not introduce the article well. The lead uses on example to attempt to make its point (that is, the use of Robinson's integration in MLB) almost to the point of making a declaration of the "most important first." In case you or any other reader is wondering, in addition to the above points, there continues to be confusion as to what can and cannot be included in the list. When readers look to add something, there should not be as high rate of reverting as is currently taking place. If the lead is strong and the description of what is included and why, I do believe there will be less instances of confusion from other readers. Zepppep (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision 2: African-Americans who have provided notable and historic firsts to American culture at-large and and played an important role in the struggle for freedom, racial advancement, and equality of their race are historically significant. The first known individual to have contributed such services is said to have "broken the color barrier." Professional development, intellectual stimulation, and educational advancement, as well as artistic, literary, and athletic firsts are a majority of the fields represented. Some accomplishments may even have brought national or regional changes to existing laws or led to significant legislative action, changes in policies or widespread discussion as the result of their accomplishments. Inclusion is not based upon any one individual's notoriety—either the person themselves or the accomplishments he or she may have made—but rather the accomplishment played an integral role in the advancement of black peoples in the United States. Lastly, your opinion is appreciated but it is just one opinion -- it does not determine the future of this article. I think we are both experienced enough to know that but I hope your above comments were not implying such. Zepppep (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note I am not for entirely replacing the current lead with the above. I am suggesting, as others here have also, the current lead is weak. I am not declaring it awful and calling for total replacement -- quite the contrary. Secondly, the current lead is indeed well sourced but I would say there is nothing contentious there and nothing that would need a source except for perhaps the number of years the Negro leagues had been in existence. Zepppep (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I do understand, though, conversely, I believe you're too close to your own writing to objectively judge the WP:SOAPBOXy tone. Note I'm not referring to the content — just the tone.

I'd like to see other editors work on it. I would offer to, but I think our IP friend would have pushback on that.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the IP user, I can speak for myself: I would welcome your ideas (that is, your version/revision). I look forward to reading it. Please don't let any possible pushback you may or may not get be reason from stopping you. Zepppep (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You did ask for specifics. Here's one: The sentence reading, "Inclusion is not based upon any one individual's notoriety—either the person themselves or the accomplishments he or she may have made—but rather the accomplishment played an integral role in the advancement of black peoples in the United States." I'm not criticizing for its own sake, but looking at it through the eyes of a professional journalist and editor who usually gets paid for this kind of critique. I beseech you not to take it personally. I find this sentence as a whole to be florid and overwritten — what is sometimes called "purpose prose" ‐ that redundantly restates the topic sentence's phrase "notable and historic firsts". The parenthetical phrase with "he or she may have made" is grammatically tortured.

