Talk:Timeline of African-American firsts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Inconsistencies

Inconsistencies in 8 specific categories/fields have been listed below. If you would only like to comment regarding a particular listing or category, please do so within that category (or add another category, do so below the 8th (which is entertainment)). If you wish to comment on the inconsistencies as part of the larger picture, please discuss at the end of the 8th category subsection. Zepppep (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, I have to highly commend you on this thread and the excellent job you've done in attempting to improve this article in a very calm, fair, consistent and open-minded way. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, IP! And I am taking you and Tenebrae's suggestion of signing all the first paragraphs of each subsection of this one thread, so as to not confuse anyone. Zepppep (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. And you can just call me 76. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Business

Currently, the article lists "First African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company: Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae" and "First African-American woman CEO of an S&P 100 Company: Ursula Burns, Xerox Corporation." 1) Since when is the S&P 100 notable for a general article like this? 2) Would mentions for "First Fortune 100" and "First S&P 10" be allowed? The article's lead does not specify.

The article lists "First African-American billionaire: Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television" and "First African-American female billionaire: Sheila Johnson," both under the same year, but does not specify the date. Therefore, the reader doesn't know which Johnson was actually first. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

I would go along with removing S&P 100. The Fortune 500 is the original, longstanding yardstick for an established level of corporate size, reach and accomplishment. Others are, by definition, secondary.

Good point on the two Johnsons. Since I don't imagine we could give a date as to when their bank account and stock portfolio totalled $1 billion, these two may have to go together under the same year: "First male and first female African-American billionaires". --Tenebrae (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I could go for that. As of now, it looks to give Robert the first mention simply because...he's male? Which of course would make no sense. I suggested merging them together until/unless a source can be cited that may give an actual date. Zepppep (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a woman, why not do them alphabetically? I mean, if no dates can be found. --Farpointer (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I might normally agree to such, but since an appearance on this list prior to another implies an earlier date, I'd suggest listing on the same line of text unless a date can be found and cited. Zepppep (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Academia

"First African-American president of the New York City Board of Education: Isaiah Edward Robinson, Jr." is listed; would editors be able to add the first of say, Chicago, IL, or Minot, ND? The criteria is not well-defined. "First African-American graduate of Harvard Business School: Lillian Lincoln" is listed; would editors be able to add the first graduate from Penn's Wharton School of Business, as well as Azusa Pacific University? The criteria is not well-defined. "First African American to graduate from Harvard College: Richard Theodore Greener" is listed; what about the first graduate from Brown University, or North Texas? The criteria is not well defined. "First African American to earn a doctorate degree (Ph.D.) from Harvard University: W.E.B. Du Bois" is listed; again, I'm confused. Is this to mention all firsts from Harvard, or Yale, or Brown, or UCLA, or Cedarville University? The criteria is not well defined. "First African American elected president of the Harvard Law Review: Barack Obama" is listed; there are several notable law reviews in academia. Would an editor be able to add a listing from a school they like, or something they think is "notable and historic." Would a different editor have to make a judgement call or hash out reasons on the article's talk page until an agreement was made? What if an agreement was never made? The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

NYC Board of Ed. can go as far as I'm concerned, unless it's the single largest board of education in the country, in which case it's notable not for his being the first NYC but for being the first of the nation's largest.

Historically and culturally, Harvard and Yale occupy distinct places in America. I'm sure I can back that up with copious footnotes if there's genuine disagreement on this, but these two institutions are considered the two most prestigious universities in the country. I didn't go to either, by the way, and while numerous people I know went to the rightfully vaunted Columbia U., it's not thought of in the same way this culture thinks of Harvard and Yale. The first Af-Am to make it to various achievements at those two places, given the constant spotlight on them, is different from doing them at any other college. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebare, that makes no sense and completely violates the neutral nature of this project. We cannot single out a few universites (Harvard and Yale), regardless of how prominent they clearly are, and eliminate all others. I honestly can't believe you're seriously advocating for this. We do not favor some schools over others and we do not base inclusion guidelines on how something is "thought of." No way! If we are going to list the first graduate of one major university, then we must list the first graduate of every major university. This applies for all other accomplishments within academia such as first university president, first Ph.D., first law review editor, and all the rest. Either we list just the first in the entire country or we list the ones at each major university. But singling out a few as being worthy over all others is ridiculous. You can cite a million footnotes, but it won't change the fact that they will all be subjective opinions. By the way, I think Stanford and many other "elite" schools will take serious issue with your bias for Harvard and Yale. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that one could cite a couple of hundred though not "a million" footnotes makes my point that these two institutions are, by wide agreement culturally unique among others in the U.S. It's not an arbitrary distinction, but one developed over literally hundreds of years. But this is how discussion goes, and I'm glad to be doing it and I hope other editors besides us three weigh in on this. We might lower the heat a bit; I'm not sure exclaiming "No way!" helps engender a feeling that you're not being emotional about what should be a calm, logical discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to divert the conversation at-hand, but perhaps Harvard and Yale are so well thought of by folks is also because for a long time, the schools didn't allow minorities or females for a very long time, if memory serves me correctly? And if that's the case, it could be what's lead to such a bias creeping into society. I do not want to play dumb: Yale and Harvard are two of the most-respected institutions in the world. They probably deserve mention on this article. But so would an institution like MIT, Gallaudet, Howard, Johns Hopkins, UC Berkley, Wesleyan, Univ of Chicago, and many others. If "culturally unique" is the test, Grinnell College probably needs to get listed. Maybe the institutions listed are not at the level of Yale or Harvard, but again, isn't that up to the eye of the beholder? The New York Yankees are the world's second-most valuable sports franchise, I believe. They have won more WS than any other AL/MLB franchise (pains me to say it). However, if I saw a list that stated "first sellout crowd at Yankee Stadium" but maybe ignored the first sellout crowd in all of MLB, I would not be happy as a reader of an encyclopedia. A book of trivia, sure. But I would be mislead, and one should not be mislead by an encyclopedia. Maybe we could instead have more broad categories, such as "first from public institution" and "first from private institution" ? Zepppep (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The exclamation point, which I rarely use, was solely meant to express the seriousness of inappropriately favoring a few over all others in a particular category. It's an extremely slippery slope that we must avoid. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We're expected to use reasonable judgment. But this question is certainly valid. The Harvard/Yale issue probably deserves an RfC in itself that would help us develop a consensus of academic criteria. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

An RfC is not used when only one person is advocating for a position. Especially when that position violates the rules of neutrality. I thought we were past this nonsense of favoring a few over all others; deciding who's better or more important than the rest. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

State government

Some listings in the past have been deleted because editors have given the argument "there is a separate article pertaining to state government firsts." If that's the case, why do "First African-American woman elected to a U.S. state senate: Cora Brown, Democrat (Michigan)," "First African-American governor of New York State: David Paterson (elected as lieutenant governor, succeeded on resignation of previous governor)," "First African-American Governor of Massachusetts: Deval Patrick," "First African-American woman elected Speaker of a state House of Representatives: California Rep. Karen Bass," and "First African-American Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Roderick L. Ireland" appear? Are this in fact the first overall of all 50 states, or just the firsts of those particular states? Why does the wording suggest it is only the first of that particular state? What about the firsts of Oklahoma, or Pennsylvania, or Louisiana? Are they not listed because no user has thought of listing them, or do the following appear on the article because editors who have the article on their watchlist might be asleep at the wheel? (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Correct. These are the current governor firsts on the list:

• First African-American acting governor
• First African-American governor (non-elected)
• First elected African-American governor
• First African-American Governor of Massachusetts
• First African-American governor of New York State

Based on these current listings, we should list the first governor of every state.

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"First African-American woman elected to a U.S. state senate" is a national first. The fact that she was elected in Michigan or Hawaii or Kansas doesn't make a difference — just the fact that an Af-Am woman was elected to any state senate anywhere for the first time. Same with first one elected to a state House of Reps.

