Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Racism as fact

While Zwarte Piet may be perceived as racist, and its racial stereotype may be problematic, there is a problem with labelling Zwarte Piet as a factually racist tradition. This follows from two issues.

(1) The Netherlands is an EU country. The EU has explicitly banned racism, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: "Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality." The Netherlands has underwritten this, which means that Dutch courts have to act against racism if the case is convincingly brought to court as such.

(2) There have been several such cases, and while many courts have ruled that the Zwarte Piet is probably offensive, none have actually labelled it as (proven) racist. The article very follows this by using phrases like "perceived as racist" etcetera.

So far so good. No problem. However, the article is also added to categories labelled "Racism in Europe" and "Anti-black racism", where this essential nuance is utterly absent. Without actual evidence that this is a racist tradition we should not put Zwarte Piet in a category together with organizations like Klu Klux Klan that have been repeatedly convicted in criminal court. Arnoutf (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand why this might be problematic for some people, but the fact is that close to (or possibly more than?) half the article currently deals with accusations of racism. Whether or not you find those accusations to be legitimate is beside the point. Golliwog and Tar-Baby are in similar categories, even though some might deny these are racist. Yes, the KKK is in Category:Anti-black racism but so is The Road Taken, and Representation of African Americans in media is in a sub-category. Similarly, Social situation in the French_suburbs is in Category:Racism in France. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, discrimination based on race might be illegal, but as far as I know, having racist opinions or saying racists things is not illegal. I wouldn't be supportive of placing a person in a Category:Racists, which could easily be libelous, but this article clearly has discussion about an aspect of anti-black racism in the Netherlands. The category is appropriate. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear that there is racism involved. The argument that because the EU has explicitly banned racism, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that no racism can happen in an EU country is full of holes. Those protesting the Sinterklaas parades do so because they are trying to show that it is racist because it is banned. It will need to be recognized to be outlawed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO the "Zwarte Piete" makes part of a culture. As a matter of fact, not everybody with a tanned or dark colored skin sees this as racism, even more, some people really laugh about it. As a mattter of fact, I recently heard a story about what racism is: suppose you cannot stand your neighbor, the sooner she moves, the better. In fact, if you see her on the street, you look the other way because you do not want to say hello to her. You don't like the way she is dressed, speaks or laughs. Well, if this neighbor is from another religion or color then that it is racism, if she is from the same religion or color as you, then it has to do with personality. Lotje (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the problems people have with the Zwarte Piet stereotype. But offensive stereotyping is not racism per se. The allegations of racism are clearly placed in the article. That is clear and I do not object to reporting that the perception of Zwarte Piet as racist should be mentioned. However, and that is the big however in this case - the nuance that is explicit in the phrasing of the article gets utterly lost in the categories applied. In fact, several cases have been brought before court t(up to the EU courts) hat Zwarte Piet is racist and none of these complaints were adopted by the courts; so if the courts do not recognize it, who are we as Wikipedians to recognize something like that. Following the same argument we should also add many other topics with negative perceptions to crime related articles, e.g. the National Rifle Association to the Category:Mass murder.

But back to topic. The only thing I am asking is that the addition to these categories is supported by a reliable source that labels Zwarte Piet as not only offensive and stereotyping and leading to perceived racism but is actually proven as racism. As far as I know no part of Wikipedia article, including their assignment to categories is exempted from verifiability by reliable (and relevant) sources. To push the argument, the inclusion of these categories can be interpreted as libel towards the Dutch population (under US rules) who do not want to move away from the Zwarte Piet tradition (see defamation as courts did not award any claims of racism the claim should be considered false until proven otherwise, being called a racist is obviously harmful to many, and there is no evidence of any adequate research whether the inclusion in these categories is based on truth.)

That is all I have to say about this, and it probably won't carry the day as I have already learned that template and category space fall way outside any of the core policies of Wikipedia. Original research in these spaces seems not only to be accepted but actually seems to be welcomed. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "prove it is racist first" is a reasonable request. Racism isn't a scientifically provable quality like flammability. It is clear from the article that many people do not believe zwarte piet is racist and they are entitled to their opinions, but many others do feel that at least some variations are racist. As I mentioned, half the article deals with this question so it seems unreasonable to have no category related to this issue. Themightyquill (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

So basically you argue (in agreement with my last statement) that category membership should be exempted from WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

PS I just realized why I react so strongly here. It has to do with the observation that for accusations of racism (and other politically correct thinking) the mere accusation made by some notable people changes the central idea of Western fairness from "Innocent until proven guilty" to "Guilty until proven innocent"; where denying the charges is rejected as proof because (1) either you are a conscious racist and stand to gain by denying the charges or (2) you do not understand that what you are doing is actually racism according to the definition of the accusers (which is the only definition of relevance). The same reasoning is even extended to court rulings (that rejected the accusation of racism in this specific case) -i.e. the courts do not know what racism is. That makes it plain impossible for anyone or any tradition to defend their actions against such accusations and that makes a lot of these discussion unfair in my opinion. It is the unfairness of the discussion where the accused is labeled as guilty without evidence and without any chance to bring in evidence for innocence, more than whether the Zwarte Piet tradition should be changed to remove the offensiveness to many people (and I agree it probably should) that triggers my response here. Arnoutf (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I category membership in general is based upon the content of the article, and the content of the article should be subject to the policies you mentioned. There is some difference when the category refers to a specific living person, and accusing someone of some (im)moral quality without attribution would be highly problematic. (That's why we don't have Category:Jerks.) But since Zwarte Piet is unlikely to sue for libel, I don't think that's an issue here. Accusations of racism within the article are generally attributed to specific people or groups, and well referenced. If you'd like to propose deleting Category:Racism because you think it's unfair in general (because it's not 100% provable), you are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Formatting

I'm seeing a dmy date format. Is there a need to standardize (or standardise) on a variant of spelling and formalise (or formalize) it by adding the appropriate templates? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of the "Criticism section" within this article

Why the current version is better

Below can be found the "Criticism of Zwarte Piet" section now in the article:

Though a large majority of the overall populace in both the Netherlands and Belgium is in favor of retaining the traditional Zwarte Piet character, studies have shown that the perception of Zwarte Piet can differ greatly among different ethnic backgrounds, age groups and regions.

Opposition to the figure is mostly found in the most urbanized provinces of North- and South Holland, where between 9% and 7% of the populace wants to change the appearance of Zwarte Piet. In Amsterdam, the nations capital, most opposition towards the character is found among the Ghanaian, Antillean and Dutch-Surinamese communities, with 50% of the Surinamese considering the figure to be discriminatory to others, whereas 27% consider the figure to be discriminatory towards themselves. The predominance of the Dutch black community among those who oppose the Zwarte Piet character is also visible among the main anti-Zwarte Piet movements, Zwarte Piet Niet and Zwarte Piet is Racisme which have established themselves since the 2010s. Generally, adherents of these groups consider Zwarte Piet to be part of the Dutch colonial heritage, in which black people were subservient to whites and/or are opposed to what they consider stereotypical black ("Black Sambo") features of the figure, such as bright red lips, curly hair and large golden earrings.

However upwards of 90% of the Dutch public don't perceive Zwarte Piet to be a racist character or associate him with slavery and are opposed to altering the character's appearance, with many of the ethnic Dutch considering Zwarte Piet to be an integral part of their culture, childhood and holiday traditions. This correlates to a 2015 study among Dutch children aged 3-7 which showed that they perceive Zwarte Piet to be a fantastical clownish figure rather than a black person. However, the number of Dutch people who are willing to change certain details of the character (for example its lips and hair) is reported to be growing.

The public debate surrounding the figure can be described as polarized, with some protesters considering the figure to be an insult to their ancestry and supporters considering the character to be an inseparable part of their cultural heritage. Recent years have seen a number of incidents in which anti-Zwarte Piet demonstrators have been arrested by the police for disturbing the peace, as well as threats being made towards prominent figures in the anti-Zwarte Piet movement by supporters of the character.

Highly referenced, this section attempts to make clear what is the root problem of the controversies surrounding the character; namely a marked difference in interpretation between certain people about what the character is supposed to portray. It gives general descriptions of both interpretations and then goes on to describe the typical supporters of each 'stance' along the lines of age, locality and ethnicity as well as the size of their overal support within Dutch society. It concludes in saying that in recent years there have been violent incidents on both sides. As far as readability is concerned, this section provides a clear structure rather than a collection of incidents.

Section for those who oppose the above section to list their issues

• The first problem is that the section is ahistorical. It hides the fact that, whereas earlier the race aspect was unproblematical, from the sixties onwards there has been a growing unease about the racial stereotyping. This has grown into a heated controversy in recent years.

Please provide sources proving that the figure was an issue in the 60s for a sizable part of the Dutch population, as I myself are unaware of this having only found sources of significant upheaval since the 2000s, perhaps mid-90s. Naturaly if proper sources are provided, this can be included in both this article as in the Criticisms of Zwarte Piet-article. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it was an issue for a sizeable part of the population in the sixties. But the first beginnings were there. Within a historical treatment this is relevant. Your version presents certain conditions as unchangeable, an old trick to let them be accepted as just :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

But then what are you claiming exactly? If it wasn't an issue for a sizeable part of the population in the sixties, then we shouldn't mention the 60s in that way ... can you provide a source for "the beginnings you refer to"?AKAKIOS (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As the section is about a controversy, its prime subject is the development of that controversy. This subject has been treated in Hoving e.a. Cultuur en migratie in Nederland. Veranderingen van het alledaagse 1950-2000 and the relevant passages of that source can be summarised in a short opening paragraph.--MWAK (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As there is a controversy, the fact that attitudes towards Zwarte Piet are dependent on ethnicity, while surely deserving a mention, should not take first place in an exposé of the subject. It now suggests that there is merely some criticism among a few "disgruntled blacks"

The article merely mentions sourced information about particular ethnic sensitivities surrounding Zwarte Piet; it does not suggest that there is merely some criticism among a few "disgruntled blacks" but shows that the degree in which different ethnic groups experience the character differs greatly. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but by building the section around this fact, the suggestion is implicit. You are hardly an innocent in the art of rhetoric!--MWAK (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You overestimate me! I personally do not see any implicit suggestions, but could you suggest a wording in which your concerns would be addressed as well as the information being retained? AKAKIOS (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The information can be fully retained. But as part of an historical exposé. Perhaps it merits a subchapter of its own.--MWAK (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The section should certainly contain some salient events, such as the "Pietitie" and what happened because of it and the politicisation of the issue, such as the famous PVV proposal to forbid by law any "official" manifestation of Zwarte Pieten lacking a black or brown skin colour, exaggerated red lips, frizzy hair and golden earrings.--MWAK (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Which can by all means be included. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent.--MWAK (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Why the previous version is better

Below can be found the previous sections of the article which are now replaced with the "criticism section":

Recent Controversy Within The Netherlands and Abroad

In the early 21st century, Zwarte Piet became increasingly controversial in the Netherlands and received substantial criticism from a variety of international publications and news organizations. Among others, American essayist David Sedaris has written about the tradition. and British comedian Russell Brand has spoken negatively of it, the latter going so far as to dub Zwarte Piet "a colonial hangover."

Dutch comedian Erik van Muiswinkel, who has portrayed the "Head Piet" in national celebrations since 1998, deemed Zwarte Piet "a cheerful relic from racist times" in an editorial and urged revisions to the traditions surrounding him. Nevertheless, he still performs as "Head Piet" in blackface. Critical documentaries directed by Dutch filmmaker Sunny Bergman and Roger Ross Williams have further addressed the ongoing controversy.

Regardless, the character continues to be popular in the Netherlands and a 2013 poll suggested that 92% of the Dutch public did not perceive the character as racist. A 2015 study involving primarily white, middle-class children conducted by researchers at Leiden University presented findings that those 5 years old and under identified Zwarte Piet as a clown instead of someone of African descent. However, a larger portion of older children identified him as such.

Events Between 2006 and 2013'

Within the Netherlands and overseas there is an ongoing debate over how best to update the tradition and remove Zwarte Piet's stereotypical characteristics. In 2006, the NPS replaced the black Pieten with rainbow-colored Pieten, which had accidentally shifted colour according to the storyline of the televised Sinterklaas arrival serial of that year, resulting in much criticism from Dutch viewers. The largest Sinterklaas celebration in Western Canada, slated for 3 December 2011, in New Westminster, British Columbia, was cancelled for the first time since its inception in 1985 following a debate over the inclusion of the character.