And as I look at the topic sentence now, "the struggle for freedom, racial advancement, and equality of their race" echoes the melodramatic structure of "truth, justice and the American way." Also, "their race" implies otherness; that doesn't well serve an African-American reading this, so "the race" would be more neutral. Not sure what "at-large" adds; the sentence reads the same without it. I could go on, and I was trying to be gentle earlier, but in my professional opinion this is bad writing. I wouldn't turn that in to a college professor, and certainly not to a newspaper or magazine. I appreciate the fact we're not all professional writers. I'm surprised at the lack of objectivity about one's own work. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I take no offense. I had for a few days wanted to see if anyone could get something concrete, and after a few days of a lot of off-the-cuff back and forth (not between me so much but others), I felt the train was moving everywhere but on the track. Arguably the only valuable item I've seen posted to this talk page in recent days was the IP user's bullet point list. I replied to it but seems others thought it was too detailed to comment (I've always wondered why people are afraid of long passages if it's to-the-point, with little to no attempts at even dissecting one of the bullet points, but I digress). The proposal I offered was wordy -- agreed. It's grammar was imprecise and imperfect. "Their race" was referring to "AA" stated previously in the sentence, but I can see how it does not sound inclusive and find that a very good "catch" by you. No need to be gentle with the criticism boy-oh, or girl-oh, come at it with full gusto! With the first sentence you critiqued, I was essentially trying to say inclusion is not by means of a popularity contest; the list will contain names perhaps one has never come across but that does not mean what they did was any less historic than what someone in the pop culture realm may have achieved (it's one of the chief reasons I am not a big fan of utilizing one individual's accomplishment in the lead as the example, as I believe it puts undue weight on one listing (this comes from someone who has helped edit the Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Baseball color line, Effa Manley, Branch Rickey, etc. articles)). If you see me as a "serious and sincere individual" it is because I like to think I am one. I would also like to add that shortly after I posted the first version, I went to about 6-8 different WikiProject pages in hopes of gaining a few opinions. Nearly 12 hours has passed and I'm not sure if there are any new eyes, but hope is not lost. Please put your writing strengths to good use. I think we're both more in line with one another than you might think. (Also, please note I have responded to your other thread (above)) and am hoping for a response on that item, as well). Zepppep (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we are, too. I'm afraid I'm expending a great deal of time and energy on an anon IP who doesn't appear to want to follow consensus-building protocol, so I might remain off the page for a few hours or a day, unless said IP starts throwing uncivil comments, declarations and accusations again. I'm sure you can see how frustrating it is when people don't want to follow the established steps that admins are just going to tell him to take anyway. Ah, well. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Zep. Your comment went in before I wrote my critique. I hope you've taken it in the spirit in which it's meant, and I genuinely believe you would; you seem a serious and sincere individual.

I could take a crack at it, though honestly, I think I would just add a sentence or two at most to what we already have. I'd like to get other, hopefully long-time, editors' thoughts on this before I take it upon myself to expand the lead. There's no WP:DEADLINE, and I'm a great believer in consensus. --18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, your input continues to be meaningless because all you do is simply oppose everything that's presented, refuse to address any of the questions and concerns presented, and offer zero alternatives. Not to mention your laughable defense of having wrestling people on the list without presenting even a single reason why. So unless you want to contribute to the effort to improve and legitimize this article and, in particular, settle this wrestling issue, then go away. Zep, that's a great draft and we can certainly make any necessary tweaks so that it meets WP's guidelines and this article's intended purpose. Great job. Your participation and leadership is very much appreciated. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

One must wonder why Tenebrae is so afraid to explain why wrestling people should qualify for inclusion? He will not even give one reason. Someone using the term "agree to disagree" is only acceptable if the person had presented a reasonable, good faith case for their position. Tenebrae has presented absoultely nothing. The clock is still ticking. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

First, there's no clock, and second, I did give my reasons, even though you evidently glossed over them. And I would suggest before you go into the edit war you seem to be threatening that you take your issues to dispute resolution. My experience is that admins really don't like edit-warring, and the first thing they ask is why the person advocating for a disputed change did not follow mediation and resolution protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You gave reasons why wrestling people should be included? Really? Where? Zep, did you see any reasons presented? And I do not see any threat of an edit war. What I see is an in-depth, good faith discussion by editors, not including yourself, where many valid reasons have been presented opposing inclusion of wrestlers, but none presented favoring inclusion. None. The clock is ticking. Discussions don't last forever when consensus is already being established. Stop your games Tenebrae and state the reasons you think wrestling people should be on the list. Or don't. Your choice. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is exasperating. My comments are in the two-paragraph post above at 17:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC). --Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop the games, Tenebrae. State your reasons for why wrestling people should be included. Or go away. You are disrupting a good faith discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you exactly where my comments were. And you have shown no good faith whatsoever in this discussion. You're bucking protocol and only want to do things your way. We have a process for this. You're ignoring it, essentially stamping your feet and yelling, "I won't! I won't! I won't do it the way Wikipedia says to!"