I'd go along with removing first Mass. and first NY governor and first chief justice of Mass. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply showing all of the listings in various categories to show the contradictions in context. I needed to show both the worthy and non-worthy inclusions to make the point. Obviously, the first person elected to a state senate would be worthy of inclusion, but the first governor of a particular state is not (unless it's decided that all states should be on the list). For the record, I think only the first AA governor (or any other position) in the country should be on the list. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sincerely happy to be in agreement with you, and to have reached this under such constructive circumstances. I mean that. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so what's next? Zepppep (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, guys, seriously; what's next? Is it now permissable to remove the entries discussed above, where consensus has been met, or do we need to wait or do something in the meantime? Let's keep the ball rolling! Zepppep (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need to keep the nice progress moving forward. You have my support in removing the agreed-upon entries discussed throughout this thread, and following the other guidelines which appear to have consensus. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with 76 above on the removal of those three items. Given the length and contentiousness of these debates overall, I would also give it a day or two in case other editors who may happen to be away from their computers today have comments. There's no deadline, so having Zep do the honors 24 hours from now will prevent anyone from saying that three editors made a decision and rushed it through without even giving it a day. I've been on Wikipedia a long time — trust me, waiting a day is the safest and least contentious course. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, whatever you decide is what should be done. And do not speak for me Tenebrat. I did not say anything about the "removal of those three items." I said, as you well know, "removing the agreed-upon entries discussed throughout this thread, and following the other guidelines which appear to have consensus." Nice try. Again. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither Zep nor I nor anyone else can unilaterally make contentious changes without consensus. And "Tenebrat"? Really. Are you 6? Grow up.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, as I said, whatever you feel is best is fine with me. You have my full support. And as far as who's 6 Tenebrat, who was 6 when they called me a "taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP" who is "lowering the level of discourse"? <silence> Your days of controlling this article are over. Make that years. Six years to be exact. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes are about the long term, not as I've stated in the past "the flavor of the month." I am in no rush to proceed as agreed upon. 3 days is a good recommendation. I will wait at least that long, and if in case I drop the ball, one of you may do the honors. Zepppep (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Zepppep (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Undone. Nothing in the discussion above demonstrates a consensus to remove actual nationwide firsts by African Americans, which three (arguably four) of the deleted entries represent. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide clarification, as above it is noted "I'd go along with removing first Mass. and first NY governor and first chief justice of Mass." and "I would agree with 76 above on the removal of those three items" Tenebrae"; "the first governor of a particular state is not (unless it's decided that all states should be on the list" by IP user; and my (Zepppep) original posting all show a consensus since the current wording of listings is not worded to reveal the first in the nation of a state post, but rather gives the reader the sense that person "A" from state "B" is on the list. Suggest all users desiring something different to formulate their desires if not in agreement with the statements posted, as several days have already passed and removal was proceeded with as stated in this thread. Additionally, there is a "state firsts" article and as I stated when I transferred the 5 items to that article's page (4 of which were already there), the articles are different and thus, redundancy should be avoided. Zepppep (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems a rather idiosyncratic reading of the restored entries. Would you similarly favor removal of:

1858: First African-American female college instructor: Sarah Jane Woodson Early, Wilberforce College; or

1929: First African-American sportscaster: Sherman "Jocko" Maxwell (WNJR, Newark, New Jersey)

because their "firsts" are for Wilberforce College and WNJR radio, respectively?

I did not restore the two obvious state firsts, those agreed to by Tenebrae. I did not even restore the actual first person nationwide to serve as a governor, who served only as a temporary "fill-in" while the governor was out of the state. Perhaps instead of insisting someone yell "stop" to prevent you from unilaterally claiming consensus based on a list of questions and a partial reply to delete some of the items on the list, you should try to clearly state which specific entries you propose deleting and wait for commentary on those specifics. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Fat&Happy. For your two examples (Early and Maxwell), I wouldn't change anything as it's not stating "first AA sportscaster at WNJR" or "East Coast radio station" or "first female college instructor at such and such a school" etc. It clearly lets the reader know why this listing exists: because he was the first (purported) black sportscaster, she the first female college instructor. Also, the article is inconsistent, using "woman" and "female" interchangeably. Zepppep (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The formats are quite similar to:

1866: First elected African-American Lieutenant Governor: Oscar Dunn (Louisiana).

1872: First African-American governor (non-elected): P. B. S. Pinchback of Louisiana (See also: Douglas Wilder, 1990)

1990: First elected African-American governor: Douglas Wilder (Democrat; Virginia) (See also: P. B. S. Pinchback, 1872)

None of which tie the "first" to the particular state any more than the first examples tie them to the college or radio station. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than delivering a mea culpa on a silver platter, I don't know what else I can do to let you know my reasoning was that a) I thought consensus had been reached, and seeing as one user's "agreement" or nod does not outweigh the agreements of two other users (and that calls for chiming in were all but virtually ignored, including by you on this matter until late) unless the issue at hand is clearly outlined in a policy or precedent or recently discussed on the talk page, and b) the state gov't firsts article would be the more appropriate place to list some of the firsts -- the majority opinion is not that the listings should be deleted from all of WP, but rather simply placed on the article which was created with listings such as these in mind. If you are now stating your desire, that is great but considering the matter of leaving them was a minority opinion, and not chiming in until now (or way of edit revert) it was considered a closed matter. Others were invited to disclose their thoughts; three days came and went, no others did. I am OK with "first governor" mentions; lieutenant governor is a bit iffy since I'm not sure of the significance of this on a national level. Thank you for coming to the talk page to describe your thoughts instead of reverting edits. No one wants an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepppep (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 August 2012‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. All national firsts are also firsts on some lower level. The first AA to receive a PhD in the U.S. would also be the first to receive it at a specific college and the first in and/or from a specific state. So theoretically, all of the entries here could be deleted and moved to a list of state firsts article. I saw a general agreement among several editors to delete the first governor of New York and the first governor of Massachusetts. The user who posted the list of five then-existing entries later clarified:

I'm simply showing all of the listings in various categories to show the contradictions in context. I needed to show both the worthy and non-worthy inclusions to make the point. Obviously, the first person elected to a state senate would be worthy of inclusion, but the first governor of a particular state is not (unless it's decided that all states should be on the list). For the record, I think only the first AA governor (or any other position) in the country should be on the list.

There was no clear consensus to delete the entire list. Since I generally agreed with the deletions for which there was clear consensus, there didn't seem to be a need to chime in with another "me too". Fat&Happy (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point has been noted -- several times. Talk pages and consensus building are all about "me too"'s so don't be shy in the future! It's why users recommended waiting a few days, then having it come to a close. If someone wants to determine current consensus, they should open a new thread. Zepppep (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A valid point. Perhaps you should transfer or copy some of the points you make below to a new thread, since you seem to be suggesting a change to the consensus shown in this thread – that the first holders in the nation of a specific important state office (governor and state senator were the examples used) should be included in this article. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Logic: this article is about firsts of national prominence (or so it appears, or so it has been argued on this talk page). Sure, one might argue the first college instructor is not a nationally prominent "first," but I would push for its inclusion because there is no "academic firsts" article like there is a state government article. If, however, an academic firsts article was to be created, I'd support a transfer. With the lt. governors, I am not proposing a move to an article which has yet to be created, but rather stating on the current article page it would be possible to simply state "for state government firsts, see: firsts in state government." The first state secretary, auditor, treasurer, agriculture secretary, etc. could also appear on the article we're currently discussing, just as lieutenant governor currently does, but again, the line has been drawn somewhere, right? Do you support any of these firsts on this article?

If another list already exists namely to keep this one from being about firsts but to a lesser degree (or first in a smaller area, such as a state, city, etc.), why not just point users to that list? As of now, there are roughly 450 listings on this article! Lastly, PhD recipients are not listed or categorized by geographic means, but by which institution they went to (which I don't agree with, but that's already talked about in a different thread). A PhD first isn't significant because of which state the individual received it in (for blacks were not allowed entry into several private and public institutions all throughout the country); it's significant because it shows higher education policies had changed and it challenged the notion some had that non-whites were intellectually inferior. Considering there is no article titled "academic firsts," I would argue to keep the listing here for the time being. If an editor did create an article specific to academic firsts, well, I think you can figure the rest out...Zepppep (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal government

"First African American to be appointed to the United States Senate by a state governor: Roland Burris" appears on the page; is this as significant as the first-ever elected U.S. Senator? What if a user wanted to add "first AA appointed to the U.S. Senate after the incumbent died while serving in office"? The criteria is not well defined. Also, if there is a separate article for state government firsts, is there also one for federal government firsts? Why are so many of the listings related to federal government and cabinet position & federal agency firsts? The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Amazingly, all of the following U.S./federal government firsts are currently on the list. So are we going to list every first for every cabinet or government post? We need to get focused.