In 2011, legislators in the former Dutch colony of Suriname stated that government-sanctioned celebrations involving Zwarte Piet were considered an insult to the "black part of Suriname's community." Efforts later began in Suriname to prevent future governmental promotions of the character. That same holiday season, four people wearing T-shirts with the words "Zwarte Piet is Racisme" were arrested during the second weekend of November 2011 at a Sinterklaas festival in Dordrecht after failing several instructions by the police to move elsewhere.

In 2013, in response to claims that the Zwarte Piet tradition perpetuates racist stereotypes, a number of independent and special rapporteurs working under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council wrote a letter to the Government of the Netherlands requesting an investigation into these allegations. Belgian Unesco representative Marc Jacobs later informed Dutch media that their Sinterklaas traditions were not actually being investigated for "racism," stating that the person who had signed the letter, Jamaican Verene Shepherd, had "abused the name of the UN" and had no authorisation to do so.

Also in 2013, the mayor of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan, became one of the first public officials to push for alterations to the character. He suggested that the frizzy hair and red lips could be easily changed and later stated his preference for a gradual change of Zwarte Piet's looks. Nevertheless, on the weekend of Amsterdam's Sinterklaas celebration in November 2013, several hundred people protested against the character at demonstrations throughout the city. In the weeks that followed, several smaller public and private celebrations opted to feature alternative "colored", "rainbow" or "soot swiped" Pieten. However, a news segment on the Dutch public broadcaster Nederlandse Omroep Stichting concluded the trend had not gained mainstream adoption. That same year, several Dutch retail chains including Hema and V&D began changing their seasonal Sinterklaas products and displays in order to include a revised version of Zwarte Piet without the makeup or other racially insensitive characteristics.

Events of 2014 and 2015

In 2014, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a longtime defender of the tradition, stated after fielding a question from journalist Kevin P. Roberson that "It is an old Dutch children's tradition. My friends in the Antilles are very happy when it is Sinterklaas because they don't have to paint their faces. When I play Zwarte Piet, I am, for days, trying to get the stuff off my face." His statements were criticized by several members of the press and others.

In early 2014, a coalition formed by the Dutch Folk Culture Centre began informal talks to discuss the future of Zwarte Piet and whether or not the character should be modified or phased out entirely. A court hearing in Amsterdam concerning the character was scheduled for that May. The court's verdict, rendered that July, contended that Zwarte Piet is, indeed, offensive due to the character's continued role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people. Amsterdam mayor Eberhard van der Laan contested the ruling and appealed to the Council of State. Although he recognized that the character of Zwarte Piet can be interpreted as racist, he believed the legal ramifications of the ruling to be too severe. The following November, the Council of State ruled that neither the mayor or the council are qualified to answer the question of whether the character qualifies as racist, but that this question might still be brought before the civil courts.

Celebrations during the 2014 holiday season featured the inclusion of revised versions of Zwarte Piet with less controversial characteristics, while the Sinterklaasjournaal, a seasonal television program about Sinterklaas' adventures in the Netherlands, also included similar changes. A national celebration in Gouda on 15 November announcing the arrival of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, was interrupted when a fight broke out between pro-Piet attendees and anti-Piet demonstrators. 90 people were arrested.

In Belgium, there is also controversy about the perceived racist nature of Zwarte Piet. In October 2014, The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism stated that the image of Zwarte Piet is not in violation with the country's anti-discrimination and/or anti-racism laws. The Centre did, however, encourage an open debate and requested that celebrants refrain from representing "the figure of Zwarte Piet as a stupid, inferior, or dangerous black man."

On 15 November 2014, a demonstration organised by Dyab Abou Jahjah and his civil rights movement, Movement X, sent a complaint to Bart De Wever, the mayor of Antwerp. Bart De Wever accepted the complaint, though admitted he'd prefer to not import the Dutch problems in Belgium. From a more extremist side, the demonstration received harsh criticism. Filip Dewinter and Tom Van Grieken, prominent members of the far right party Vlaams Belang criticised Abou Jahjah on Twitter. The group's peaceful demonstration also led to people calling for Abou Jahjah's assassination after which he filed a complaint with the police.

A meeting between a Dutch delegation and members of a UN commission in August of 2015 confirmed government efforts to make Zwarte Piet a more acceptable figure on a global level but noted that the character would not be phased out entirely. During a press conference, delegation leader Afke van Rijn said, “violating human rights cannot be justified by citing cultural traditions.”

Also in 2015, the Bijenkorf department store chain opted to replace holiday displays featuring Zwarte Piet with a golden skinned version instead. Elsewhere, one in three Dutch primary schools announced plans to alter the character’s appearance in their celebrations. The Dutch version of the international children’s network Nickelodeon also decided to use a racially-mixed group of actors to portray Piet in their holiday broadcasts instead of people in blackface.

Section for those who oppose the above section to list their issues

• The tone of writing is vague with sentences like "substantial criticism from a variety of international publications and news organizations" without further listing either the criticisms or the reported news agencies. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• The reference supplied to support the sentence "one in three Dutch primary schools announced plans to alter the character’s appearance in their celebrations" ... does not mention primary schools. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I've fixed that. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how it got in there in the first place.AKAKIOS (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence "A meeting between a Dutch delegation and members of a UN commission in August of 2015 confirmed government efforts to make Zwarte Piet a more acceptable figure on a global level but noted that the character would not be phased out entirely" is clearly biased, implying the character to be unacceptable. Furthermore it is inaccurate in that an UN-commission has ever evaluated Zwarte Piet, as this has never happened. It was Verene Shepard, whose other activities link her to the UN as an independent researcher, who addressed the issue. Not the United Nations. A previous section in fact addresses this, confirming Shepard to be a fraud, thereby proving the sheer unreadability and inaccuracy of this version. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• The section describes two Vlaams Belang politicians as extreme right but then goes on to call Dyab Abou Jahjah the leader of a 'social rights movement'. Mind you, this man is hardly a Martin Luther King and referred to the 9/11 attacks as "sweet revenge". AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Name dropping by inserting quotes from celebrities (such as Russel Brand) as supposedly meaningful. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

He's not just a "celebrity." He's an internationally known comedian who frequently includes social criticism in his work, both comedic and otherwise. His wikipedia describes him as an activism, but I think it might well be legitimate to describe him as a political commentator. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether you consider a comedian to be known globally or a political commentator is totally irrelevant. If an article cites people directly it should either be citing people directly involved or experts in the respective field. Name dropping and weaving celebrity opinions through an already unreadable text collection is not how a proper article is supposed to be written. AKAKIOS (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Listing of department stores in what is supposed to be an informative article.AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean here. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A few departments stores who have made very specific and often unique changes to their Sinterklaas-decorations are a side note at best in the general discussion. AKAKIOS (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• By framing the Dutch prime-minister as "a longtime defender of the tradition" rather than "a longtime supporter of the tradition" it is implied the tradition needs to be defended. My question, against whom? This version does nothing to explain this. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if he has defended it from criticism, regardless of where that criticism comes from, he is a defender, and in the context of the sentence, he was clearly defending the tradition from those who questioned it, in response to a journalist's question. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

How is that? From which criticism did he defend the tradition? It isn't to be found in the source, nor in the article. So do explain. AKAKIOS (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence "Celebrations during the 2014 holiday season featured the inclusion of revised versions of Zwarte Piet with less controversial characteristics" makes it seems as if this was a widespread, supported and lasting occurrence. Which it wasn't. In nearly all Dutch municipalities Zwarte Piet was dressed traditionally, adaptations of the figure received severe criticism and have in most cases not been continued in the 2015 celebrations. In effect, this article fails to portray the reality of the celebrations.AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was any such suggestion by the phrasing but the article mentions Gouda and Amsterdam specifically, so I've edited it as such. If references can be found for more cities that altered their practices in 2014, I would suggest we return to the original text above, albeit starting with the word "some."

Which in any case would still be highly selective and would ignore the fact that the Netherlands consists of 300+ municipalities of which Amsterdam and Gouda are only two. Is that supposed to represent a balanced view?AKAKIOS (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• The text refers to documentaries directed by Sunny Bergman and Roger Ross Williams as "critical" while omitting the fact that both directors have publicly stated to be violently anti-Zwarte Piet and that their documentaries (one of which lasts only 15 minutes) have been met with serious criticism concerning objectivity, editing and factual accuracy. If you're going to tell a story, tell all of it. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• The text mentions David Sedaris as "writing about" the subject in a part of the text dealing with supposed "international critics". It omits that Sedaris has only written objectively and numerously about the tradition without passing judgement. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is it worth mentioning at all that Sedaris as written about it (once, I think, not numerously, in a piece called "Six to Eight Black Men") ? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, here is Sedaris' commentary on the inclusion of Piet:

"The six to eight black men were characterized as personal slaves until the mid 1950s, when the political climate changed and it was decided that instead of being slaves they were just good friends. I think that history has proved that something usually comes slavery and friendship, a period of time marked not by cookies and quiet hours beside the fire but by bloodshed and mutual hostility."

While it isn't explicit condemnation, I wouldn't say it's entirely neutral either. By my reading, he's implying a whitewashing (pardon the pun) of the tradition from its historical roots in slavery and colonialism without a serious consideration of that past on behalf of the Dutch, but admittedly, that's just my reading. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You incorrectly assume the tradition of Zwarte Piet is rooted in slavery based on a humorous piece by an American comedian, which if anything belongs in a "popular references" section, not part of the characters history. Have you actually ever read a book on the figure or the celebration in general? If so, please list the title here below.AKAKIOS (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Important note concerning the information present in the previous version

It is important to note that I do not propose to delete the information present in the previous version, but rather want it to be moved to the separate Criticism of Zwarte Piet-article. This because of two reasons: 1) In the previous section 40% of the text was a loose collection of criticisms incidents surrounding the character rather than a description of his history and cultural significance.

That's an excellent justification to clean up the text, but not a good reason to remove it to a separate article. The fact is that, whether you like it or not, the recent history of the character as displayed in news sources is one of conflict between those who oppose it and those who don't. What was the history of Zwarte Piet in 1972 or 1975? Nothing notable, as far as I can tell. But it has been the subject of greatly increased (from next to none to some is a substantial increase) commentary both in the Netherlands and internationally. The article may suffer somewhat from recentism, as does 90% of wikipedia, but the solution to that is not to sequester content away. If you feel there is notable information being left out, particularly during the 20th century, by all means add it in. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, because merely correcting sources or the material currently present would not remove the problem of bias and unbalance nor would it remove the fact that it dominates the current article even though (as has been conclusively proven by a myriad of independent sources that people responding negatively to Zwarte Piet are a clear minority and hence their view is as well. Why should a minority view and tone dominate this article as opposed to objectivity? AKAKIOS (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

2) I believe that this information (when of course checked for errors as is direly needed) can be quite useful. AKAKIOS (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, at least we agree on that. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you had actually read my comments instead of accused me of vandalism, you would have known that from the start it has not been my intention to remove but to relocate the information. However, your childish, uninformed and aggressive style of 'debating' has apparently prevented you from understanding this. AKAKIOS (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Important note concerning some of the editors presently involved here

• Walter Görlitz, who is one of the editors involved as had the following: So essentially what you're saying is what neo-Nazis say when criticism to that article is raised: we're just misinterpreted. We should certainly add the polls about how the Dutch think that ethnically entrenched racism is acceptable, but to the Zwarte Piet article.. This is of course highly biased and harmful if these kinds of personal opinions get to dominate over sourced material. I also note that this editor cannot speak Dutch, which isn't life threatening, but does mean the overwhelming majority of sources surrounding this subject (especially the more academic ones) are unavailable to him. AKAKIOS (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence to support your claim that Walter Görlitz cannot read Dutch? Speaking it is not an issue as we need to digest the written content provided, not be able to converse. Please provide it. If not, please adjust your comment. We don't have any proof that you can read Dutch either. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Constablequackers, has in the past to stated that Who cares if 89% of the Dutch public doesn't consider the tradition racist? If 89% of them also believed that dogs go "meow" instead of "woof" would that change the fact they're incorrect? showing disregard towards factual studies describing the feelings of the people actually involved in the folklore. This user also does not speak Dutch, and is hence also at a disadvantage when discussing sources here. I would also like to personally say that his style of discussing ("Don't ever adjust my indenting again. I, unlike you, know what I'm doing.") comes across as hostile and therefore unconstructive. AKAKIOS (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence to support your claim that Constablequackers cannot read Dutch? Please provide it. As for the comments made, that too was Walter Görlitz. It's clear you don't know what you're doing, at least in those two instances. The claim that someone who cannot read Dutch is disqualified from discussing this topic comes across as hostile as well. It's also simply incorrect. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Important note from the tendentious editor. He has now decided to socking as an IP: 173.245.135.146 (talk · contribs) to mask his edits.