Incidentally, you're not running this discussion or setting the rules — Wikipedia policies and guidelines do that — and you certainly don't have the right to say, "Do this my way or go away." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Zep, even though this guy is obviously being purposely disruptive by trying to send us on a wild goose chase for his comments, instead of just stating his reasons, I found the comment he referred to. It says, "We're not removing stable content without a consensus to do so. Personally, I'm not wild about including pro wrestlers, but I'm flexible enough to see the point of those who included them. However, if they were to try to include "First AA pro wrestler to win a bout in Los Angeles" or "first AA pro wrestler to win an award for Best Smile," the same arguments would apply as against including first AA Olympic gold medal-winners in every single sport. If stable content is removed without consensus and without an RfC, that will be a serious action that will result in admin intervention and all of us going into dispute resolution. You make your case for removal, and if there's consensus it's removed. We do not remove stable material unilaterally if there is any contention about its removal, as there is here." So there it is. I do not see even one reason for advocating inclusion of wrestling people. Do you, Zep? All I see is a guy who says he sees "the point" of others who want wrestlers included, without stating what that point is. I also see a guy who gives some bogus examples of entries that would obviously not qualify for inclusion, which supports our position. It is interesting, however, that he sticks in there that he is "not wild about including pro wrestlers", but purposesly refuses to elaborate on that statement even though he knows full well that it will benefit the discussion. So, as always, we still have zero reasons from Tenebrae as to why wrestlers should be included. Zero. And he claims others have given reasons for including wrestlers, yet there's not a single mention of wrestling in the prior 50 or so talk page discussions. Tenebrae's games just continue. And btw, telling other editors just to go find your comments instead of just restating them when asked is called bad faith, pure and simple. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the exact-minute timestamp of where my comments were; using the "find" command would have taken you there instantly. Calling that disruptive is factually inaccurate, and I'm going to ask you to stop or I will ask an admin to speak with you. I assume you know there's a policy at WP:DISRUPT — read it, and you'll see my comments in no way whatsoever fit that — and so claiming over and over that someone is violating a Wikipedia policy is a serious offense. I'm getting rather tired of it. If you can't comment without slinging untrue accusations — well, that is a definition of bad faith.