• First African-American U.S. diplomat
• First African American elected to U.S. House of Representatives
• First African American elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat
• First African-American bank examiner for the United States Department of the Treasury
• First African-American female Ambassador of the United States
• First African-American United States Solicitor General:
• First post-Reconstruction African American elected to the U.S. Senate
• First African American Cabinet secretary
• First African-American woman elected to U.S. House of Representatives
• First African-American appointed as a United States Assistant Secretary of State
• First African-American woman in the U.S. Cabinet
• First African-American woman elected to U.S. Senate
• First African-American woman appointed U.S. Secretary of Energy
• First African American appointed Surgeon General of the United States
• First African American appointed Director of the National Drug Control Policy
• First African-American United States Secretary of Commerce
• First African American appointed U.S. Secretary of Labor
• First African-American Secretary of State
• First African-American woman to be appointed National Security Advisor
• First African-American woman appointed Secretary of State
• First African-American President of the United States
• First African-American United States Attorney General
• First African-American woman United States Ambassador to the United Nations
• First African-American United States Trade Representative
• First African-American woman Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
• First African-American White House Social Secretary

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right: ""First African American to be appointed to the United States Senate by a state governor" does seem to be parsing it way too finely. Same with first "bank examiner for the United States Department of the Treasury," which certainly is not at historic as Secretary of the Treasury.

For the rest, I would say the first Af-Am appointed to each of these major posts is historic and noteworthy. Do we really think it's not historic and noteworthy to have the first black Attorney General or first black Secretary of State? Really? Is the first black Surgeon General not a major historic thing? --

Again, you missed the point. My statement was, "So are we going to list every first for every cabinet or government post? We need to get focused." Obviously, certain firsts are very worthy of inclusion, but many are not. But there are no current guidelines as to what should qualify and what shouldn't. That's why Zep started this thread. First trade representative? First woman administrator of the EPA? First bank examiner? First rep that's a democrat? Really?? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've agreed with you on bank examiner. I didn't see "first rep that's a [D]emocrat," though I'd agree with you there as well. As to agencies, that's a good question — why the EPA and not other agencies? US Trade Representative seems certainly an important position but minor in the context of cabinet positions and the like; I would exclude it.

I would certainly include each of the cabinet posts and the national-level White House appointment; those seem like discrete, concrete criteria. I would keep Ambassador to the UN since that's not ambassador to an individual country but to, essentially, the world. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. How about First White House Social Secretary? Ouch. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And if the WH social secretary qualifies, then we have to start adding the White House Chief Usher, White House Executive Chef and all the rest. ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The White House Social Secretary is actually a really important position — the gatekeeper of access to the president of United States — and having an African American in such a key national position for the first time is a huge deal. Not sure about chief usher; have to learn more. Chef sounds like one of many back-room positions not in the public eye — although I suppose a case could be made that an Af-Am preparing meals for world leaders as our official national representative in that regard would indeed make it notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again... Tenebrae trying to favor one, or a few, over all others in a category. Sorry, but we do not use biases to judge. And for the record, the Chief Usher of the White House is a huge position. The Chief Usher essentially runs the entire operation of the White House. Gary Walters was a legend in the White House and one of the TV newsmagazines did a big feature on him when he was CU. The Chief Usher controls practically everything that happens in the WH. And the WH Executive Chef is a very prominent postition, just as notable and important as the Social Secretary. You sound like you pull these judgements out of a hat. Again, if we include one primary department head, then we should include them all. Or we include none of them. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Um ... I agreed that these positions are or seemed as if they might be important. We agree on that. So what's the problem?

No, we do not have to "include them all" or "include none". There's no Wikipedia rule whatsoever that says that. There are, however, guidelines and policies such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We use reasonable, mature judgment derived from a multitude of editors' consensus. And you misspelled "judgments," by the way.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep fighting this effort Tenebrat. Your days of owning this article are done. Sorry. And the spelling correction... what was that you were saying about acting like a six-year-old? And it's "include none." Lmao. Keep your games going, Tenebrat. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've alerted an admin to your puerile name-calling. And I have no idea what "And it's 'include none'" means since that's what I wrote. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK Tenebrat, just be sure to mention to the admin that you called me a "taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse." You won't forget, will you? Haha. And the period goes inside the close quote. Get it together. And keep this up. If you so choose. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Municipal government

"First African-American alderman of Chicago: Oscar Stanton De Priest," "First African-American police officer in present-day New York City: Wiley Overton, hired by the Brooklyn Police Department prior to 1898 incorporation of the five boroughs into the City of New York" and "First African-American woman to be a police officer in Los Angeles: Georgia Robinson" appear; are these notable and historic? Is it simply a case of the wording that is messed up? Should it actually read "First AA alderman of a city: ____", "First AA man police officer: ____" and "First AA woman police officer: ____"? If an editor wanted to add the first for Detroit, MI and Lone Tree, IA, would that also be acceptable? Would users have to come to the talk page and hash out their arguments? Are only "major" cities included? As mentioned in other threads, what is defined as a "major" city? Who gets to define it? What if a non-major city had a "first" before a major city? Would the major city win out simply because people have heard of the city, or because one might argue "anything to do with Chicago is discussed on a national level?" The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Correct. The current listings contradict the claims of some editors that only an overall first in a category should be included. For instance, they say that only the first mayor in the U.S. should be listed because, they say, there is a separate mayor's list. Well, then explain all these current mayor listings:

• First African-American mayor
• First African-American mayor of a U.S. city
• First African American elected mayor of a large U.S. city
• First African American elected mayor of Los Angeles, California
• First African-American woman mayor of a U.S. metropolitan city
• First African American elected mayor, and first mayor, of Washington, D.C
• First African-American mayor of Chicago
• First African-American mayor of New York City
• First African-American woman mayor of Washington, D.C
• First African-American mayor of San Francisco
• First African-American mayor of Houston

So are we going to list the first mayor of every major city? This is a huge contradiction.

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that becoming mayor of one of the largest handful of cities in the US is not an historic first.

I think the question then become: How many cities? That will be an arbitrary number, by its nature, but an arbitrary number we can decide by consensus. I would say an African-American becoming mayor of one of the five largest cities in the US is historic and noteworthy. Others may like top 10 or top 3. But, clearly, no one can say it's not historic to have an African-American running New York City or Los Angeles, at the very least. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, consensus is being used for a lot of things on this page. I think some readers would say becoming mayor of several cities in several states, particularly cities in southern state, would take issue with "major" getting all the attention. Birmingham, AL; Columbia, SC; Atlanta, GA, to name a few. Notable and historic. Even by your preference, the article lists the mayors of both the 14th and 25th largest cities in the U.S. (see: List of United States cities by population). I guess we either need to add about 20 more cities or we need to nip the number down significantly -- today. Zepppep (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the criteria you are advocating for are totally subjective and completely violate the requirement for neutrality. We don't pick and choose which "major" cities are more important than others, just like we don't pick which major universites are more important than others. We either list the first mayor in the country or we list the first mayor of every city of, let's say, a minimum size, which can be determined (for example, a minimum population of 100,000). Stop singling out cities, universities, etc. and trying to say that a few are more important than all others. This is about encylopedic consistency, not favoritism. Encyclopedically, the first AA mayor of Pittsburgh is just as important as the first mayor of New York or Miami or Chicago or Boston or Seattle or New Orleans or Charlotte or Los Angeles, etc. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That type of rigid literalism is the antithesis of reasoned judgment. I'm wondering if any other editor here believes that the first Af-Am mayor of New York or Los Angeles is not a major historic first. What do other editors say? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I brought up the issue of "how is 'major' being defined" several threads ago. It went ignored. Because the criteria for inclusion is so ill-defined, it is difficult for anyone to be able to point to a reference in confidence. There is a separate article for List of first African-American mayors. Mind you, not "List of African-American mayors", but first. With that in mind, there is no reason for this article to have so many (and more are going to come using rationale accepted throughout the history of this article) mayors listed if there is already an article listing such. This article should list 1) the first mayor of a municipal entity, and I would argue 2) the first mayor of a "major" city. But since the conversation around defining "major" went silent, there is no understanding of the term. And according to reasons given in the "entertainment" subsection of this thread, the editors who posted all the mayors on this article would apparently need to be contacted. And for reasons given in previous, older threads, "stable content" should not be removed. Zepppep (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, the conversation around defining "major" did not, as you claim, "go silent." Well, not by me. Read up. I said we could determine "major" by setting a minimum population. 100,000 or 250,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000... whatever is decided. Or, even better, we could base it on an official list of the 20 biggest cities in the U.S. (or however many is decided). For instance, we could use this list. Simple and consistent. ;) And Tenebrae, we don't include enyclopedic content based on subjective judgements; we do it based on objective, sourced facts. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hear ya, IP! It didn't go silent by me, either! But it seems our comments on this talk page largely go ignored and hold no bearing. You want specific criteria for Olympic athletes' inclusion and professional wrestlers off. I want a decent lead and well-defined criteria, and what I've offered, (and a little bit of help editing from Tenebrae and you, but mainly just thoughts -- nothing concrete), has not been implemented at all. Instead, readers and user who get motivated to want to add something do it, and then often times, are shot down and told to "check consensus on talk page." Yet, when I read this talk page, I don't actually see much consensus. When I see the article, I don't see much of anything! I want for this article to be easier for readers to understand -- as it is now, it is not well written. An editor like myself, who I like to think has a decent eye, and an editor like yourself, who I also think has a decent eye, and an editor like Tenebrae, who is a freaking professional writer, for goodness sakes, are busy on this talk page when we should be doing very little grunt work at all, instead focusing on the title, checking sources, helping other users understand the spirit of the article and when needed, which would not be often if this article was well-defined, we would visit the talk page to add in our 2 cents' worth and be done! By mentioning the first of XYZ a reader may get the impression that XYZ was in fact first, but in reality, XYZ may be well down the list! Take the first Ph D from Harvard mention. Readers currently may get any of the following impressions: that only Harvard counts; that Harvard beat out all other universities for this mention; that the article has only progressed as far as mentioning Harvard but is about .001% of the way "there" because there are several other schools with Ph D programs that aren't listed, or even "first male" is all that counts, but not first female since it doesn't state "man" in the listing. There are several listings which state "woman"; readers may also get the impression this article is sexist, which would violate a whole lot of what WP and a majority of its contributors are about! Zepppep (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Bravo, Zep! Very nicely stated. I'm with you. Again, I think you're doing a great job. Your leadership on this article is very much appreciated. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I also applaud Zep for taking the lead. I would ask that for the sake of readability, Zep, that you break up long blocks of text into paragraphs. Experienced Wikipedia editors know that hard-to-read walls of text often get glossed over since it looks like a rant (just as ALL CAPS LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING!). No one wants to ignore any calm and reasoned point — we're colleagues working together and optimally are supportive of each other even politely and respectfully disagreeing.