The issue for me is simple: this article should not be censored. Just because the people group who celebrate the character don't think that the character is racists does not mean that the character is not racist. To hide away the fact in a thinly veiled propaganda effort is not appropriate.

We shouldn't have criticism sections, let alone criticism articles. When the section that lists criticism starts with two sentences that attempt to invalidate the criticism. That too is a problem. When it's followed by one long sentence that indicates "some" don't like the activity when it previously had dozens of paragraphs, the summary is not sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the essence of the matter, that even with every unrelated news item or blog item you've collected, it still represents a tiny fraction of Dutch public opinion as proven by multiple independent sources. Exactly because of this, it is important to create context, even in a criticism section. This is no attempt to invalidate criticisms, but to put them in a greater perspective. Not doing so, as you propose, would create an article which does not correspond to reality. If you too want Wikipedia to describe to actual situation, I wonder why this factual data on Dutch public opinion comes as such an apparent surprise to you with all the source material having been readily available for years. To me, you have already (through comments and edits) made clear you are not an objective observer in this matter, do you really think it is wise to further involve yourself in this article after having discarded several major studies and having made a comparison between proponents of this childrens character and supporters of neonazism? AKAKIOS (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to wait whether Criticism of Zwarte Piet will stand or not. Personally, I think a split-off is defensible under WP:Summary style, although it had best been retitled Zwarte Piet controversy or something comparable. And, as a full article, it should contain the full content. If it stands a short section in the main article will suffice. This should contain the historical development, not suggest the controversy is limited to a few over-sensitive black people, and give information on the relevant political developments.--MWAK (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with such a renaming. Could you please suggest this proposal here? AKAKIOS (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Creation of criticism article

A WP:SPA moved all criticism to a new article. This goes against the WP:CRITS section of the essay about how to deal with criticism. I have reverted those edits and requested the new article be deleted. I don't think we should have separate sections for criticism let alone separate articles. Based on what I see by that editor, it appears to be censorship and segregation of criticism of the character. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I did this because the "history"-sections were not about history but only a loose collection of (sometimes biased) criticism and news events, which comprised of almost half the pages total amount of information. A criticism section should not make up that much space, especially when it might be given undue weight as was the case here making it seem as if Zwarte Piet is a controversial figure for many more people than actually the case. Hence I shortened the section in this article and moved (and restructured) the information in another. I think this is the best and most readable solution.AKAKIOS (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I could perhaps understand your point if the pre-21st century history (and other parts of the article) sections were dwarfed by the 21st century section, but that was simply not the case.

Furthermore, Akakios, your effort to create an "unbiased" view meant including a reference to one Dutch survey (that suggested there is really minimal criticism) once in this article, and twice in the first two paragraphs of the criticism article. Since criticism has come from both within and outside the Netherlands, any suggestion that Dutch opinions are the only ones that matter is in itself biased. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be strange not to include such a survey (of which there are many more if you are doubting its validity) to illustrate that the overall majority of the Dutch populace does not consider this character to be racist. Prior to my edits, this article was 50% criticism which greatly distorted the amount of support opposers of the figure have within Dutch society. Furthermore, I think a major flaw in this article is that it fails to differentiate between the appearance of Zwarte Piet (which is obviously modeled on a black person and quite stereotypical) and the fact whether he is truly meant to portray black people negatively.AKAKIOS (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The survey was a wonderful addition and showed balance to the criticism, however removing it en masse caused a lack of balance. It should remain out of the article until it is determined that it should be split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Akakios, I certainly have no problem including the survey. Like Walter Görlitz, I think it's a good addition. My suggestions was that a) repeating it twice within the first two paragraphs of the criticism article you created might not present a neutral point of view, and b) the fact that Dutch people don't believe the character to be racist doesn't alone prove that the character isn't a racist caricature. If you want to add referenced content that suggests the presentation of Zwarte Piet is merely stereotypical but not negative (though, I'm not totally sure what that would entail), you are welcome to do so. On the other hand, looking through the article, I notice that it currently makes no mention of the fact that Zwarte Piet is frequently depicted as speaking broken Dutch, and scant reference to him being also sometimes being depicted as less than intelligent. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello to both, my main concerns aren't the criticisms of the character but the way in which they are given undue weight over the general consensus within the Dutch populace. This article consisted of almost 50% text which criticizes the figure, while the vast majority of the Dutch population has no such issues with the character. Therefore it is my reasoning that those (probably valid or in some cases notable) incidents, protests and criticisms be moved to separate article. They shouldn't be discussed here in such length because they concern a minority view. By the way, Zwarte Piet does not speak in broken Dutch. AKAKIOS (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to gently remind you both of the WP:3RR, because the history looks very much like an edit war. I can understand, Akakios, that you would probably like your split to remain while we discuss it, but I hope you will back down, since there was clearly not consensus around the split when you made it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that Akakios' edits and creation of a 'criticism' page are entirely without merit. This section of the Zwarte Piet article offers an evenhanded account of events over the past decade or so in regards to this character. They are not 'criticism' in the traditional sense. They're an encyclopedic rundown of a series of events surrounding something that's quite controversial. To not include them here, on this page, simply doesn't make sense and, as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, smacks of censorship. As for the poll, I think I may have been the person that included a mention of it in the 21st century section a few years ago. I'm not sure who removed it but there should be a mention of it somewhere in there. Although, it would be ideal to cite a more recent, "current" poll. That one is at least two years old now. Constablequackers (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As evidenced by reputable polls cited in this article it isn't that controversial, with over 90% op the population not having issues with the character. This article however, seemed to portray it highly controversial (which it is, but only with a very small minority) which is not an accurate representation. Therefore, a criticism section (rather than a biased high jacking of this article) is perfectly applicable. AKAKIOS (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't offer much evidence to support your claims. The poll you're citing is now over two years old. The section on this page that you keep trying to delete is, once again, an encyclopedic rundown of the events of the past several years. These details are well cited from reputable news outlets. Please do not wipe out this entire section again. As far as "minority opinions" go, when it comes to these articles, yours is certainly that. You're the only editor campaigning for these changes. Constablequackers (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• A 2015 poll by DVJ Insights showed 75%+ of the Dutch populace over 35 years of age wanting Zwarte Piet to remain black.
• In a poll of RTL Nieuws, 81% only supported a solely black Zwarte Piet with an aditional 10% supporting a majority of Zwarte Piets with a few soot-covered ones.
• In a 2012 study by the municipality of Amsterdam, shows that majority of respondents do not consider the Zwarte Piet character to be racist or that the character is racists towards others.
• A 2015 inquiry by the national newspaper Algemeen Dagblad showed that in the overwhelming majority of Dutch municipalities, no changes would be made to the traditional appearance of the Zwarte Piet character. Only 6% of the municipalities approached mentioned (further unspecified) changes to the character.
• A 2013 inquiry by Dutch public news program EenVandaag showed that in every Dutch province, the overwhelming majority did not support changes in the Zwarte Piet characters appearance. The largest percentage in support of changing the characters appearance (9%) was found in North-Holland.

Here you are with those polls. I wonder how you could have missed them, given the numbers.AKAKIOS (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In order to address Akakios' concerns and update the article, I have made alterations to it to make the 21st century section easier to read. I have re-added the 2013 poll that was cited in addition to a 2015 poll to a new section that offers context for the ongoing controversy surrounding the character along with additional details and citations. I have also divided this area into sections to make it more readable and provide a clearer chronology. Finally, I have added information about the events of the 2015 holiday season. Constablequackers (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What you have done is perfect, for the Criticism of Zwarte Piet-article. I again repeat myself in saying that this article should include criticisms, but no to the extent that they take over this article as it is 1) not the subject of this article, and 2 not supported by the overwhelming majority of the Dutch populace as clearly evidenced above. AKAKIOS (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, your stance on all of this has no merit. Please explain to me how the actions of Dutch lawmakers, schools and even television networks to alter this character qualifies as "criticism." Until you can do so, your decision to delete the work or myself and others that has compiled over a period of the past several years will be considered one thing and one thing only: vandalism. It shall be treated as such. Constablequackers (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Because Dutch law has no jurisdiction over a cultural tradition, because there are dozens of tv shows about Sinterklaas in the Netherlands and Belgium each year and because it is the majority opinion which should be given the weight it deserves. The current version of the Zwarte Piet article is much more balanced, rather than an endless summation of incidents and newspaper articles, much better describing the current situation and cultural climate. Again, I am not against criticism, I am against the undue weight given to it in the main article. A criticism-article is needed if all information is to be kept (which should be the case) but the addition of that loose collection to this article, which is about the character and NOT the controversy that surrounds it in some circles, has no place here. Not merely according to me, but according to common sense and Wikipedia own policies. Calling it vandalism is insulting. AKAKIOS (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not willing to discuss this matter with you any further. Your stance on this issue is without merit. You don't even seem to understand the definition of the word "criticism." Constablequackers (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand the meaning of 'merit'. Your refusal to discuss your issues with the current version is highly unconstructive, though not nearly as unconstructive as your removal of my reworked and more balanced section. I ask you again, what problems do you have with the current wording of that particular section?AKAKIOS (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have some problems:

1. It's poorly written and structured, failing to correctly summarise the previous content. The previous content was well-structured and your claim that is was a "loose collection" has no basis in fact and seems to have been fabricated with the sole purpose of discrediting information unpalatable to you.
2. It seems based on the incorrect premiss that "criticism", a useful concept when dealing with theories, is the same as "controversy".
3. You seems to be acting under the misconception that the article has to decide whether or not Zwarte Piet is racist, and the additional misconception that the opinion of the majority of Dutch people should have priority in this. The "undue weight" criterion, interpreted as a judgement on the content of an issue, is very relevant for scientific hypotheses, not for controversies. For these the amount of publicity generated should be decisive, and it can hardly be denied that the last years Zwarte Piet has been mainly in the news because of the racism issue. This is reflected by the number of secondary sources and these again should be reflected by Wikipedia. Not having a large controversy section is thus unbalanced.
4. Your split off article originally contained the previous content, but then you removed much of it. Namely, parts containing negative opinions of Zwarte Piet. You have clearly great trouble implementing the WP:NPOV policy.

I propose to see whether the derived article will be kept and show the text as it was previous to the intervention by "AKAKIOS" until that time.--MWAK (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is supposed to offer WP:BALANCE, which is why criticism sections are not advised, perhaps some balance as to the the rest of the world thinks of Zwarte Piet should be included:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/11996588/Dutch-Black-Pete-makes-annual-arrival-to-howls-of-protest.html
• http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/zwarte-piet/
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/05/black-pete-race-netherlands
• http://www.vqronline.org/who-zwarte-piet
• http://news.nationalpost.com/news/zwarte-piet-is-racism-criticism-of-dutch-fictional-christmas-figure-black-pete-grows
• http://www.realskeptic.com/2014/11/15/zwarte-piet-dutch-culture-wars/
• http://www.inquisitr.com/2601181/black-pete-tradition-criticized-in-blackface-film-director-called-monkey/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/06/zwarte-piet-black-pete-christmas-dutch-netherlands_n_2249412.html
• http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/black-peter-zwarte-piet-black-face-european-folk-character
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845589/Children-black-traditional-Dutch-Christmas-festival-despite-growing-controversy-Holland-event-racist.html
• https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/parliament-debates-ending-holland-s-christmas-blackface-tradition
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/05/4-reasons-to-reject-the-racist-dutch-tradition-of-zwarte-piet/
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/joachim-stroink-apologizes-for-zwarte-piet-blackface-photo-1.2447494
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dorian-de-wind/dutch-zwarte-piet-innocen_b_5565374.html

This is simply from the first twenty results when I searched for "criticism of Zwarte Piet". So, by all means, let's have balance. Shall I try to find polls that discuss how the rest of the world think the Dutch are supporting systemic racism for supporting Zwarte Piet? I'm sure they exist. So if we're looking for balance, we will offer it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Will you then also add similar criticism on how the rest of the world thinks of US gun possession laws? I guess you could fill up that article with outcries from around the world to restrict the current laws. We don't do that, because it would take the discussion out of its, local US, context.

Let's similarly not make this bigger Zwarte Piet international thing bigger than it is.

Yes Zwarte Piet is an old-fashioned tradition that is considered insulting by several Dutch people (for fair reasons) but that is a far cry from being interpreted as evidence as deeply ingrained racism in Dutch culture by some international commentators (most of whom neither know the Dutch tradition, and often have not even spoken to a single Dutch person, nor visited the country).

The injured feelings of the Dutch people who feel offended by the stereotypical image should be taken seriously and the article should provide a balanced view how this unfolds. On the other hand, the problems to change the tradition taking into account hurt feeling of a substantial proportion of the Dutch population who now sees its most innocent childhood festivity been (retrospectively) turned into a racist rally - which is not easy to accept (not my own analysis) should also be fairly discussed.