So you led us on a wild goose chase to find content that does not even exist. Nice. So care to explain to us where in those comments you state a position for inclusion of wrestling people? This game you're playing with us is getting very boring. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And if you don't understand what I mean about seeing other people's points of view — well, I don't guess you would, would you? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See, that's the problem Tenebrae. You haven't stated a "point of view." We are still waiting for your reasons for supporting inclusion of wrestlers. Do you want to just admit (finally) that you don't have any? Stop disrupting this discussion and purposely creating irrelevant distractions. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, guys... allow me to step in here. It's getting pretty heated between you two. IP user, I think Tenebrae will respond to the questions I posed in my 19:30 7 August post. I am tempted to make comments about behaviors displayed here but the proper place for that would be the user's talk page (or mine) and not here. We (as in all of us) should be focused on content here. I haven't check talk page history or edit history to the article to see how many times "professional wrestling" has been referenced. I have looked over this talk page, however, and from what I can see, I don't see any users advocating for its inclusion. So that leads me to wonder, if the three of us speaking here are not crazy about its inclusion, why can we not go about removing those listings from the article? If another editor thinks it should be included, they can look to the edit summary and come to the talk page if they'd like to has it out, correct? I don't know...correct me if I'm wrong. I know an article should not represent the "flavor of the month" sentiment, but I'm scratching my head as to what the hold up is. IP user, I have made 2 versions of what I think could be added to the lead. Tenebrae has made a wonderful critique of it. Although I may not necessarily agree with the WP:Tone policy being referenced by the user initially, I would agree that some of the writing appeared sophomoric (any editor that is willing to label an example of their own writing as that is probably not too close to make an impartial critique, but I digress), but I'd really like to get you to take a stab at it. Or who knows, maybe you two can work on some of that together? Earlier today I was involved in a WikiProject discussion where one editor stated "the article shouldn't change because it's been well maintained" while the other stated "the reason why it hasn't already been changed is because this article has a low importance rating and we're just now getting to it." I guess this makes me think of "stable content." If something has been stable, it might be because there is an unwritten consensus about its inclusion, what WP likes to call "common sense"; or, it could just be because no one has gotten around to asking "umm, why is that there?" Zepppep (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Zep. There's been absolutely zero prior talk page discussion about wrestling. And it's not just three editors now saying the wrestling listings are not worthy, it's actually four: you, me, Mcusa and, yes, Tenebrae. He has now (finally) said - three times - that he's "not wild" about their inclusion either. Yet for some inexplicable reason, he refuses to state why he's not wild about them or what the "point" of editors advocating inclusion was. So we have unanimous agreement that the wrestling listings shouldn't be there. So Zep, why are we dragging out the obvious? As far as your lead, I think what you've written so far is great. However, I think we really need to first focus on the issue this thread is about: wrestling. Let's settle that first, then we can move on to other issues. This wrestling issue is a no-brainer. Had others presented any good reasons as to why wrestling should be included, I would have been very happy to listen and keep an open mind. But we've heard none and I don't expect we ever will. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to create an article for "List of African-American profressional wrestling firsts" or "List of African-American fictional character firsts," I'll fully support that. Then, all the wrestling people will have a place to go. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a reply to my 19:30 7 August post (in thread above). I don't see any mentions of "professional wrestling" on this talk page other than what you, IP user, have raised several days ago, so if multiple people have chimed in stating those feats don't belong in this article, I would like to get a response to the previous post. Zepppep (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the best thing that can be done to help this article is draft a specific definition for inclusion. While the lead may display a NPOV and conciseness, it's conciseness is also to the detriment of the article. Ambiguity leads to reverts, but on what basis? Readers are confused as to what is and is not the purpose of the article. Editors should be able to point to a well-defined list of criteria for reference, not their own biases (yes, we all have them). "Consensus" is hard to understand and determine at times -- and it also changes. It is not static. A reader should not have to come to the talk page on a consistent basis to see whether or not what they'd like to add to the article is "allowed," "stable," "notable," etc. or not. They should be able to find 95% of their answers in the lead of the article. Zepppep (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Zep. There needs to be clearly-defined criteria for firsts that qualify or do not qualify for the list. Decisions can no longer continue to be made by just one or a few editors who inject their own opinions and biases as to what's worthy or not worthy, or declare or imply that there's a consensus that doesn't actually exist. Everything you just said is right on the money. All this talk of "that's not the purpose of the list" or "that's not allowed" or "that's not notable" or "that's stable content" or "that's not important enough" etc. must be eliminated. Either the criteria defines what's acceptable and what isn't, or a legitimate consenus does. And regarding the the issue of professional wrestling firsts, I would be shocked to hear anyone give a legitimate reason as to why fictional accomplishments like these should qualify for the list. So far, no one has. There is a separate discussion below about it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning

I'm feeling my oats this evening. The next time any of you says anything remotely like a personal attack against another editor, I will block them from editing for a week remove the entire comment, and ban people from this article and talk page if it continues.. This page is for discussions about improving the article. Do not use it for anything else. Stop doing things that end up wasting other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Edited to be more reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please specify the editors to whom you are speaking to. Zepppep (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, you have done nothing inappropriate. Ever. Thanks for your great work in leading the improvement process. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: "Everyone" is not a description of who has been making personal attacks in the past; "everyone" is a description of who needs to keep this warning in mind going forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning

I'm feeling my oats this evening. The next time any of you says anything remotely like a personal attack against another editor, I will block them from editing for a week remove the entire comment, and ban people from this article and talk page if it continues.. This page is for discussions about improving the article. Do not use it for anything else. Stop doing things that end up wasting other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Edited to be more reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please specify the editors to whom you are speaking to. Zepppep (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, you have done nothing inappropriate. Ever. Thanks for your great work in leading the improvement process. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: "Everyone" is not a description of who has been making personal attacks in the past; "everyone" is a description of who needs to keep this warning in mind going forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