I noted in the Academia section that criteria for college inclusion should be the topic of an RfC — although first I'd like to see the pro wrestling issue worked on! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, first Chicago alderman is insufficiently important. I'm not sure about "first policeman", either, but that may be the wording, which suggests there were earlier examples in what's now NYC. (If it's "first anywhere", put it in. 1st black woman, too.) On mayors, I'd limit to DC (national capital), NYC (biggest city), Atlanta or Birmingham (wherever the first Deep South mayor was), & 1st "major city" (pop over 1mil? which IIRC makes it Chicago). And any pro wrestler beyond the very first to join any pro circuit anywhere should be removed with extreme prejudice. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If creating my replies into paragraphs makes it easier for you or anyone else to read, duly noted. I could go with Trekphiler's thoughts except for the NYC part. NYC has been the biggest city for quite some time in the U.S. That would mean there are going to be a lot of NYC mentions on this page, which I don't think is necessary. Lump it in with the other major cities. If it happens to be the first one, then it's listed. For southern cities, I would describe it as "First AA mayor of a city in a state where slavery was once legal." As suggested earlier, I would define "major" as an established organization would. If the U.S. Census Bureau has a definition, we could just use that. 1mil seems a bit too big but I could be wrong. Zepppep (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than "a state where slavery was once legal", it might be more meaningful to describe the distinction as either "a state that was part of the former Confederacy" or at least something along the lines of "a state in which slavery was legal at the beginning of the Civil War" to avoid casting a wider net than intended. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I think we're in agreement with the spirit. The exact wording might just need some refinement. Zepppep (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sports

"First African American Wimbledon tennis champion: Althea Gibson (doubles, with Englishwoman Angela Buxton); also first African American to win a Grand Slam event (French Open)" is listed; why do champions for the Aussie Open or U.S. Open not appear? Or is it because someone likes Wimbledon better, or is it because someone might argue "winning Wimbledon is more notable," in which case he or she is letting his/her opinion dictate the contents of the article, rather than say, a list of criteria determined by consensus? (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Very valid points. If the "first" for one of the four tennis majors is listed, then the other three must also be listed. Either they all qualify or none of them qualify. And should it include doubles, also? For the Olympics, some editors have been insisting that gold medals for individual sports are not to be included; that only first gold in each Olympics (Summer and Winter) should be allowed. Well, if that's the case then why are these two listings for Don Barksdale on the list: "First African American on an Olympic basketball team" and "First African-American Olympic gold medal basketball winner"? If the first on a basketball team is included, why not the first on a swimming team, gymnastics team, water polo team, ski team, skeet shooting team, hockey team, etc.? And if the first gold for basketball, why not the first gold for every other sport? Very contradictory. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

These are good questions. I don't know if Wimbledon is a pinnacle championship, the way the Indianapolis 500 or the Daytona 500 are in auto racing. I concur with both editors above (the first one is unsigned) that these tennis events' inclusion needs to be discussed.

BTW, I would point out, despite the anon IPs tone throughout, that none of these contradictions are the result of bad faith or bad planning. They are, as in virtually any list compiled piecemeal, the result of no planning and of outlines becoming clear only through months and years of trial, error and discussion, such as we're having now.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph under this subsection was not unsigned. See the first paragraph under this current thread, "Inconsistencies" to see who wrote the first paragraph for all subsections under this thread. Additionally, this specific subsection is about the sports section -- general comments, which the above paragraphs seems to be, should be written after the 8th subsection, titled "entertainment". Wimbledon is one of four tennis majors -- there is a ton of respect for it as well as the other three majors. Re: the paragraph which seems to be focusing on weaknesses find throughout the entire article, not just listings related to sports...Discussion is a completely rationale way about deciding on items which may be contentious, unclear (that is, somewhere between the lines), or a new field that will cause the article to grow. However, discussion is more cumbersome than a visitor to the page who can clearly read for themselves what the criteria are for inclusion. Think: "an ounce of prevential is worth a pound of cure." Or use WP's own MoS as an example. WP could let people create articles using their own standards, then hash out differences on the talk page and wait for consensus to be reached. Or, they could do what they've actually done: created a MoS and asked all articles to adhere to it. It's a much better way about going about things. It allows editors to focus on articles, not on holding daily or weekly discussions to discuss the latest one-word quip or sentenced or emotionally-charged word to an article. Lists need to have a well-defined criteria for inclusion; those that don't have contributions made in good faith by users reverted by editors who may also be acting in good faith; may have edit warring because a lot of opinion is used to keep or remove something from the list rather than directing a user to something concrete; and both edit wars and a poor lead will never allow this article to reach FLC status. Zepppep (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor above who said, "I don't know if Wimbledon is a pinnacle championship, the way the Indianapolis 500 or the Daytona 500 are in auto racing" apparently isn't much of a tennis fan. Haha. But Wimbledon is not only a pinnacle championship, it is widely regarded as the pinnacle event in professional tennis. But it doesn't really matter where it ranks among the four majors because the point is that, encylopedically, all four (Wimbledon, U.S. Open, French Open and Australian Open) are totally equal. So we cannot say it's acceptable to list the first Wimbldeon winner, but not the first winner of the other three. So we either list the first AA winner of a major (regardless of which one it was) or we list the first winner of each of the majors. I say that all four should be included because they're all equally part of the grand slam. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, maybe you should just sign the opening paragraph of each subsection so no one will be confused as to who wrote them. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did it, per you and Tenebrae's advice. 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Zepppep (talk)