The international response is perhaps worth mentioning, but probably not in more than a few lines (along the lines of - The international response to the Zwarte Piet figure is mainly one of astonishment and misunderstanding that a country considered as liberal as the Netherlands holds so strongly to a tradition that incorporates so many racial stereotypes). More than that would overstate the importance of this (rather local) debate in the larger international context in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A very, very different topic and not really the point. The international response is worth mentioning in both subject, but not as separate articles, and it should not be given WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT in either article. If ten times the number of articles can be found that call those who laud the "traditional" appearance of Zwarte Piet racist and out of touch with modern sensibilities, then by all means it should carry ten times the weight in this article, just as criticism of American possession laws should be treated in that article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes the international response is worth mentioning. But mentioning is something else entirely from taking over the article. There is an amount of Dutch literature on Zwarte Piet, both descriptive/non-critical, critical and even in favour of the figure that dwarfs the international response. Since there is no Wikipedia guideline that states that UNDUE and WEIGHT are only based on English language literature, perhaps you should read up on the relevant Dutch literature/newspaper/sources before making such a big thing out of the English language response. Arnoutf (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Blackface make-up

The article lead sentence "Those portraying Zwarte Piet typically put on blackface make-up and colourful Renaissance attire, in addition to curly wigs, red lipstick and earrings." is problematic and unsourced.

Blackface links to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blackface giving a definition of: "A style of theatrical makeup in which a white person blackens their face in order to portray a negro."

The Dutch do not have the US tradition of a blackface. For instance, black people also blacken their face to portray Black Pete: http://images0.tcdn.nl/binnenland/article23334512.ece/BINARY/u/Zwarte+piet+op+curacao

Furthermore, Black Pete is not a portrayal of a negro, but of a mythological figure. I suspect the `blackface` used in the article lead is a weasel word to push a certain agenda (for example: that Black Pete is a racist caricature that white people use to ridicule negros).

"Those portraying Zwarte Piet typically put on black make-up ..." holds the same informational value, while being more neutral and less POV. Calveer (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed above. It is the common term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As I stated before when this was discussed, the traditions and therefor all associations with the dark-brown facial makeup used for Zwarte Piet share exactly nothing with the traditions and associations of the blackface tradition. This is why we reached the compromise that the word blackface directs to the neutral Wikitionary article, rather than the very normatively framed Wikipedia article on blackface (which is exclusively about the Anglo-Saxon blackface tradition and not the makeup).

I do think that the Nehterlands is currently going through a somewhat painful process of cultural change which in the medium run will result in changes in the festivities for the better. Mind you this is about shedding doubt on some of the most cherished childhood memories of many, so not that easy to accept. Arnoutf (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I conclude the compromise is non-neutral. As the Wiktionary article states that blackface is used solely by white people to portray negros, it is both inaccurate in context (different culture, America-centric) and syntax (non-white people also use it, and the main function is not to portray a negro). I suggest "black theatrical make-up" with perhaps a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatrical_makeup or really just "black make-up" (as Black Pete is not a theatre stage character). As said: the term Blackface is a very loaded term, which is unnecessarily non-POV, where a neutral factual description of the make-up is perfectly possible.

If one were to replace the word blackface in the lead-in with the definition given in the Wiktionary, one would get: "Those portraying Zwarte Piet typically put on blackface make-up, a style of theatrical makeup in which a white person blackens their face in order to portray a negro, and colourful Renaissance attire, in addition to curly wigs, red lipstick and earrings.". The apparent tiny difference between "blackface paint" and "black face-paint" is significant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/british-army-under-fire-for-racist-tweet-that-showed-a-soldier-w/ Calveer (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The article equates the two and uses "blackface" more times than "black face". Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem if I changed the "blackface" in the intro, and in the image description "blackface costume" to "black make-up"? All definitions, including the Wiktionary article, speak of "blackface" as non-blacks imitating negros, and state: "used to imply patronization of blacks by whites or by institutions perceived to be insincerely or ineffectively nonracist.". As blacks also portray Zwarte Piet, and the equation of Zwarte Piet with a Negro is not clear, and in folklore Zwarte Piet is portrayed as a respectable figure, and the word "blackface" is predominantly used in the context of American Black Minstrel shows, the word indicates a fact, but is at most speculative.

Perhaps we can then make note in the Criticism section that some people view Zwarte Piet as a blackface, and find the portrayal and connotations as such offensive. See for instance: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/30/world/blackface-documentary-zwarte-piet-feat/ . Also of note is the research done by the The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences / Meertens Institute into the meaning of the blackened face: http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/cms/images/nieuws2013/ambi.pdf . It quotes multiple ethnologists on the cultural significance of blackening the face and looks at various interpretations (Zwarte Piet as a devil, Zwarte Piet as a Moor, Zwarte Piet as a disguise, Zwarte Piet as an opposite, Zwarte Piet as the darkness, etc.). I can help with translating the sources, for so far they are not already in English. Calveer (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a massive problem you changing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I also have a massive problem with you changing it. Constablequackers (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Good that I asked here first, before being bold. Could both of you provide reasoning for being against this change? Calveer (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought that we had: blackface is the common term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Coming here from this. Use "blackface" or "blackface makeup"; we have a Wikipedia article on it and it is more accurate than "black makeup." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As Walter noted, blackface is the common term for this practice. Constablequackers (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll concede. I still find the word needlessly POV/loaded, but I understand your argumentation. Calveer (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what I did last year although I still maintain that this practice is different from this practice. 18:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my biggest issue with the word "blackface" is that donning "blackface" is commonly (perceived as) racist. The English Wikipedia thus factually states that people who dress up as Black Pete are racist (yet views on this vary wildly). Since racism is against the law (also in the Netherlands) the woman said to be wearing a "blackface costume" is now at worst perpetrating a crime, at best committing a grave social faux-pas. For context, do an internet search for the word "blackface" and "blackface costume" to see how it is commonly used. There are other articles about traditions where the word "blackface" is not used, but the controversy around it is still properly addressed. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummer%27s_Day and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_dance . I think both addressing the controversy without factually stating that it is "blackface" is more encyclopedic. Alas. I'll revisit in a few months and may add mention/sourcing that black people also blacken up their faces when portraying Black Pete, and clarify other interpretations not related to the "blackamoor". Calveer (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It was not perceived as racist by the white culture of the late Victorian era through to the 1960s. It only became perceived as racist through time and understanding. At the time, racism wasn't against the law in the United States either. Again, only as perceptions changed was it recognized inappropriate. Perhaps those who are vocal about it will recognize that what they perceive as harmless fun, or traditional is offensive to many people. Until then, we can only call it what it is. Walter Görlitz (talk)

What Black Peter is said to be according to tradition

In the main intro it is stated " Traditionally, Zwarte Piet is said to be black because he is a Moor from Spain."

I've lived in Belgium my entire life and this is just false. Traditionally, Zwarte Piet is said to be black because he comes down through the chimney and he is face is black from the soot. The woord "Moor" has never once been uttered when speaking about Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. I think most people here wouldn't even know what a Moor is. The source for this is a book on the history of Christmas(wich is not Sinterklaas & Zwarte Piet) written by an American ... The origin of his skin colour is probably from him being a Moor but that's very different from what he is said to be here. The way this article states it it sounds like we tell our children that (white) Sinterklaas his helpers are all (black) Moors. This makes no sense and is far from objective. The only counter-argument I've heard for this is that his clothes would also have to be black. And that's true, that's why this is a children's story, just like a fat Santa Claus can't fit through a chimney and visit all houses at night. So I'd like to suggest to change this. Fod_ (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That's explained later: "According to another popular explanation that came to prominence in the later decades of the 20th century, Zwarte Piet is a Spaniard, or an Italian chimney sweep, whose blackness is due to a permanent layer of soot on his body, acquired during his many trips through the chimneys." Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Fod_ to some extent. The moor tradition was only initiated about 150 years ago, but when I grew up in the Netherlands in the 1970's the chimney soot explanation for the blackness was already very common next to the moor explanation (there is nothing contradictory in this for young children). While the body text of the article is indeed balanced, the lead now only presents one take on this; and to some extent adds unnecessary framing at that place in the article. I also agree that the reference may be overinterpreted as this 187 page book is the US Christmas tradition and has only 1 chapter which describes how Sinterklaas became Santa Claus - so hardly an in depth analysis of the character of Zwarte Piet can be expected. Therefore I would support striking that (short) sentence from the lede. Arnoutf (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. You'll have to contact the author of the source. And considering the character first appeared about 150 years ago in Jan Schenkman's book, that seems to be about same time. But if the lead needs to be expanded to include the corrected version as well, let's make that change. Removing the origins are not an option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The 150 years was indeed a direct reference to Schenkman's book. Mind you, I am not against mentioning the moor tradition (which exists) but would be careful in giving it so much emphasis by placing it as the single mention in the lede, at least not without a reliable source in which the Sinterklaas is the central topic. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you completely Walter that removing the origin shouldn't happen. Perhaps something like "Though the origins of Zwarte Piet's dark skin clearly come from a Moorish slave character, throughout the years this has changed to him being covered in soot, a much more child friendly tale to tell to young children". But I'm not very good at this and maybe somebody can write a better line? Source would be any random child you ask in Belgium/Netherlands. Fod_ (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I did some more extensive checking and located 2 sources that seem both reliable and do both attribute the current Zwarte Piet to an invented tradition of a Moorish servant (by Jan Schenkman). But in any case Schenkman did introduce Piet as a moor (and not blackened by soot). Source (in Dutch) are https://npofocus.nl/artikel/7472/waar-komt-zwarte-piet-vandaan- (Dutch national television - public broadcast organisation) and refers to http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/cms/images/sinterklaas/artikelvb.pdf - which is a scientific article published by an institute of the (Dutch) Royal Academy of Arts and Science. So both highly reliable sources, and both truly on topic (in contrast to the English text on the origin of Christmas used so far). Arnoutf (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Blackface

The sentence about people putting on makeup has no source and is contentious, so I am removing it to keep the peace. If we could get a good WP:Reliable source for what this makeup consists of, then we should have it. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I just restored it until you change the English language. When people put black on their faces, they are putting on blackface. You will see multiple discussions immediately above this one (until they're archived and this one isn't). If you want to change the consensus, that's the place to start not your opinion that it's contentious. But just so we avoid an edit war and rely on one opinion over the other, please add at least two of the following sources that I have found: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and that's from the first ten of 50,000 hits in a Google search.

If I add then you can revert and then place a warning on my talk page even though there's an edit notice to discuss it on the article page. Or you could reject the sources as invalid. So WP:FIXIT (even though it's painfully obvious to everyone except racists and some Dutch people that this is blackface, which is why we never needed a reference for blackface before and reverted every anon who removed it). Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have ANY evidence that there is blackface paint for sale in ANY shop in the Netherlands? 143.176.56.102 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? In short, there is no such think as "blackface paint".