REFIMPROVE tag

You probably missed the point. This tag is about the improvement of existing references.The article had extensive use of footnotes but it fails to concern all the african-american firsts, the footnotes are difficult to verify since some of these are not freely and easily available online.please consider providing more accessible and easy-to-get references.The tag is meant to encourage editors for more authentic listings.Thank You.--Skashifakram (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Great points. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Skashifakram 's rationale, that ONLY online sources can be used, goes against core Wikipedia guidelines at WP:CITE. Absolutely and unquestionably, books and other printed matter can be cited. Wikiped The guidelines suggest that books carry an ISBN number, and these do. For this reason, Im removing the tab. To insist that only online sources can be used is outrageous. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There is nothing policy-wise that states only online sources may be used. I don't know what Skashifakram means when the user states "more authentic listings." I also don't know what the user regards as "freely and easily available online." Zepppep (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of you didn't read me properly, I said there are many african-american firsts who are unsourced, I merely wished to improve them. Now, even if we agree with WP:SITE, books and journals which are not freely available, are difficult to verify since we can hardly know whether the reference statement given by editor supported by the book or journal.For online editors, is it not very easy to check online sources, rather than buying books to verify every claim. My intention is not to discourage editors to listing offline sources, since that will be tantamount to curbing freedom on editor's part, but I want to encourage people for more easily and freely available online sorces which will be very easy to verify for every online editors.Now since REFIMPROVE seems to me the most suited tag, I used it.Thank you for your patience.--Skashifakram (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

By my reading, Skashifakram is not saying that "only" onlines sources are allowed. My understanding is that he is merely alluding to improving the sourcing. But he can elaborate. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(Be careful of use of "you.") I read it as "the tag is about the improvement of existing sources." Of course reliable sources, available online, would be great. And I'm glad to see it clarified by the user how they're in agreement books (offline specifically) are indeed in-line with WP's policies. But the number of offline sources an article may cite differs from issues an article may have with utilizing unreliable sources or lacking sources. I haven't seen a REFIMPROVE tag used in hopes of getting an article to have more online sources than offline; I have seen it used when the article lacks citations or when the citations provided may have verifiability concerns. Of course, anything contentious concerning BLP should be removed until a source can prove its claim. Check Links and ID numbers to see how ISBNs are key for citing offline books, and how directly quoting from the source can be posted to the article's talk page should there be questions regarding material from an offline book. "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." Books need not be purchased in order to verify a source. Zepppep (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so, Zep. ISBNs, etc. verify books' existence, and libraries can do inter-library loans. Books and other print sources are readily available. Using Refimprove "to encourage people [to use] more easily and freely available online so[u]rces" means discouraging the use of books and magazines, and that seems a gross violation of the spirit and intent of Wikipedia, let alone the Refimprove tag. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Like all other Wikipedia editors, I will continue to use whatever quality sources, online or otherwise, are most accessible to me. I don't think there's any policy or guideline that recommends the use of online sources over other sources, because to do so would be a grave error—the vast majority of the world's books, newspapers, and magazines are not available online.

With respect to improving references in general, WP:STANDALONE#Citing sources says that stand-alone lists such as this one should include sources for all items. That's a relatively recent, and still controversial, change. We may decide we want to follow that style guideline, in which case we would need to copy references from subjects' articles to this list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try to see the major problem here in spite of differences in opinions, most of the african-american firsts are not well-sourced.We can't make a CITATION NEEDED tag for every individual concerned, rather it's better to go for REFIMPROVE tag.--Skashifakram (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and I think that's easily remedied. The entries in the list should have sources at their individual articles that support the claims of being "firsts", so it's just a matter of copying the sources from one article to another. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, their biographical articles also are not clear regarding the claim of them being first african-americans and in some case controversial--Skashifakram (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding free, online content, users may want to check out section 1.8 of perennial proposals. Zepppep (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And even more to the point, the policy at WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Since my comments were removed by a user, as opposed to transferred, I am again creating this subsection. Tenebrae explained his recent removal of a listing as follows: "I removed "first African-American Muslim in the NYPD" because this is an article about African-American firsts, not Muslim firsts. I'm sure we can see how we wouldn't fill the list with "first African-American Muslim in baseball," "first African-American Muslim Secretary of State," "first African-American Protestant governor" or "First African-American Jew in the NYPD".