If Wimbledon "is widely regarded as the pinnacle event in professional tennis" then by definition "all four (Wimbledon, U.S. Open, French Open and Australian Open)" cannot be totally equal: Pinnacle means "the highest point." So it's either a pinnacle event, with three others, or the pinnacle event. It can't be both. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedically, they are equal. They are the four majors. Of the four, Wimbledon is regarded as the top prize, the one players want most. Stop the condescension. I don't need you reciting the definition of pinnacle to me. It can be both, but in different contexts. But the only context I care about here is an encylopedic context. Whoever said that Wimbledon is not a pinnacle tennis event clearly doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If Wimbledon is "the top prize," then by definition it is above other tennis prizes. This is a matter of basic grammar. "Encyclopedically, they are equal" cannot be true if mathematically and grammatically they are not. I'd like to know what "encyclopedically" means in this context.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment clearly stated "top prize" with regard to which one players want most. If you truly don't understand the difference between the subjective feelings of the clear majority who consider Wimbledon the top prize in tennis (players, fans and the media) vs. the objective ranking process by the ATP and WTA which establishes the equality of what they designed as "majors," then there's no point in anyone trying to educate you on it. As previously stated, this article should list either the first A-A to win a tennis major (regardless of which one it was) or the first A-A winner of each of the four majors. It's a pretty simple and completely fair and logical concept. But your desire to pick and choose which item or items within a particular category is most worthy of inclusion over all others - such as your desire to favor Harvard and Yale over all other colleges in the country - is unnaceptable for an encylopedia. I will not participate in any further discussions regarding this particular issue or your advocacy for favortism. These topics have already been explained to you far more than was necessary. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder, let's stay civil. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the reason why Wimbledon was listed was because of one or both of the following reasons: 1) it is the oldest major of the 4, 2) it may have been the first major an AA won a match, was allowed in an event, or won a championship. I do not think we can read a player's mind as to which of the 4 majors "the players want most." The listing should reflect the first AA to be allowed to play in a tennis major (just like Robinson was the first to play in the MLB, not "first to win a game as a member of the MLB"; if champion is what is to be considered, then Larry Doby beats him), with an additional listing for the first champion of any of the four majors (and if the first came at a time when there was only 1, 2, or 3 majors, then state it so). If either of the two (appearance, champion) should happen to occur at Wimbledon--great. But the listing, no matter where a player was allowed to play or win, should be first of the 4 majors - otherwise I think we're going to need to least all 4 which I don't think is necessary. The Aussie Open was last to be considered a major, in 1905, while Wimby was first in 1877, so there have not always been 4. But I would venture to say no AA was allowed to compete that far back. Zepppep (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! For encylopedic purposes, as you stated, we cannot "read a player's mind as to which of the 4 majors the players want most." Although it's common knowledge among tennis fans that Wimbledon is clearly felt to be the the biggest of the four. Coincidentally, Forbes just published this article about the topic recently. Nevertheless, we cannot single out Wimbledon as the only major worthy of inclusion. I was simply pointing out that Wimbledon is a huge tournament, contrary to what another editor was implying. Anyway, we should list either the first AA to win a major (any of the majors) OR list the first winner of each of the 4 majors. But we can't say we're going to list the first winner of one particular tournament, but not the first winner of the other three.

There are currently 3 "first" listings for tennis majors:

• First African American Wimbledon tennis champion: Althea Gibson (doubles, with Englishwoman Angela Buxton)
• First African American to win a Grand Slam event (French Open) (also Althea Gibson)
• First African-American man to win a Grand Slam tennis event: Arthur Ashe (US Open)

So we have the first man and woman to win a major (Gibson and Ashe), which is totally fine. But the one for first Wimbledon champion changes things. Once you single out the first winner of a particular major, then you have to list the first winner of the other three majors. Because we can't have favortism; all 4 are majors. So we should either allow the Wimbledon listing to stay and allow the first AA winner of the other 3 majors to be listed OR we should remove the Wimbledon listing.

FYI, we also have these 5 tennis firsts on the list:

• First African American to hold the #1 rank in tennis: Venus Williams
• First African American to hold the year-end #1 rank in tennis: Serena Williams
• First African American to be named year-end world champion by the International Tennis Federation: Serena Williams
• First African American to win a Career Grand Slam in tennis: Serena Williams
• First African-American doubles team to be named year-end world champion by the International Tennis Federation: Serena and Venus Williams

Do you think all 5 of those are necessary or worthy of inclusion? Or is it going overboard? Where do we draw the line?

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of these belong here. Winning a championship is about one's one skill and abilities — it has nothing to do with being the first to break the color barrier that gives future generations the chance to win championships. Jackie Robinson is the first Af-Am to play in modern-day Major League Baseball. The first Af-Am to break a home-run record, or to play for a championship team, is a different matter altogether. To put it another way (and only using this as an example, not saying we should include this), the first Af-Am allowed to PLAY Wimbledon is significant in a way that the first to WIN Wimbledon is not.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your opening sentence. Fans of the Williams sisters seem to have gotten a bit carried away. But I only partially agree with your argument. Depending on circumstances, including time and place, either the first contestant or the first champion – or both, of course – may have lasting impact, each in their own way. The first contestant is a trailblazer; the first champion is an inspiration. For a group that has been oppressed for centuries (and for others who may be accustomed to viewing the group as inferior), both have value and significance. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First player to qualify should be listed for sure. I am OK with a limited number of first "winners," namely because there were some who argued the skill (and others who argued a whole lot more) of a black athlete was not up to par with that of their white competitors. I might agree with some of your argument, Tenebrae, but baseball is a team sport and it's a completely different can of worms than individual sports like tennis or golf. The first winner of a golf major may not have occurred at The Masters in Augusta, GA, but even if that was true, I would still list the first AA of the Masters, on the basis of the player having numerous rights denied to them within the state where the tournament is played, and secondly because for years, blacks and minorities were not eligible to participate in the tournament (or even play the course) and indeed, a win at that course would be considered notable and historic. For the 5 listings above, I could only go with the first one being listed, as the no.-1 ranking is well-mentioned in the sport and of significance. For other tennis firsts, should only mention first AA to qualify, first AA to win a major, and first AA that may have participated in any tournaments/courts/associations that had a long/notable history of racism/policies in place aimed at preventing the participation of blacks. Zepppep (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The two of you have brought to light the fundamental debate that has caused so much confusion with editors about this article, which is: What exactly is this article/list supposed to be about? What is supposed to be on it? Is it about firsts for participating in a particular field? Firsts for winning something in a particular field? Firsts for just doing something? Only firsts that have a giant impact on future A-A's in that field? Tenebrae just said, very clearly, that he doesn't think any of the tennis championships belong on the list ("I don't think any of these belong here") because they're not about breaking the color barrier and therefore do not help future players to do the same. His implication is that "winning" any type of championship or award based on "skill and abilities" should not be listed, and that what's important is those who were the first to participate in a particular field. As an example, he implies that being the first to play in a sport (tennis) is worthy of inclusion, but that being the first to win something within that sport (Wimbledon) is not worthy. If that's the criteria, then why are any of these firsts on the list, all which were achieved because of the person's skill and abilities: boxing championship, pulitzer prize, Olympic gold medal, various acting awards (Academy, Grammy, Tony, Emmy), Heisman Trophy, Nascar race, chess championship, and all the others that contain the word "win" in them? Those firsts were all earned as a result of skill and ability. Fat&Happy counters with the viewpoint that both first for partipating and winning should be included on the list; that the firsts to participate in something are trailblazers, and the firsts to win something are inspirations. So who's right? What's this list about? Where do you draw the lines for each field? By the way, I agree that there's an unnecessary Williams Sisters fan club within the list. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would draw a distinction between winning a sports event on purely one's skill and abilities, and winning an award based certainly on skill and ability just to reach that point of consideration — but then skill and ability no longer matters and it becomes a matter of societal acceptance. An invitation to the club, as it were. Getting voted on to win the Pulitzer, the Oscar, etc. is not the matter of intrinsic ability that getting the nomination might be — it's bestowed externally. Jackie Robinson's skills may have been no better than many of those in the Negro Leagues — but it was the external acceptance, the external invitation, to join the Majors that signaled a sea change in what white society would accept. Same with white society bestowing the first Oscar, Emmy or other prizes. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has raised strong questions -- not the first time the ambiguous criteria for this article was questioned. As I've stated before, the questions asked by the IP and the comments left by Tenebrae are valid. Also I've stated before, the above comments are the main reason I do not think it is wise to use an example of Jackie Robinson in the lead, as he was the first black player to be signed to a MLB ball team. He broke the color barrier by being signed -- not by winning subsequent NL MVP awards or NL pennants or World Series. It gives the reader an impression that is different from what they'll find in the listings that follow. The article lists tennis players who've won, but not the first to be admitted to play or recognized by the ATP/WTA and thus allowed entry into a tournament. It lists black athlete's who've won a medal, but not the first allowed to join the local IOC team of the U.S. (Team USA). When the first black actor was allowed on film in a non-type cast role, a color barrier was broken. When the first black actor was nominated for a major award, a color barrier was broken. When the first black actor won a major award, a color barrier was broken. But by using Robinson as an example to define the entire contents of an article which has ambiguous inclusion criteria, the example is misleading. Zepppep (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet Jackie Robinson's breaking of baseball's color barrier is the single most famous example of this in the world. I think we're in danger of missing the forest for the trees.