It's not for sale in the United States. It's not for sale in Canada. It's not for sale in Mexico. It's not for sale in North America. It's not for sale in Central America. It's not for sale in South America. It's not for sale in Asia. It's not for sale in Australasia. It's not for sale in Antarctica. It's not for sale in Europe either. That means it's not for sale in the nations where people dress-up as Zwarte Piet either. I could list many other things not for sale in the Netherlands. But they would not help you prove your point. Please read what I wrote above and respond to what I wrote rather than try to re-state your already dismantled argument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said before. While the Zwarte Piet colouring does follow the dictionary definitions of blackface (see eg wiktionary [6]), the Wikipedia blackface article loads the term with the distinctly US biased content (and has even been tagged as such); which needs to be interpreted in the US racism debate context. Much of that context simply does not apply to the Dutch tradition, and for that reason I would advocate not to use the link to that (biased) article but rather to a neutral dictionary definition instead (I have actually argued this last year and it has been up until 18 December when it was changed by an editor with no prior involvement in this article (and in fact almost no edits on Wikipedia). So as far as I know the standing consensus is to use the non biased dictionary definition (which I put back in) - please discuss why this is not consensus before reverting. Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, an open dictionary can be edited as I just did. Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:KETTLE at is blackest as (1) Yes Wiktionary is not a reliable source, but neither is Wikipedia itself for much the same reasons (particularly not an article tagged as biased) (2) The provide link to wiktionary is a link like many others, and not a reference (3) The wiktionary definition is very close to the Oxford dictionary definition so no reason to doubt reliability [7] (4) The standing consensus (by general acceptance) has been to include the Wikktionary link since 28 October 2015. This was only changed 18 December 2017 (i.e. less than 2 weeks ago) by editor User:Outilein who has not shown any involvement in (nor knowledge) of this (sensitive) topic in any of their previous edits. This edit (with only a short edit summary) was then defended by Walter Görlitz as being the new consensus while in fact THAT edit was the change of long standing consensus. Since you seem the only person here advocating his change in consensus I do not see why you claim you have consensus on your side. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It does make more sense to link to the wikipedia article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes and No. The problem with the current blackface article is that it takes an almost exclusively US centric approach which does not readily translate to the European situation (it is actually templated for that at the moment). If that were to be definitively solved there (ie if the article would be truly globalised), I would favour linking there, until that time I think linking to a dictionary definition is the lesser of 2 evils. Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The authors who call it blackface are primarily from Europe. Opening an RfC. Please help make it more neutral if it's not sufficiently so. I will comment later as to avoid seeding the responses. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zwarte Piet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426061443/http://de-cirkel-van-nebra.clubs.nl/nieuws/detail/500885_wodan-en-de-oorsprong-van-het-sinterklaasfeest to http://de-cirkel-van-nebra.clubs.nl/nieuws/detail/500885_wodan-en-de-oorsprong-van-het-sinterklaasfeest
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.comcast.net/~majerus-collins/sinterklaas-20091207bdfgf45326865467542567.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Beginning of controversy

The book I cited for the beginning of the controversy in the late 20th century documents "demands from small elements in the black communities" for an elimination of Zwarte Piet, highlighting the 1981 documentary We doen het voor de kinderen, and states that some groups (as of 2001, when the book was published) have started omitting Zwarte Piet. So the controversy clearly started in the late 20th century. Huon (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the character's visual state

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is really two questions. The first: should the putting on of black make-up as is done with Zwarte Piet, be called blackface or not? The second: if it is blackface, should we link that term, and if so should it be to the wiktionary entry or the wikipedia article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

First question survey

Yes it should be called blackface as it conforms to the definition of blackface - i.e. black make-up used by (often non black) persons to depict a black person Arnoutf (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. My gut reaction was no connection. But seeing that various activists have been making this connection, and that this is being covered as blackface in RSes - e.g. The History of Europe's Most Controversial Christmas Character, National Geographic, December 2017 (and others) - then we go with the flow (sources). And it actually seems like there are some legs to the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. The proper place to discuss any connection to the 'minstrely' phenomenon is within the body. I am reminded of other traditions in Europe which may well have been originally relatively inoffensive in intention, but which modern perceptions and modern mixed communities react to differently. Linking to the WP article is de facto making a judgement on the modern controversy. That the character has black face make up is not the same as the character wears blackface. It is even unclear as to whether the original intention was to represent a black person, or that those who started the tradition would have much idea what one looked like. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes with explanation. Readers will tend to see putting on black face paint as blackface. We should describe and link it precisely because it is not completely the exact same thing. For readers' complete understanding, we should link and contrast it by adding something like "in a manner similar to blackface". --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes see Blackface#Belgium_and_Netherlands where Zwarte Pieten are discussed. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• No we should use wording that is not confusing to readers and ill defined words will lead to misunderstanding. We use in Wikipedia currently multiple definitions of blackface and we use wording like conceptual blackface, radio blackface etc that makes this word confusing at the moment. Would prefer to use 'black face make-up' or similar until there is a global definition used in the different articles here. --Hannolans (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This ground is well covered. People, predominantly white, portray Zwarte Piet by putting on black makeup and curly-haired wigs to portray this character. This practice is the literal dictionary definition of 'blackface.' Constablequackers (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course, white people 'blacking up' fits the dictionary definition. But is the connection to a US tradition of parodying a segment of their own society so clear-cut? Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. As Walter has explained in his comment below, the term may have entered into English vocabulary via American English but the practice did not originate there. The term has come to define any person who puts on black makeup in order to portray a person with black skin. It doesn't matter if they're doing as part of an American minstrel show in the 1930s or to entertain children during a European holiday parade in the 21st century. Constablequackers (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes The common definition of blackface is non-black individuals using non-specific make-up to darken their skins to appear black. The term may have entered the English vocabulary via American English, likely as a result of American minstrel shows, but the practice did not originate in the United States, and has occurred in other locations as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• No The dutch were well aware Americans used this term to describe putting on black makeup and red lipstick for their minstrel shows, which we did NOT have in the Netherlands, and we knew that those minstrel shows, and other similar things (like golliwogs) were used to make fun of, and belittle, black people, and so in time have become illegal. But the Dutch have never identified using black makeup for Zwarte Piet as a form of minstrel show, and have never talked about such makeup as "putting on blackface". These are two culturally completely different things. When Jan Schenkman invented the "black page-boy" that became zwarte piet he wanted to find a more child friendly companion than the traditional black devil figure that came before. So Sint-Nicolaas his companion became simply a black page-boy, a child of a Spanish nobleman that served a bishop as page. This tradition has nothing to do with trying to belittle black people, so using an Americanism like "blackface" is totally out of order. Its only a "common definition" in the American sense for a black minstrel, and carries the nasty derogatory meaning with it, which we totally reject. Mahjongg (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Laurence Olivier played Othello in blackface. The term is not limited to American English, but it did originate there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • In this case calling zwarte piet "blackface" is politically inspired to give it the same connotation as the US black minstrel tradition, that wasn't the case with the Othello play. Mahjongg (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And so the solution is, as several have proposed below, to link to the section in the blackface article on the way it's represented in the Netherlands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That section does not even resemble the Dutch blackface page. here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface which says clearly that calling zwarte piet blackface is very controversial in the Netherlands Mahjongg (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
          • But the Dutch blackface page adopts blackface as the uniquely US term, while the English Wikipedia has decided (albeit poorly implemented) that it should cover the more global term referring to any non-black being darkened to represent a black person. The discussion currently on the English blackface page (Talk:Blackface#Name_for_American_style_blackface?) illustrates this problem. I am not sure we should rely too much on the Dutch page here as it takes a different position on the definition of blackface. Arnoutf (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Interestingly, while Olivier's performance in Othello is sometimes described as 'blackface', especially in negative reviews, Orson Welles' isn't. This may be partly explained by the lower level of make up used by Welles, but also by the fact that Olivier's performance was seen by many as grotesquely stereotypical (eyes rolling etc), while Welles' was seen - and continues to be seen - in a more favourable light. I think the term is not neutral, it strongly implies a parodic - or otherwise insulting - intent, rather than simply a white person employing make up to perform as a black person, despite the dictionary def. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) same reason as Walter put down. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. It clearly falls under the definition of "blackface". That word is also used in the article The Black and White Minstrel Show. (I'm aware that Americans think the term denotes something offensive. I find that puzzling.) Maproom (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The Black and White Minstrel Show WAS an imitation of the US minstrel shows in both format and content! Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes All English-language international sources that I can find refer to the tradition as a form of blackface. [8] [9] [10] --NoGhost (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to calling it "blackface", but linking with caution. While black face makeup fits a broad definition of "blackface", the blackface is article is not just about black makeup worn on the face. As English language sources call it "blackface", we should as well. "Blackface" in the United States (and our article) discusses a very specific phenomenon. Activists/critics linking the use of black makeup on the face in Zwarte Piet to blackface in the U.S. are drawing a connection between the two, saying that Zwarte Piet is an example of a larger pattern. Where we discuss these activists/critics, we should link to the subsection of our article, Blackface#Belgium_and_Netherlands, where this is discussed. While there could be arguments suggestive of a common lineage between Zwarte Pieten and burnt cork blackface suggestive of minstrel shows in the U.S., we should not be linking to the top of the Blackface article to suggest it ourselves. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Second question survey

It should not be linked to the current version of the Wikipedia blackface article. I quote the lead of that article (at the moment of writing) to illustrate this:

'Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used predominantly by non-black performers to represent a black person. The practice gained popularity in the United States of America during the 19th century when slavery existed. In the US it contributed to the spread of racial stereotypes such as the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified coon".[1] In 1848, blackface minstrel shows were an American national art of the time, translating formal art such as opera into popular terms for a general audience.[2] Early in the 20th century, blackface branched off from the minstrel show and became a form in its own right, until it ended in the United States with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.[3]

The first line of this lede would be spot on. However the relation to slavery, the US stereotypes, as well as the blackface minstrels move the gist of the article to a de facto exclusively US cultural phenomenon that simply does not cover the Dutch zwarte piet tradition. Mind you, I do think the Dutch tradition has racist/stereotypical properties on its own but no relation the happy-go lucky darky on plantation that is at the heart of the US stereotype. Instead the Dutch Zwart Piet seems to be linking more to (an equally racist and stereotypical yet distinctly different compared to the US minstrel tradition) depiction of underdeveloped African natives (as e.g. in Tintin in the Congo). So at this moment in time I would argue strongly against linking it to the (current version) of the blackface article. Whether it should be linked to a dictionary or not linked at all, I have no strong feelings about. Arnoutf (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Link to wikipedia article. My gut reaction was no connection at all. But seeing that various activists have been making this connection, and that this is being covered as blackface in RSes - e.g. The History of Europe's Most Controversial Christmas Character, National Geographic, December 2017 (and others) - specifically being a portrayal of slave children in rich (and royal) Dutch families - we go with the sources. This would be an instance of non-US blackface or possibly alleged blackface (this is under some contention).Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• No don't link in the lead. The proper place to discuss any connection to the US 'minstrely' phenomenon is within the body. Linking in the lead is de facto taking a stance on what has become a modern controversy. I'm sure this tradition has become offensive to modern perceptions, but not necessarily that the tradition was inherently 'racist', which is what linking would imply. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Link to contrast it, per my response in the first question survey above. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Link to Blackface#Belgium_and_Netherlands where Zwarte Pieten are discussed in the context that is specific and suitable as a wl for this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• No link to this article the article blackface has been reverted to the US tradition of 'Blackface' with as reason "There is a fundamental misunderstanding here - the images on the right [minstrel - red] are Blackface and the primary subject of this article, the images on the left [Otello - red] are theatrical makeup that would be considered inappropriate today but is not really part of the Blackface tradition" see Talk:Blackface#Name_for_American_style_blackface?. There is really a definition problem here. There is no connection with that theatre tradition. I would prefer to have that text in an article Blackface in the United States and a more worlwide overview in blackface. --Hannolans (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Link to wikipedia article. We should only link to another project when our project has not associated topic. Since there is an article on Wikipedia, we should use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Upon reading the other opinions here, I see Blackface#Belgium and Netherlands is an excellent target as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • To me deeplinking to Blackface#Belgium and Netherlands would be a fair solution to this issue as well and I could see consensus developing towards that option (although we should keep track whether other editors do not change it to blackface - top of article link). Arnoutf (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I could also support linking to Blackface#Belgium and Netherlands, I think my objection is to linking to a lead which is so US-specific. Although there may be racial stereotyping in the ZP tradition, I think it distinct from the US tradition, which parodies a section of US society, rather than copying paintings of 'exotic strangers'. Pincrete (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Link to Blackface#Belgium_and_Netherlands (Summoned by bot) per K. e. coffman. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Link. Even if the association is solely via usage of black makeup, that's a clear and direct enough link to warrant giving the reader the option to peruse further along those lines. If the prose is strong enough then the reader should have no problem separating the cultural differences. Cesdeva (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Link to WP. Admittedly, the article focuses far too much on the tradition of blackface in the USA, but that is an issue with that article and not an issue with linking this article to blackface. --NoGhost (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment By linking it becomes an issues of this article too, since when we link to WP (or any other source for that matter) we implicitly agree with the content of that source. Arnoutf (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

It's not required for us to decide if it's blackface or not; we should simply note that it's somewhat like blackface, link it, and let the reader decide. (If sources are overwhelmingly doing something different here in relation to subject and blackface, then we should follow those, but I assume that that isn't the case, or we wouldn't need an RfC.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder whether a workable compromise would be to amend the final sentence of the lead and link there, the final sentence says "In recent years, the character has become the subject of controversy, especially in the Netherlands." If this were amended slightly, we could say briefly why the character has become controversial, (because of the perceived racist stereotype, for reasons similar to those of 'blackface'). I don't exactly see a workable text, but am looking for a way to avoid saying this IS blackface - in the US tradition, whilst acknowledging that it is seen as similar by many critics. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary

It seems that the RfC has expired and the bot has removed the question. I can roll up and summarize it, but would prefer to have another editor do so. But just want to be sure that I have the correct consensus by summarizing the of point.

1. The make-up that Zwarte Piet uses should be described as blackface.
2. There should be a link, and the link should be to the Wikipedia project: [[blackface#Belgium and Netherlands|blackface]].