That explanation seems in violation of WP:NPOV considering numerous religious firsts are in the article and have not been removed. If it's an article about AA firsts, not AA religious firsts, then why are there so many religious firsts in the article? After all, readers have only the listings to go off of, since the article lacks inclusion criteria. Here is just a sampling of religious firsts:

• First African-American Baptist congregation
• First African Episcopal Church established
• First African Methodist Episcopal Church established
• First African-American woman rabbi

Zepppep (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC

(The above was completely removed from the talk page. Please do not remove others' comments. Zepppep (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

It's not "First African-American woman rabbi in the NYPD." Does that clarify? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, much clearer (assuming you're talking about Muslims and not "Muslins"). Zepppep (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, having like items in the same thread will make it easier for other editors to locate the relevant section on this page, should future editors need to refer to this page. Doing so helps keep the layout clear. Zepppep (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean you move other people's posts. You ask them politely if they would do so.

Also, the snarky jibe about an obvious typo is not constructive. I don't know what possible positive reason one might have for doing that. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen admins move them to a new thread. Experienced editors know to ASG. The note re: spelling wasn't meant to be a jibe. It was meant to keep the editor who posted the listing to the article from feeling disrespected, if (s)he should ever feel like they were being attacked. Nothing more, nothing less. Zepppep (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on whether one should move other editors' comment. And I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean when you say that pointing out my typo "Muslin" has anything to do with "keep[ing] the editor who posted the listing to the article from feeling disrespected." I genuinely cannot make sense of how taking a swipe at my typing keeps some third editor from feeling disrespected or anything else. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen editors respond in not-so-kind ways when multiple typos have been made to religious terms, gender, sex, etc. I've even seen some become enraged when a single typo was made; some are charged (generally for poor reasons, but sometimes valid). I was merely pointing out I believed your typos were in fact nothing but typos and I ASG, hoping others who might read the page would also realize they were simply typos from you. Hence "nothing more, nothing less."

I'm not looking to make mountains of mole hills here...I was also not intending to portray the particular editor who made the edit to the article as one who might respond in such a way, but others reading through this talk page might. An apology was extended to you (none sent my way after my comments were removed) which I believe only helps solidify my (what I would hope would be clear) ASG actions. (I recently had comments moved on a FAC review page -- editors who write and review such level of articles tend to be quite experienced and are familiar with "protocol." I had no issue with my comments being moved.} I do know, however, when two editors happen to submit an edit within a short period of time an edit conflict will appear and the server will only allow one version to be submitted at a time. There is nothing in talk page guidelines (as previously mentioned) which states it is "against the rules" for an editor to move talk page comments. Again, editors would look at the spirit—the intention. You have a preference; how was I supposed to know it before I committed the "offense?" I have stated more than once my intentions were at organization of this talk page, and also that there is nothing within the guidelines which would preclude me and am only willing to accept your preference because I'm generally a nice person. In an actual article, moving text without changing its meaning is categorized as a minor edit. However, seeing as you have stated you don't like anyone moving your comments about without a polite request, and I have told you "OK, I understand your preference"). I am not holding your feet to the fire for removing my comments (a clear violation) and stating you didn't realize it so please put this to rest (or not apologizing) because when I look at other editors, I use rose-colored glasses. Zepppep (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's OK. I know we both want the article to be as good as possible, and written communication doesn't contain the verbal and visual cues that help make meaning clear, leading to misunderstandings. We've been working productively overall, we'll probably get an admin opinion on pro wrestling soon, and then we can work on the Sports section. It's all good. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)