On another topic, in answer to Zep's question on my talk page, 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". --Tenebrae (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

More famous an example than Crispus Attucks or Barack Obama? Zepppep (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Few people today know Crispus Attucks. And Barack Obama's historic achievement came at a time when African-Americans were already heads of corporations and held major government positions like Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whereas Robinson's came at a time when African-Americans often couldn't use the same water fountains as white people, and had to ride in the back of the bus. Robinson was revolutionary, Obama was evolutionary. And the fact remains that Jackie Robinson's breaking of the color barrier is a story every schoolboy knows and as much a part of the American heroic legend as the flagraising at Iwo Jima and John Glenn's orbiting the earth. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, your comments were not removed (perhaps against protocol and etiquette to put them in a new, appropriate thread, I can agree). They were put in a new thread as what you were commenting on did not have anything to do with sports. However, I can see that my comments have indeed been removed. Re-insert them. Zepppep (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The only comments of yours that I saw was the line at 02:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) above. I did not see any other comments of yours and I did not see where you moved my comments. Perhaps we were editing at the same time and there was an edit-conflict that accidentally erased something. Regardless, I don't know anything about any comments of yours other than the line I just cited above. On a related point, and forgive my being blunt, it's not up to you to decide where it's "appropriate" for me to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you saw my comments are not, they were there. And forgive me for being blunt, you can check the page log and see for yourself (I should know as I copied and pasted the text onto the thread, opened for a second time). I have admitted I moved your comment, and while that may be against "protocol", I can only hope you would see my actions were in WP:Good faith and did not alter your text in any way, shape, or form -- let alone completely removed it. If you'd like to get back to talking content, I have opened a new thread for the second time and left comments there. I invite you to take a look. Zepppep (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't talk about "good faith" when you have clearly refused to show good faith after I told you, absolutely truthfully, that I did not in any way, shape or form knowingly or deliberately remove your comments. If I didn't see where you have moved them way, way down the page when I hit undo, that's hardly earthshaking or worthy of your accusations, since no reasonable editor would have assumed that anybody had moved them or that there was any need to look for them. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to stay objective and keep the talk page for discussion of the article. Cheers. Zepppep (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Time-lapse break

Now that the pro wrestling discussion has ended, the next item of business is in regards to listings dealing with sports. Items to be tackled include what inclusion criteria, if any, should be applied to athletes who might be listed on the article. Examples of above events include notability of majors (i.e., should the first of any majors be listed, or only the one which may be considered the pinnacle (and how "pinnacle" would be defined); listings in regards to Olympics (should the first winner of a particular sport be listed, and if so, which sports and how are the sports categorized (individual, group, etc.), and to what degree are qualifying for the Olympics, winning a medal, and winning a gold medal incorporated into inclusion criteria); specific questions regarding Don Barksdale and Gabby Douglas and whether their accomplishments should be listed in this article; which leagues/associations should be considered "notable;" and any other issues regarding sports users might like to bring up. I will list my preferences, in hopes of getting responses to specifics from others but by no means are the following comprehensive:

Majors The first qualifying of a major and the first winner of a major. I prefer not to denote any one major as the more notable than another. This would likely be difficult to ascertain. Determining importance based upon purse size or starting year of the tournament does not necessarily equate to the "top" major, IMO. Sometimes "top" might simply be the event which is during a certain week of the year where there isn't much else on TV. Zepppep (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's meant by "majors" in this context. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Majors would refer to the majors of tennis and golf, men's and women's. These are specific tournaments (some golf majors rotate courses, others are fixed; all tennis major tournament sponsors are fixed). Grand Slam (tennis) and Men's major golf championships/Women's major golf championships. Zepppep (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So it'd be the first to qualify for each of the (don't know the number; let's say) four tennis majors, men and woman? Or, as I suspect you mean, the first Af-Am man and the first Af-Am woman to qualify for a major for the first time. (So, two entries for tennis, two entries for golf, etc.)? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The latter suspicion is correct. Two entries total for tennis (men's and women's), two for golf (there 4 majors for each sport). Zepppep (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Olympics First to qualify for individual and team sports for both summer and winter Olympics. First to win a medal -- if it happened to be a gold, great, but silver and bronze winners could also potentially be listed. Male and female categories. Do not wish to include coaches. Zepppep (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling what Zep means is the first Af-Am ever in an Olympic individual sport, and the first ever in an Olympic team sport, for winter and summer games, and for men and women: A total of eight entries. I could certainly see a separate and potentially quite useful article called "List of African-American Olympic firsts" that could encompass each sport. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct. First to qualify, winter and summer, man and woman, for a total of eight. Zepppep (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Totally down with that. F&H? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that this seems to be a restatement of the understanding most editors here had about the Olympics all along, I can't see a problem. As a corollary, it looks like this would mean getting rid of Barksdale's Olympic entry, but the college All-American designation doesn't fall into any of the areas discussed. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, given that the only three editors here still discussing this all seem to be in agreement on the Olympics and the majors, are we good to go on making these edits? (The college bowl stuff is out of my league . . . so to speak!) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should clearly list the edits we're approving first? The last time a generally phrased OK to go ahead was proposed, the resulting deletions seemed to exceed those covered by the consensus, and after restoring some I was criticized for not making a timely objection. I prefer not to so blatantly make the same mistakes twice.

Barksdale can be deleted for the one Olympics entry (basketball team and gold medal). I think that's the only Olympics adjustment. What needs to change for the "majors"? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking specifically about Barksdale or Douglas, or any specific Olympic athlete, is a bit unnecessary, IMO. Would rather set criteria and let whichever athlete qualifies, be listed. Listings may be notable but may not necessarily be the first, thus, it would be suspect to include in this article. (Creating a separate one, however, might be OK...such as "notable athletic A-A achievements"). Zepppep (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Leagues/assoc. Notable events for the big four North American sports, as well as others which may be determined on a case-by-case basis (such as boxing, soccer, NCAA or others). Coaches/managers shall be included. Being the first for some sports/leagues is not notable, so would not list it. Zepppep (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple more considerations in regard to college sports might be:

• Location I. If, e.g., the first AA to play football for an NCAA Division I school attended the University of Illinois, it's certainly notable for this list. But the first to play for, say, the University of Mississippi – even if twenty years later – is probably also worthy of mention for the breakdown of historical barriers involved.
• Location II. I haven't checked the existing listings, but if we can ascertain the first so-called "historically black" university to play in a major bowl game or championship tournament, or possibly even to play a regular-season game against a non-historically-black school, I think that is worthy of mention.

Fat&Happy (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

HBCUs typically don't compete at the Div. I-A level, which are the only teams eligible for bowl games (FBS). I would therefore question whether the incident was notable as typically lower level football games don't garner much attention, regional or national. I could be convinced otherwise if strong evidence, such as representation in reliable sources and a search engine test were presented, however. Zepppep (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's getting late here so I only had a couple of minutes and didn't check it too carefully, but this looks like it might have some useful information to be a starting point of where to look... Fat&Happy (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This blog talks about the history of bowl games between two HCBUs; is there any color line being broken here? Zepppep (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A color line similar to the one that was broken by the first AA church or the first college owned by African Americans? The most promising possibility there may be the Pelican Bowl, which in 1972 seems to finally have become the first bowl game for HBCUs sanctioned by the NCAA. I'm not enough of a sports addict to know offhand what sort of championships existed for Div II teams in basketball, the other historically major U.S. college sport, or things like baseball or track. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need to keep out of this bowl discussion; outside of the most general outlines, I don't know enough about the topic to comment. I'm happy with whatever editors decide. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A color line as in a minority being allowed entry into the field once exclusively kept for the majority only. Allowing two HCBU schools to play against each other in a bowl game doesn't seem like much of a barrier was broken—more like a barrier was reinforced. Additionaly, I would argue such a bowl game would not be notable, at least notable enough to warrant inclusion into this article. I would argue nothing from the Div II levels of basketball is notable (on a dedicated article for sports, sure). Now Eddie Robinson being the all-time winningest Div I football coach? That is notable, even if the school he coached at wasn't considered a powerhouse in the big picture. But the wording to reflect inclusion into this article would have to be something like "first to 400 wins" or something (which off the top of my head I don't know if he was actually first; on the other hand, with some of Paterno's being erased and Bowden not quite at 400 I don't think, then he might be the only one to amass 400, which makes the wording pointless). The first black athlete allowed to join a Div I-A football squad, or first coach, etc.? Those would be notable. I seem to recall something significant happening at the Univ of Buffalo. Zepppep (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for particular firsts is due to the color line being broken. A black athlete (tennis player, for example) who is able to participate in a tournament once exclusively for non-blacks reveals a barrier being broken. Similarly, that same player winning the tournament, or assuming the world no.-1 ranking does not reveal a color line being broken; it does, however, show that despite attempts in the past to limit blacks from participation, indeed the playing field has been leveled and black athletes are able to compete at the highest levels of competition and perform as well, if not better, than their peers of a different hue. An athlete (specifically, a black athlete) winning a particularly notable event may warrant inclusion on this list, but I would argue the number of those events that have the notability required for inclusion would be rather few (far fewer than what is currently listed). What I would propose to other editors is more so of the line of participation being broken, rather than any accomplishments an individual may have made along the way. The first black coach to lead an NFL team reveals a color line being broken; the first black coach to make a Super Bowl appearance, I would argue, is not, at least for an article that is not specifically about sports firsts.