Do I understand the consensus? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Concur that it is time to close but as an involved party I would like someone else to finalise it as well. Regarding your summary, I generally agree, I think though your second conclusion is a bit more confident than the discussion justifies (I would have said - "there could be a link") but as that would not change the implication for the article I can live with your wording. Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Seven editors clearly came out and stated that linking to the Wikipedia was appropriate. No one said link to wiktionary. Two editors said no link, but then one of those, Pincrete, changed opinion and stated that the link to blackface#Belgium and Netherlands "would be a fair solution to this issue". Please clarify your position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate is just a slightly milder framing than using the word "should" which implies an enforceable command; and I do not think there was consensus for the strong wording. If you look more closely the tally was a 5 (link indiscriminately) 2 (link only to the specified section) 3 (dont link at all) split which is hardly consensus (which would require something close to anonymity depending on interpretation of the term). You could argue that some consensus was achieved that it acceptable to most to link to the section but simply not that there was close to anonymous agreement that it should be linked to the article. But as I said, the implementation would come down to the same so let's just make the link to the section. Arnoutf (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And we're back at the reason for the RfC: your refusal to accept the consensus. I'm going to request admin intervention next. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Arnoutf: now that the RfC has been concluded, I would appreciate it if you would make the edit to apply it. I'd understand if you did not want to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Done. Arnoutf (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Germanic theory

The citation is already needed since 2017. How long will it take before we accept that it was made up and there is no citation for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.161.154.116 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That sure was a long heading. I removed the content and moved the image. I would not be disappointed if anyone wanted to revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Pieten"

is Pieten plural for Piet? If so, should be mentioned. if not, why?--134.153.14.13 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Not all readers of the article will be native speakers of Dutch and may not know Dutch plurals. I hope my recent edit addressed that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Russell Brand and the Colonial Hangover

What on earth does the British 'comedian' Russell Brand know about Zwarte Piet? Or the colonial era? It's nothing to do with the colonial era at all and ZP is a magnanimous character. The fact that this person's opinion has been quoted indicates the depth of debate. Perhaps it has been inserted in the article to lend irony or humour, which, I am told, is Brand's trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Brand is many things, including an author and activist who is quite outspoken with his beliefs on international politics and those of his native United Kingdom. As for Zwarte Piet's alleged ties to the colonial era, there is an argument to be made that this is the case. The character dresses in a traditional page uniform and is a servant to a saint, after all. Constablequackers (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

new article section regarding blackface controversy

Dressing as Zwarte Piet is definitely a form of blackface. It is racist and a new section regarding the controversy should be added to the article separate from the history section. Zwarte Piet is an obviously controversial subject, as documented in the referenced national geographic article that I linked to. I see that there is already a long discussion on the topic of blackface but I started this new one to bring attention to two separate news articles regarding this that are nearly 7 months old and the aforementioned discussion is much older than that.

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F58D:F4B6:1726:608B (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what point you are making. The history section of the current article clearly shows it is controversial (all of the extensive section "Late 20th and 21st century" is about the controverse; which as the term implies always has two sides). In fact our current article pays more attention to it than the National Geographic Article does; and the National Geographic Article brings almost nothing new to the table (the Aljazeera article brings even less news). The only interesting thing the national geographic article brings is the careful statement: "Dutch Zwarte Piet costumes may have also been influenced by American blackface minstrel shows" which is a far cry from the strong claim that Zwarte Piet is definitely a form of blackface. But that claim would have to be backed by reliable historical sources and not an unfounded claim by a campaigner (to which Nat Geogr sources it).

In any case, you are not suggesting any concrete, actionable suggestions to improve the article which makes it impossible to relevantly work from your above statement. Arnoutf (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the latest comment made here. I feel that it should be noted that it is often seen as blackface in international media. Locally however, please keep in mind that Dutch people don't have any notion of blackface and will not recognize this phenomenon. The folklore tradition is to associate the black color with chimney sooth since 1911 already (I have found sources for this), and definitely in my childhood roughly 35 years ago this was still the case. To write a neutral article about a Dutch tradition, at least the cultural view from a local perspective should be noted alongside the view that English people might have on this tradition. Currently the start of the article makes it very biased. Jaapvstr (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaapvstr:. Thanks for discussing. Please see three sections below (Face painting terminology again) for a more full listing of previous discussions and a rebuttal of the claim you've made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Content comparison with Dutch version

I have been reading through both the English & Dutch version of this article and have tried to add some explanation in the English article which was missing from the Dutch version: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet

The big lines of both stories coincide with the heritage of the Saint and his helper and although the articles are no exact translation, there is no contradiction to be found.

Best regards,

Vivian

26 Nov 2006

Face painting terminology again

We had a discussion about this in the past: Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 1#Is the term "blackface" really appropriate here?, Talk:Zwarte_Piet/Archive 2#Blackface make-up, Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 2#Blackface and Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 2#RfC about the character's visual state. I'm not sure if there are others, but an anon seems to have taken offence at using the term "blackface" to describe the action of panting your face black. Sources to the argue for the common use of the term in relation to this character, and counter-claims that it is an American term that was added to the article, or at least the articles are written with an appeal to Americans. The supplied references are clearly WP:OVERREF but they only touch the surface (a quick search of the internet of Zwarte Piet and blackface will show many hits), but question still remains: should we use a more neutral, or possibly less offensive term? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the summary of the last RfC on the issue:

1. The make-up that Zwarte Piet uses should be described as blackface.
2. There should be a link, and the [[blackface]] link should be to blackface#Belgium and Netherlands.

Do we need to reopen the question about 30 months after it closed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really necessary to go over all this again, seeing as how its been discussed at great length in the past in various discussions on the talk page for Zwarte Piet. But one thing must be considered if we're going to delve into this again: blackface is *not* an exclusively American custom. It is used elsewhere around the world. Furthermore, I think it's necessary for everyone who is going to cite an opinion here on the subject to read the dictionary definition of the term from the Cambridge Dictionary, which is in *British* English and here it is: "Dark make-up worn by a white person in order to look like a black person, or the practice of doing this: Laurence Olivier played Othello in blackface." Constablequackers (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Similar definition in other British dictionaries: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/blackface , https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/blackface?q=blackface+ and https://www.lexico.com/definition/blackface . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Even I feel that it should be noted that it is often seen as blackface in international media. Locally however, please keep in mind that Dutch people don't have any notion of blackface and will not recognize this phenomenon. The folklore tradition is to associate the black color with chimney sooth since 1911 already (I have sources for this), and definitely in my childhood roughly 35 years ago this was still the case. To write a neutral article about a Dutch tradition, at least the cultural view from a local perspective should be noted alongside the view that English people might have on this tradition. Currently the start of the article makes it very biased. I think it depends on how to you mention the relation to blackface, where the character IS blackface, has RESEMBLES with blackface, or you put both views of the controversy/debate.

And to answer your question on whether to reopen the debate: unfortunately the debate on the status of Black Pete is a continuous one. Even I would like to consider it closed, but this doesn't seem to be the case in the media and as such views on this character are continuously changing throughout the year(s). Jaapvstr (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The dictionary is clear on what constitutes blackface. The Dutch may not have a notion of it—which I find impossible to bleieve, but I'll assume good faith on your part—but the English-speaking world is clear on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that from an (I think American?) point of view it might be hard to picture the cultural context in a different part of the world on which there is a close resemblance to a controversy in the country you live. I think this goes for many people, I'm also not excused from this and frown when I hear about witch doctors and animals being slaughtered for religious reasons. At the same time, part of the beauty of the world, is that in whenever you visit another country, people are different, habits are different and the context things are done within is different. To make the world function, and a multi-cultural society as well, tolerance is needed to each others traditions to a certain extend, not including it becoming harmful of-course.

I'm not disputing the resemblance with blackface, however I would like to find neutrality in this article. To my newly found understanding, blackface is a tradition that has the intention to pictures people of black origin in inferior ways. In the Dutch folklore point of view, Black Pete however has it's color due to black sooth coming from the chimney through which he delivers presents to the kids and no association with black people. How would you suggest to go about ? I'm thinking either putting this also in the initial summary could work, or just make the summary state it's a controversy and at the controversy section elaborate on both points of view. Jaapvstr (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding an source on my previous claim on the associations in Dutch society, you might find interesting:

https://www.erasmusmagazine.nl/en/2018/11/29/i-was-extremely-shocked-when-i-heard-that-blackface-was-tradition-here/

Quote:

First year IBCoM student Olivier de Vries (20) from Switzerland: “I was quite surprised when I first heard about a character called Zwarte Piet. Initially it seems quite racist, particularly when it’s used in a children’s celebration. However, my Dutch friends got quite wound up about it all, because it belonged to their childhood and they really cherished it. They told me that they’d never associated the black skin colour with race and that he’s a very popular figure. I saw Zwarte Piet for the first time on a pack of pepernoten, but I discovered more about the tradition from my fellow Dutch students. Most of them agree that Zwarte Piet isn’t racist. Personally, I feel that the protests are too vocal, particularly during the celebration. It's intended for children, and that’s being forgotten.” Jaapvstr (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the previous discussion here or on the archives? If you had, you would have seen @Constablequackers:' point that the term, as defined in a British dictionary: "Dark make-up worn by a white person in order to look like a black person, or the practice of doing this: Laurence Olivier played Othello in blackface." I then provided two additional UK dictionaries to support the claim.

From your argument and that of the anon from Krimpen aan den IJssel I infer that people in the Lowlands are being told that "Americans" object to the display, or that blackface is an American phenomenon—possibly because of the appeal of the minstrel show in the US—that never took hold in Europe. I suggest you read the article on blackface to get the whole story.

Again, there are early sources that claim Piet was black due his provenance, not his occupation. The suggestion of the latter came much later that the foundation story. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Walter, you seem to keep going on about CONSENSUS on my private talk page, however I see countless posts that have an issue same as mine, which is neutrality. Let me describe it a bit further to be clear on the issue I have: In the debate on the subject there's two extreme sides: one side that extremely supports the tradition and one side that is extremely opposing it. Not forgetting there's a lot of more neutral people in the middle with a more moderate view. Currently Wikipedia English seems to have a campaign term from the extreme opposing side in the first section. Having that, you cannot claim anymore that it is a neutral article. Neutrality can however be achieved by either going with something more the middle or only writing about one side where the other is also present. Also, too strong statements do not contribute to the neutrality of the article in any way.

I'll provide you a more elaborate response later and do appreciate you following up on the discussion. I think it helps in finding a common understanding. For now I'm leaving it to this short comment as it's very late currently. My goal here is to find a common understanding and a healthy way forward.

Jaapvstr (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you see the previous discussions I linked? After "We had a discussion about this in the past" above".

You can't claim it's not neutral just because it disagrees with your opinion. You've already added misconceptions about how Piet was black because of his occupation (a chimney sweep) when that clearly came after it was established that it was because he came from North Africa. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I provided the literal dictionary definition of the term "blackface" above. I can think of no source that is more neutral and unbiased than a dictionary. 

If this discussion is to continue, the question we must ask ourselves is if the traditional depiction of Zwarte Piet qualifies as blackface. 

I'm afraid it does. It is blackface for the following reasons: 

1. The origin story of the traditional depiction of Zwarte Piet, which is outlined in the Wikipedia article itself with numerous sources, almost entirely comes from a highly-influential book by the author Jan Schenkman. In this book, ZP is described as a Moor. Moors are typically considered people with black skin and of the Muslim faith. Wikipedia even includes an illustration from the book and, in it, Zwarte Piet is clearly black. 

2. White actors who portray the traditional ZP completely cover any exposed skin with black makeup and put on a curly black wig. It is unquestionably clear that they are portraying a person of another race, in this case a person who is black. Many also adopt cliche Surinamese accents, vaguely Caribbean accents, or accents from Africa. 

3. The often-cited claim that ZP gets his black skin from chimney soot is one that has come into practice over the past 30 years or so. I have yet to encounter a source that provides a specific date. I'm skeptical that it dates back as far as 1911. Regardless, no one who spends time in one or even several chimneys comes out of them with every bit of their skin completely covered in black soot and without even a bit of it on their clothing. I have yet to see a photo or encounter an actor in traditional black ZP makeup with any soot on their clothing. This claim also does not explain the curly hair or the bright red lips, which blackface actors both in the Netherlands and elsewhere around the world typically use in their performances. 

4. Jaapvstr claims that the Dutch have no tradition or concept of blackface, although the character of Zwarte Piet proves otherwise. Theatrical productions around the Netherlands have also utilized white actors who put on black makeup in order to portray characters like Othello from the Shakespeare play. Proponents of the traditional Zwarte Piet often confuse blackface with American minstrel shows. When they see the word blackface, they automatically assume it has something to do with this American tradition. However, minstrel shows are just one type of blackface.

5. Another oft-cited argument is that those who say ZP qualifies as blackface don't understand the tradition, couldn't possibly understand it, or outright have no right to discuss it, especially if they live overseas or weren't born in the Netherlands (or other regions where the practice continues). This is a highly dubious and disingenuous argument along the lines of members of a cult claiming that everyone who doubts their beliefs doesn't have their facts straight. Just because the members of a cult may think their leader is immortal and has magical powers doesn't make it so. Bringing this back around to ZP: just because you're okay with an actor covering their skin in black makeup doesn't mean that it does not, literally, meet the dictionary definition of "blackface."  

Furthermore: 

1. Public opinion within the Netherlands among Dutch people regarding whether or not Zwarte Pete is racist has largely changed in recent years. Recent polls by news organizations and research groups have revealed that over 50% of the Dutch public are now in favour of changing the character and doing away with the black makeup. They don't want to phase out the character entirely, but would like to see versions like "Sooty Pete" used instead.

 Constablequackers (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Constablequackers,

Unfortunately I haven't found the time to write an elaborate response yet taking my full day job into account. I can ensure you my view is not as easily summarized as you've done in the above 5 points, so a full response is still something I owe you (and Walter as well).

As to the source I was talking about, it's a newpaper containing a Sinterklaas verse dating 2 December 1911: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010109610:mpeg21:a0355

Part of the Sinterklaas tradition is to make rhymes and sing songs about Sinterklaas & Piet and their activities, this one includes the association with soot.

The relevant part of the verse I already translated for you here below. I wanted to translate the entire verse, however there's some old Dutch in there that makes a few sentences hard to capture.

En dan blijft hij op de daken Trouw bij elken schoorsteen staan. Vaak moet Piet met mooie zaken. Even naar beneden gaan. Daarom kind, onthoud het goed, Is hij ook zoo zwart als roet.

And then he loyally stands on the roofs of the oak chimney. Piet often has to go downstairs with nice things. Therefore, child, remember well, he is as black as soot.

— J. W. van Caspel

Jaapvstr (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You failed to indicate when this was written.

Whether or not he was associated with soot early on, his origin story is that he was a Moor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Jaapvstr, but I don't think this proves your claim that ZP's skin is black due to the soot in chimneys. As the poem states: "he is as black as soot." This merely means his skin is black, just like soot, but not because it's covered in soot or comes from soot. If you really take a close look at the text, the implication is that his dark skin aids him while he sneaks into houses and leaves presents behind for children. More problematic is that the poem says Piet uses stairs and doesn't even go down chimneys, thus his skin never even comes into contact with soot. As Walter noted, this also doesn't negate the origin story that's outlined in Wikipedia, has multiple sources, etc. Constablequackers (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

CNN news story

Wondering if we should add this news story as a reference to the article? Blockhouse321 (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a new story, it's a short documentary. How would you suggest that it be added? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Face painting terminology again. *** Added here for archival purposes in November 2021 and for anyone eager to start this debate, yet again ****

We had a discussion about this in the past: Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 1#Is the term "blackface" really appropriate here?, Talk:Zwarte_Piet/Archive 2#Blackface make-up, Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 2#Blackface and Talk:Zwarte Piet/Archive 2#RfC about the character's visual state. I'm not sure if there are others, but an anon seems to have taken offence at using the term "blackface" to describe the action of panting your face black. Sources to the argue for the common use of the term in relation to this character, and counter-claims that it is an American term that was added to the article, or at least the articles are written with an appeal to Americans. The supplied references are clearly WP:OVERREF but they only touch the surface (a quick search of the internet of Zwarte Piet and blackface will show many hits), but question still remains: should we use a more neutral, or possibly less offensive term? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the summary of the last RfC on the issue:

1. The make-up that Zwarte Piet uses should be described as blackface.
2. There should be a link, and the [[blackface]] link should be to blackface#Belgium and Netherlands.

Do we need to reopen the question about 30 months after it closed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really necessary to go over all this again, seeing as how its been discussed at great length in the past in various discussions on the talk page for Zwarte Piet. But one thing must be considered if we're going to delve into this again: blackface is *not* an exclusively American custom. It is used elsewhere around the world. Furthermore, I think it's necessary for everyone who is going to cite an opinion here on the subject to read the dictionary definition of the term from the Cambridge Dictionary, which is in *British* English and here it is: "Dark make-up worn by a white person in order to look like a black person, or the practice of doing this: Laurence Olivier played Othello in blackface." Constablequackers (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Similar definition in other British dictionaries: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/blackface , https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/blackface?q=blackface+ and https://www.lexico.com/definition/blackface . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Even I feel that it should be noted that it is often seen as blackface in international media. Locally however, please keep in mind that Dutch people don't have any notion of blackface and will not recognize this phenomenon. The folklore tradition is to associate the black color with chimney sooth since 1911 already (I have sources for this), and definitely in my childhood roughly 35 years ago this was still the case. To write a neutral article about a Dutch tradition, at least the cultural view from a local perspective should be noted alongside the view that English people might have on this tradition. Currently the start of the article makes it very biased. I think it depends on how to you mention the relation to blackface, where the character IS blackface, has RESEMBLES with blackface, or you put both views of the controversy/debate.

And to answer your question on whether to reopen the debate: unfortunately the debate on the status of Black Pete is a continuous one. Even I would like to consider it closed, but this doesn't seem to be the case in the media and as such views on this character are continuously changing throughout the year(s). Jaapvstr (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The dictionary is clear on what constitutes blackface. The Dutch may not have a notion of it—which I find impossible to bleieve, but I'll assume good faith on your part—but the English-speaking world is clear on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that from an (I think American?) point of view it might be hard to picture the cultural context in a different part of the world on which there is a close resemblance to a controversy in the country you live. I think this goes for many people, I'm also not excused from this and frown when I hear about witch doctors and animals being slaughtered for religious reasons. At the same time, part of the beauty of the world, is that in whenever you visit another country, people are different, habits are different and the context things are done within is different. To make the world function, and a multi-cultural society as well, tolerance is needed to each others traditions to a certain extend, not including it becoming harmful of-course.

I'm not disputing the resemblance with blackface, however I would like to find neutrality in this article. To my newly found understanding, blackface is a tradition that has the intention to pictures people of black origin in inferior ways. In the Dutch folklore point of view, Black Pete however has it's color due to black sooth coming from the chimney through which he delivers presents to the kids and no association with black people. How would you suggest to go about ? I'm thinking either putting this also in the initial summary could work, or just make the summary state it's a controversy and at the controversy section elaborate on both points of view. Jaapvstr (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding an source on my previous claim on the associations in Dutch society, you might find interesting:

https://www.erasmusmagazine.nl/en/2018/11/29/i-was-extremely-shocked-when-i-heard-that-blackface-was-tradition-here/

Quote:

First year IBCoM student Olivier de Vries (20) from Switzerland: “I was quite surprised when I first heard about a character called Zwarte Piet. Initially it seems quite racist, particularly when it’s used in a children’s celebration. However, my Dutch friends got quite wound up about it all, because it belonged to their childhood and they really cherished it. They told me that they’d never associated the black skin colour with race and that he’s a very popular figure. I saw Zwarte Piet for the first time on a pack of pepernoten, but I discovered more about the tradition from my fellow Dutch students. Most of them agree that Zwarte Piet isn’t racist. Personally, I feel that the protests are too vocal, particularly during the celebration. It's intended for children, and that’s being forgotten.” Jaapvstr (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the previous discussion here or on the archives? If you had, you would have seen @Constablequackers:' point that the term, as defined in a British dictionary: "Dark make-up worn by a white person in order to look like a black person, or the practice of doing this: Laurence Olivier played Othello in blackface." I then provided two additional UK dictionaries to support the claim.

From your argument and that of the anon from Krimpen aan den IJssel I infer that people in the Lowlands are being told that "Americans" object to the display, or that blackface is an American phenomenon—possibly because of the appeal of the minstrel show in the US—that never took hold in Europe. I suggest you read the article on blackface to get the whole story.

Again, there are early sources that claim Piet was black due his provenance, not his occupation. The suggestion of the latter came much later that the foundation story. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Walter, you seem to keep going on about CONSENSUS on my private talk page, however I see countless posts that have an issue same as mine, which is neutrality. Let me describe it a bit further to be clear on the issue I have: In the debate on the subject there's two extreme sides: one side that extremely supports the tradition and one side that is extremely opposing it. Not forgetting there's a lot of more neutral people in the middle with a more moderate view. Currently Wikipedia English seems to have a campaign term from the extreme opposing side in the first section. Having that, you cannot claim anymore that it is a neutral article. Neutrality can however be achieved by either going with something more the middle or only writing about one side where the other is also present. Also, too strong statements do not contribute to the neutrality of the article in any way.

I'll provide you a more elaborate response later and do appreciate you following up on the discussion. I think it helps in finding a common understanding. For now I'm leaving it to this short comment as it's very late currently. My goal here is to find a common understanding and a healthy way forward.

Jaapvstr (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you see the previous discussions I linked? After "We had a discussion about this in the past" above".

You can't claim it's not neutral just because it disagrees with your opinion. You've already added misconceptions about how Piet was black because of his occupation (a chimney sweep) when that clearly came after it was established that it was because he came from North Africa. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I provided the literal dictionary definition of the term "blackface" above. I can think of no source that is more neutral and unbiased than a dictionary.

If this discussion is to continue, the question we must ask ourselves is if the traditional depiction of Zwarte Piet qualifies as blackface.

I'm afraid it does. It is blackface for the following reasons:

1. The origin story of the traditional depiction of Zwarte Piet, which is outlined in the Wikipedia article itself with numerous sources, almost entirely comes from a highly-influential book by the author Jan Schenkman. In this book, ZP is described as a Moor. Moors are typically considered people with black skin and of the Muslim faith. Wikipedia even includes an illustration from the book and, in it, Zwarte Piet is clearly black.

2. White actors who portray the traditional ZP completely cover any exposed skin with black makeup and put on a curly black wig. It is unquestionably clear that they are portraying a person of another race, in this case a person who is black. Many also adopt cliche Surinamese accents, vaguely Caribbean accents, or accents from Africa.

3. The often-cited claim that ZP gets his black skin from chimney soot is one that has come into practice over the past 30 years or so. I have yet to encounter a source that provides a specific date. I'm skeptical that it dates back as far as 1911. Regardless, no one who spends time in one or even several chimneys comes out of them with every bit of their skin completely covered in black soot and without even a bit of it on their clothing. I have yet to see a photo or encounter an actor in traditional black ZP makeup with any soot on their clothing. This claim also does not explain the curly hair or the bright red lips, which blackface actors both in the Netherlands and elsewhere around the world typically use in their performances.

4. Jaapvstr claims that the Dutch have no tradition or concept of blackface, although the character of Zwarte Piet proves otherwise. Theatrical productions around the Netherlands have also utilized white actors who put on black makeup in order to portray characters like Othello from the Shakespeare play. Proponents of the traditional Zwarte Piet often confuse blackface with American minstrel shows. When they see the word blackface, they automatically assume it has something to do with this American tradition. However, minstrel shows are just one type of blackface.

5. Another oft-cited argument is that those who say ZP qualifies as blackface don't understand the tradition, couldn't possibly understand it, or outright have no right to discuss it, especially if they live overseas or weren't born in the Netherlands (or other regions where the practice continues). This is a highly dubious and disingenuous argument along the lines of members of a cult claiming that everyone who doubts their beliefs doesn't have their facts straight. Just because the members of a cult may think their leader is immortal and has magical powers doesn't make it so. Bringing this back around to ZP: just because you're okay with an actor covering their skin in black makeup doesn't mean that it does not, literally, meet the dictionary definition of "blackface."

Furthermore:

1. Public opinion within the Netherlands among Dutch people regarding whether or not Zwarte Pete is racist has largely changed in recent years. Recent polls by news organizations and research groups have revealed that over 50% of the Dutch public are now in favour of changing the character and doing away with the black makeup. They don't want to phase out the character entirely, but would like to see versions like "Sooty Pete" used instead.

Constablequackers (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Constablequackers,

Unfortunately I haven't found the time to write an elaborate response yet taking my full day job into account. I can ensure you my view is not as easily summarized as you've done in the above 5 points, so a full response is still something I owe you (and Walter as well).

As to the source I was talking about, it's a newpaper containing a Sinterklaas verse dating 2 December 1911: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010109610:mpeg21:a0355

Part of the Sinterklaas tradition is to make rhymes and sing songs about Sinterklaas & Piet and their activities, this one includes the association with soot.