The example used in the lead (Robinson) is notable not for Robinson later winning a NL MVP or the Dodgers winning a WS, but simply because he was allowed to sign a contract with a major league club. If Robinson had turned out to be a flop, it is possible his example wouldn't be used in the lead (as he would likely not be as well remembered) but he would nevertheless still be the breaker of the color line. Zepppep (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Media

"First African-American woman reporter for The New York Times: Nancy Hicks Maynard" appears; is that because one has argued the publication is distributed on a national level? What about other newspapers that are delivered nationally, such as the Chicago Tribune or Wall Street Journal? Is it because New York is considered a major city? What if a small town in the hills of Tennessee had the nation's first AA woman reporter at their town newspaper? What if an editor wanted to add The Los Angeles Times, would they have their edits reverted because of something that points to a well-defined list of criteria, expressed in the article or the lead, or would an editor have to always keep their eyes open for additions like this and then explain it to the editor via edit summary? The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Historians, academics and the vast majority of journalists consider The New York Times to be the nation's paper of record. It has nothing to do with its distribution.

The first Af-Am at a newspaper not owned or run by Af-Ams would be, I would think, historic and noteworthy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the rationale you used in the "municipal government" subsection, then, we better get prepared for a whole ton of newspapers to be added to the list. And keep in mind the largest "handful," "10" or "3" cities, well, several of them have multiple publications in the same city. Also, because this article has the 25th largest city's mayor listed, that would mean at least an additional 24 publications would be OK to add to the article. Of course, as mentioned, roughly double that if one wants to include the cities which have multiple publications. Zepppep (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of folks who think the NYT is nothing but hogwash. There are lots of folks who think historians, academics, and a vast majority of journalists are nothing but leftist crazies -- socialists, even. Would this article be able to withstand a NPOV test, then? Also, the first AA columnist, editor, or editor-in-chief would be far more notable than a reporter. Also, there are lots of publications very well respected by various groups of people, including other historians, academics and "vast" majority of journalists. First reporters, editors, and editors-in-chief for the WSJ, LAT, ChiTrib, ChiSunTimes, WaPo, SFChronicle and several others are expected to be added to the list. Zepppep (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep pretty much stated everything I was thinking. So I won't comment further on this category. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a political debate on a Wikipedia page. Whether someone thinks academics and historians are "leftist crazies" — and that's a meaninglessly broad tar brush, given the wide range of academics and historians — the fact is there is a historical hierarchy among publications: You can't lump The New York Times and Dog Fancy together.

In any case, given the fact we have a long-stable article, two editors getting together and throwing out aspects of it for political reasons, or conversely throwing in "a whole ton of newspaper," would be considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

For what amounts to a major change to a stable article, there has to be broad consensus, and that means far more than two editors agreeing on it. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As you can see Zep, Tenebrae is back to his old ways. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment

There are at least 6 listings pertaining to professional wrestling. Is this because professional wrestling is at the core of American culture, and thus, the firsts in this field are critical? Or is it because an editor fell asleep at the wheel, or because an editor with good intentions added these but added these simply because the present day lead/criteria allows them to, and thus, nearly every single addition is decided by an editor's review or talk page discussion, rather than users/editors referring to a well-defined list of criteria? (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Great points. Actually, there are 10 firsts for professional wrestling on the current list; all of them for the fictional accomplishments of a character within a script. And your point is perfect by putting pro wrestling in the Entertainment category. That's exactly what they are - entertainers. (WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment.) Pro wrestlers are acting out a script exactly as actors do in a TV show, movie or stage play do. Bill Cosby could be on the list as the First AA to have a self-named sitcom (if it were true), but his character on The Cosby Show, Cliff Huxtable, could not be on the list as the First AA Ob/Gyn. Firsts for the actors within their industry are of course totally acceptable, but firsts for the characters they portray are not. One is real-life, the other is not. For example, it would be totally acceptable to include Carl Weathers as the First AA to win an Academy Award (if it were true), but definitely not acceptable to list his character Apollo Creed as the First AA to win a professional boxing title. This rule should be exactly the same for actors in the pro wrestling industry. But it isn't. For example, there is a current listing for the "First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox". But none of that is real. Fox is simply a fictional character portrayed by actress Victoria Crawford. Crawford plays the role of Fox, and the script called for that character to be the Diva's Champion. All of the current pro wrestling firsts need to be removed. A listing for the First AA actor in professional wrestling (or similar title) would be fine, though. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the pro wrestling entries can be pared down, certainly, although — as I believe Zep suggests in the unsigned post — it occupies too large a place in American culture to be simply ignored. As for its being scripted, one might argue that the choice to script an Af-Am champion is as significant as the choice to script an interracial kiss. That would be the comparison — not, absurdly, that it's equivalent to claiming the fictional Dr. Huxtable is a real Ob/Gyn. I don't think the editors who added the pro wrestlers thought for a moment that modern pro wresting isn't scripted — discussion of the scripts is a major part of pro wrestling fandom.

That said, and as I've said before, I believe anyone who feels this is of great concern should call for an RfC to calmly and cooly discuss which categories to keep and which to delete, and to include in the discussion those editors who added the pro wrestling categories. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(Not unsigned. These subsections are all part of one thread.) So why hasn't an axe been taken to any of the 10 professional wrestling listings but has consistently been applied to Olympic athletes? Let me attempt to make what I wrote in this subsection's paragraph crystal clear so my comments are not misconstrued: professional wrestling is not of enough cultural importance in the U.S. to permit 10 listings. Furthermore, any firsts for professional wrestling would be debatable at best for being either historic or notable. One mention may very well be acceptable; 10? No. I would support Rfc. Zepppep (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was leaving this response to Zep but another editor and I were editing at the same time, so I'm adding it here now.

A couple of notes first, in response to a couple of your points. First, each post should be signed, if they're going to be in separate sections. Second, why hasn't an axe been taken? As I'd said earlier, because this, like many lists. are put together piecemeal and consensus standards evolve over months and years. It's not like a concerted effort was made to undermine the encyclopedic quality of the list by including them. They were included, no one to my knowledge objected or, perhaps, noticed. It's no big deal. That's what discussions like this are for.

As I've noted, I agree with you that 10 categories are far too many. Zep, since you've been outside the contentious back-and-forth between the anon IP and myself, why don't you up the RfC about whether pro wrestling should be included and if so with which categories and why. I think having you do it rather than either of us would just seem more neutral. Start it in a new section below, and I'll support the effort 100%.

Sorry Tenebrae, but RfC is not meant to be used when absolutely no strong reasons are given for one side of an issue, as is the case with pro wrestling. RfC is used when there are good arguments on both sides of an issues and consensus can't be reached. Of course, we still have yet to hear even a single good reason why pro wrestling should be included. We appear, therefore, to be at a point of consensus. If you want to have a separate list for pro wrestling only, go for it. But they cannot be mixed with serious, real-life firsts. And funny how you call my Cosby/Huxtable example absurd when it is precisely what is being done with all of the wrestling listings. Is Alicia Fox real? Did the actor who plays Fox really earn a "title" or did the script assign it to her character? And I never advocated for the first interracial kiss being on the list. Show us the proof of that claim. Nice try. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said you advocated for the first interracial kiss. It's frustrating to work with someone who continually infers things that aren't there and who then make outrageous claims and accusations and say things like "Nice try." Calm down, please, and let's use language and tone suitable for adults beyond the age of 18. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If Zep wants to call an RfC, that's his right. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing us of our rights. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From WP:RFC If the issue is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask a third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. You two may seek a third opinion if you wish, but Rfc doesn't qualify. I have no problem with Bill Cosby appearing on the list; I have no problem with potentially one professional wrestling mention, perhaps two if male and female were separate categories, and although I had to say it, comic book firsts. This opens up a whole nother can of worms: in addition to other lists, such as List of first African-American mayors, this particular article we're discussing right now should really be defined as real humans beings. If someone wants to set up a list for fictional characters, such as comic book characters, that's fine with me -- but otherwise, I have a feeling we're going to start getting a bunch of comic book additions. And the main reason for that would be because there is no specific criteria for inclusion. If, however, the criteria was written in a way that made it clear the list could not be populated by 10 professional wrestling mentions (and maybe soon, 20) or 50 comic book mentions, then I would be all for it! Zepppep (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, did you catch what Zep said? "Rfc doesn't qualify." And Zep, this isn't between just two editors. Mcusa and I are strongly opposed, you are opposed (other than now saying you'd support maybe one or two), and even Tenebrae said four times yesterday that he's "not wild" about the wrestling inclusions and that he "might even" oppose them. But he continues to refuse to simply take a specific position. And Zep, when you say you have no problem with the Bill Cosby inclusion, what are you referring to? You mean being the first AA to have a self-named TV show? That was purely an example to show what would be acceptable and what wouldn't. Haha. I don't know if he really is the first to have a self-named show. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so if 4 agree that 10 should be reduced to a lesser number, and at least 2 strongly oppose inclusion whatsoever, what's next? Can we get working on reducing that number or do more hoops need to be jumped through? (Respectively, of course.) Thank you for bringing up the Cosby reference and your questions. Allow me to clarify my position: Halle Berry followed a script. Now, the Academy Award she won was not pre-scripted; she won that, let's hope, for her on-screen performance compared against her peers. Professional wrestlers are different from actors, I understand -- but to what degree. As funny as wrestling might be, it is entertainment. The audience is taken along for the ride just like audiences watching a TV show, at a concert, etc. The producers, screen play writers, etc. associated with the movie know the outcome, just like those involved with professional wrestling. Who is to say that professional wrestling doesn't have at least one notable or historic first? Did it influence society? Did it open some eyes to some people regarding AA that may have had their eyes closed at once? I don't know. But I am OK with listing the first fictional characters for various fields. I would be OK with listing the first professional wrestler signed to a contract. I would not be OK with the first AA pro wrestling "champion" of a pro wrestling series, tournament, etc. as, as you've mentioned numerous times, the outcome is already pre-determined. The athlete/actor went through an interview process (to what standards, I don't know) just like athletes and actors on the list did, so the fact that someone was hired by a professional wrestling company is worthy of inclusion in my eyes. That would be about the only thing I could see getting on the article, however; everything else would have to be on some sort of "fictional AA firsts" article that does not yet exist. I could support a max of 2 pro wrestling mentions on this article, male and female mentions would = 2. Zepppep (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now we're totally on the same page! :) It's all about real-life accomplishments vs. scripted ones. With regard to pro wrestling, I have absolutely no problem at all, as I said, with including the major real-life firsts of the actors in the pro wrestling entertainment industry. What I am adamantly opposed to is listing the scripted firsts of their characters. So the example you mentioned (First AA professional wrestler signed to a contract) would be totally fine because that is a real-life accomplishment; the actor/performer actually signed a contract to work in that industry. But I of course agree with you that all the firsts for the assigned, "titles" (World Heavyweight Champion, Diva Champion, Tag-team champion, etc.) do not qualify because they're obviously pre-determined, choreographed, pretend titles assigned by writers and producers. You mentioned Halle Berry. Yes, Halle Berry, the actress, won (earned) the Academy Award for her profession; the character she played in the film did not. Her award was not a scripted or make-believe event. If you look at all the current wrestling listings, all of them are for scripted/imaginary accomplishments:

• First African-American male professional wrestler to win a world heavyweight championship: Bobo Brazil (NWA)
• First African-American wrestling manager: Slick
• First African American General Manager for World Wrestling Entertainment: Theodore Long
• First African-American Extreme Championship Wrestling champion: Bobby Lashley
• First African-American female professional wrestler to win the NWA World Women's Championship: Amazing Kong
• First African-American WWE Tag Team Champion: Tony Atlas (partnered with Rocky Johnson, a Black Nova Scotian)
• First tag team made up of two African Americans to win the WWE Tag Team Championship: Men on a Mission (Nelson Frazier, Jr., aka Mabel, and Robert Horne, aka Mo)
• First African American to win the WWE Championship: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
• First African American to win the WWE Women's Championship: Jacqueline Moore
• First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox

The one that should be on there, as you indicated, is the "First AA male (and female) to sign a professional wrestling contract". But no firsts for any "championship titles." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't mean anything that other editors with this page on their watchlists may not want to wade into what's been a fairly uncivil debate due to one taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse. They tend to wait for something formal, where there's a modicum of oversight. Frankly, to start talking about wholesale changes to one aspect of this article without asking the editors who added that material to be involved in the discussion . . . well, that seems about par for 76, but I can't image that Mcusa or Zep feels that's right or proper.

OK. I still have work to do tonight so I can't get to this till tomorrow at the earliest, but to be fair to other editors who've worked hard on this article, I'll go to the trouble of asking for a Request for Comment about the propriety of pro wrestling firsts in this article, and I'll notify past editors.

I don't personally believe we need all 10 pro wrestling categories. But what I can't seem to get through to you is that other editors do believe they belong, and their opinions, though I may disagree with them, have stood the test of time. No one reverted them and no one commented on them for months or possibly years, which is de facto agreement on their propriety. It's not like this isn't an actively edited article.

I imagine this will be met with jeers and taunts from 76, but corny as it sounds, show some respect for the process and show respect for other editors' views — even those of the pro-wrestling guys. Tomorrow we'll invite them and others here, hopefully have a wide variety of opinions, and that's how you build consensus for major changes. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What?? You call me a "taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse" and then follow-up with "show some respect"? Are you kidding me? Zep, you see this? We're moving along and this guy comes in here and starts attacking. If that's where you want to go Tenebrat, you got it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good move, Tenebrae. I do hope others weigh in. When I posted "inclusion criteria (broad)", I solicited opinions from about 6-8 WikiProjects but thus far, have not seen any new users. Zepppep (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall comments to this thread only

I would consider professional writing (which would appear in a book-form encyclopedia) to list "firsts" in a more categorical way, rather than with a narrow description as is currently found on this article. For example, my hope is for this article to go to "First AA graduate of a major college/university: ___" rather than its current "First graduate of Yale/Harvard/, etc." I would expect "First AA to serve on a state supreme court bench: ___ " rather than "First AA to serve on Massachusetts Supreme Court." The above inconsistencies were noted by Zepppep (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

I agree 100%. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the article to see which firsts don't really fit into any current category in this thread. They include: Judicial, Military, Publishing (authors, publishers, comic books, etc.), Religion, Careers (business, law, medicine, law enforcement, etc.)? Maybe Media could become combined as Media and Publishing? Whatever others thinks is best is fine with me. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I wasn't conclusive. This article has multiple issues, not only the ones most recently listed and categorized. Judicial into whatever level of gov't it applies (I listed municipal, state and federal); I didn't even get into the military -- there are whole lot of "firsts" I'm not sure if they belong or not; publishing would go into media (above); I put law enforcement into municipal as that is what police are part of. The others, have at it! Right now I think we have enough on our plate but if you want to dive deeper, be bold! I'm more inclined to build off of what has been started and continue to pursue actions on items which I think are bigger (i.e., lack of inclusion criteria). Zepppep (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best is great with me. I just figured that for any future disputes, editors can always refer to this thread for more guidance on a particular "first" to see if it qualifies for inclusion. The ones I mentioned have lots of entries on the current list. You guys can make the call. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This has already been raised up-page, but let me reiterate: IMO, criminal firsts should not be omitted. If there's to be a complete picture, good & bad must be covered. (I wouldn't leave Meyer Lansky off a list of notable Jews, or Adolf Hitler off a list of notable Austrians, frex.) We're taking no position on the value of the achievement, only its significance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TREKphiler. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Who the said criminal firsts should be omitted?? Funny, the only one who wants to take positions on the value of things is Tenebrat... Harvard and Yale, NYC and LA, and countless others? Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)