The relevant part of the verse I already translated for you here below. I wanted to translate the entire verse, however there's some old Dutch in there that makes a few sentences hard to capture.

En dan blijft hij op de daken Trouw bij elken schoorsteen staan. Vaak moet Piet met mooie zaken. Even naar beneden gaan. Daarom kind, onthoud het goed, Is hij ook zoo zwart als roet.

And then he loyally stands on the roofs of the oak chimney. Piet often has to go downstairs with nice things. Therefore, child, remember well, he is as black as soot.

— J. W. van Caspel

Jaapvstr (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You failed to indicate when this was written.

Whether or not he was associated with soot early on, his origin story is that he was a Moor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Jaapvstr, but I don't think this proves your claim that ZP's skin is black due to the soot in chimneys. As the poem states: "he is as black as soot." This merely means his skin is black, just like soot, but not because it's covered in soot or comes from soot. If you really take a close look at the text, the implication is that his dark skin aids him while he sneaks into houses and leaves presents behind for children. More problematic is that the poem says Piet uses stairs and doesn't even go down chimneys, thus his skin never even comes into contact with soot. As Walter noted, this also doesn't negate the origin story that's outlined in Wikipedia, has multiple sources, etc. Constablequackers (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

@Vallee01: In recent years, the character has become the subject of controversy, because there is extremely clear undertones that Zwarte Piet is a subservient slave, as well as the make up being intentionally used to look dirty. At best you could write, that it is "because there are extremely clear undertones". Also, the people who portray Zwarte Piet are not being made-up to look dirty, although the sooty Piets make that claim, it's because he's a black character, who is a slave of Sinterklaas. It's because he—and this is the case with many of the companions of Saint Nicholas—behaves in a reprehensible way in punishing "wicked" children while Nicholas rewards the good, so the latter is heralded while the former is usually feared. No, the actual controversy is that the people who celebrate Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet do not see it as a racist action but rather one of tradition and harmless fun. They in turn see the protesters as attacking tradition. Therein lies the controversy. However, we do not need to lay it out in the lead, but simply state the fact that there is controversy and let the readers discover the full scale of the controversy in the article itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is based around racism as it obviously is, when reading these sources. That's mainly what it is, I don't know how you could ever defend this position, the fact that black nick is man subservient, which is painted with black face, who's boss is white, and it being created around the time of Indonesian colonialism is considered racist by people. That's it. There's no point for your argument. Its not rocket science. "Accordingly, there is a strong tendency to ignore and/or reject race issues and racism. The editors of the recently published volume Dutch Racism (Essed & Hoving 2014a) take (institutionalized) ignorance, together with innocence, avoidance, and denial as key features in their understanding of (everyday) racism in the Netherlands. The controversy over the figure of Black Pete shows how claims of innocence and strategies of ignorance and denial work: Black Pete is nothing more than a fun-loving, well-meaning children’s friend whose blackface appearance results from chimney soot. Racist connotations or references to slavery are, subsequently, easily waved aside (i.e., ignored). In this way, innocence and ignorance are forms of evasion and even denial, which easily fits in with the Dutch inclination to reject colonial history as relevant for understanding racism" I don't know how anyone can The "skin" of black pete isn't skin. The normal skin tones for black people is a hue of red and saturated and darkened, hue of people of color tend to be between 2-7, and is extremely dark. Black petes skin, isn't a hue which any black person has, its hue from what I can find averages out to hue of 11, that's the color of dirt! It also extremely desaturated something which black skin isn't, something that is desaturated is dirt though. I don't know if it was intentional but the skin of black pete isn't skin color of any human, its the color of dirt. I will simply simplify the basic point in the controversy section and to go to sleep as it is late where I live. I will speak about this after I go to sleep. Vallee01 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not only around racism, as the article states and I pointed out. To the Lowlanders, its about people disrupting tradition. As you wrote, it's not rocket science. At least you added it to the body and not the lede, and four articles do not support your use of "many". Someone will likely fix that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I fixed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you've followed the Zwarte Piet debate in the Benelux countries closely, Vallee01, as many people involved with this page have over the past decade. While much of the world has deemed the tradition racist, a large portion of the public in these countries still consider the tradition inoffensive and, ultimately, don't understand what the big deal is. Their stance is that, if those celebrating the tradition aren't trying to hurt people of color and are merely "having fun," there's no harm done. They can't seem to understand why anyone would be offended by what they consider to be "harmless fun" and a "holiday for children." As frustrating as this can be to read about and witness, the goal of Wikipedia is to present the facts as they are. We should employ policies and methods similar to those used by journalists writing an article for a magazine. This isn't the place for our own personal opinions. Our task here is to assemble and present the facts as accurately as possible. We can't outright say that the tradition is racist, since that would be an opinion, even if there is an incredibly strong argument to be made that Zwarte Piet is incredibly and undeniably racist. We must apply a neutral tone with phrases like "the tradition is controversial" and "an increasing portion of the public finds the tradition racist." It's best to think of all this like you're writing an article for the front page of a publication like The Guardian or, better yet, an entry in a neutral, just the facts encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia supposed to be. All in all, this isn't the place for editorializing. Constablequackers (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Regarding the coloured women

Hi Scenarioschrijver20, my issue with the current wording is that it uses racism to distinguish between the very dark and light version of ZP, implying that the light version is not (which also seems to be what the public thinks but we have to stay neutral). Perhaps we can just give more context by mentioning that they are using soot wipers because of their lighter "skin colour", which is usually perceived somewhat differently? Best, Caius G. (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason I put it there is that the dark look of ZP, is allegdy racist. And the company the woman worked for was changing to using only soot-pieten (roetveegpieten in dutch). But if you have a concept version of a proposal to change it to, I'll gladly read it. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Just saw the change. It my opinion, this does mention the occurrences better. Thank you Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenarioschrijver20 great! And apologies for being a bit rough earlier, we've had a bit of POV pushing on this page before. Best, Caius G. (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Caius G. No worries about that, I already expected that especially with a topic like this. Best, --Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC) and until we meet again!

Introduction

Hi Walter Görlitz, you have reverted my changes on the introduction saying it was rewriting history, and I was wondering what history I rewrote according to you. The introduction had multiple issues which I tried to fix with my edit:

• First it says The character first appeared in an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman. Later in the article we read It's widely considered the first time a servant character was included in a printed version of the Saint Nicholas narrative. The servant is depicted as a page who appears as a dark-skinned person wearing clothes associated with Moors. The character is not named Zwarte Piet in Schenkman's publication, and saying that this was nevertheless the first time when 'the same character as Zwarte Piet' appeared is also not supported by sources, as Schenkman's character is not seen as the creation of the phenomenon of (what would later be called) Zwarte Piet (just like the section titles suggest); it is not clear and there is no consensus where and when the transition from '(black) servant' to 'Zwarte Piet' happened. There are for example older references to a black servant, such as in 1836, and even if there were not any other references we would still not be sure if this was the first time a black servant appeared. This is why It's widely considered the first time a servant character was included in a printed version of the Saint Nicholas narrative. is a good sentence but The character first appeared in an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman. not. As we are dealing with 'Zwarte Piet' who is associated with his dark skin, though, it would still be good to mention that this is the earliest known depiction of a *dark-skinned* companion (my edit).
• Then it says Traditionally, Zwarte Piet is black because he is a Moor from Spain. First of all, there was quite a misleading link to 'black people', while we are not talking about black people but the colour black (Moors are often not even considered 'black people' to my knowledge). I also changed 'traditionally' to 'originally' to avoid confusion, because the Saint Nicholas celebration is a tradition that is alive and changing. According to tradition (in the sense of, according to the story passed on from generation to generation), Zwarte Piet is black because of the soot. Zwarte Piet is a made-up character and tradition can change him into anything. The historical explanation (origin) of the blackness of the character, however, is more complicated, so changing 'traditionally' to 'originally' is not enough. In the source provided and in the article, it is not stated as a fact that Zwarte Piet's blackness comes from him being a Moor, although this seems indeed true for Schenkman's character (which makes it a good and common explanation; often combined with the fact that historically black characters were a common phenomenon during St Nicholas or related celebrations in Europe). Indeed in the article there are multiple explanations given (Odin's ravens, soot from chimneys, freed slave, captured devil, etc.), so to make the intro correct I stated that there were multiple historical explanations for Zwarte Piet's blackness, and wrote down the most common ones (especially as these are quite relevant). However, I did not delete the next phrase, which said that the most common traditional explanation is the soot from the chimneys, because it is has been by far the most (if not only) popular traditional explanation since many years (something no one will doubt, but a source is provided). Just like with other fictional characters or religious phenomena, the traditional explanation is as important as the historical explanation, as the latter is less relevant (and sometimes forgotten). Let me know what you think and what changes you would propose (assuming you agree with the contradiction of the intro and article/sources).Aivin G. (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is clear that the soot explanation came later. See the paragraph that commences with "The most popular explanation". A review of the history section is in order.

As for linking, black is linked to black people and Moor is linked to Moors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear that the soot explanation came later nor does that matter. The point is that, according to tradition, Zwarte Piet is black because of the soot. The historical reason/origin for it is not clear to us, but the most commonly used explanations are a Moorish background, soot from the chimney, Germanic mythology, and a combination of these. It's not the case that the older the historical explanation, the more likely it is, nor the older the explanation, the more traditional or more used one. And I still believe that linking 'black' to 'black people' is misleading (and pretty unnecessary), as the term 'black people' is often used to describe people of certain races, excluding Moors; it also suggests that, whatever explanation, Zwarte Piet is a black person while most of the other explanations do not suggest that. The first problem also still stands. Aivin G. (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Aivin G.

According to the oldest tradition, he is a black man and so the link to black people is not only valid it is accurate. The later tradition is not supported as original and should not be promoted as such. If you'd rather that we link "black" to blackface, we could do that since it was mostly white people who donned face paint to appear black that represented Piet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, by definition Zwarte Piet is black, but the term 'black people' (sometimes capitalised) is often used to describe certain races of people with dark skin colour. It will be confusing to link to this article if we simply mean a black man regardless of race, which is the case at least in my edit where multiple theories are given (if you really want a link, black would be most accurate, although sometimes he is brown or grey, so I suggested changing it to dark-skinned). If you want to say that traditionally Zwarte Piet is indeed a man from a black race, we still got the problem that Moors are not always regarded as black people; a link for Moors would be enough and will avoid any confusing or misleadingness. It is for example especially important as many people would think of Zwarte Piet as a black (Sub-Saharan) slave. As blackface is also usually used to describe portraying a 'black person' (in most dictionaries, like here or here or here, even capitalised) it forms the same problem (although, until recently the make-up did have features undoubtedly borrowed from blackface, but these are getting rid of, because a Black person is not portrayed; a white man with soot is portrayed). Normally this ambiguity wouldn't be much of a problem but this is obviously an article which requires close attention to neutrality and avoidance of confusion.

'According to the oldest tradition', Zwarte Piet is not a Moor (assuming that's what you are referring to). An either black or non-black companion of Saint Nicholas existed before Schenkman's publication, but even if we uncarefully take it as a fact that Schenkman's character was the first 'Zwarte Piet' (which I think we shouldn't), it is still debatable if the origin of Zwarte Piet's blackness comes solely from him being made a Moor by Schenkman, or that his blackness has a historical background (such as his predecessors (already black in 1836) or Germanic mythology). But again, we don't know if all Zwarte Pieten and their appearance 'descend' solely from Schenkman's character and as there are older references to character which we would normally call 'Zwarte Piet' or one of his predecessors, we don't know what would be the historical explanation or (most likely) combination of historical explanations for the idea of Zwarte Piet being a dark-skinned figure. This is clear in the article, and even the provided source(!), where multiple historical explanations are given. We cannot simply state one of the explanations as a fact, just because we arbitrarily chose Schenkman's character as the first Zwarte Piet which makes it the historical explanation with the earliest known supporting evidence... We simply follow the sources and article where it is clear that there are multiple explanations, and an explanation won't be anymore likely because it's older (in fact it is often the opposite). Normally the origin (= what I mean with historical explanation) isn't even relevant enough to be stated in the introduction, but as it is often a point of debate I think it will be good to mention the different theories.

You then say that 'The later tradition is not supported as original and should not be promoted as such.' There are no sources saying that 'Zwarte Piet is black because he is a Moor' was ever part of the tradition, i.e. was ever the explanation that was passed on from generation to generation. And even if it was, since almost a century or so the dominant traditional explanation has been different. History cannot be rewritten, but stories and traditions can. Zwarte Piet does not exist and any fact about him can be changed at any point. It would be weird to promote the oldest version of the tradition in the introduction instead of the current or most common one. If we now find an old drawing of Santa Claus carrying a bag to put naughty children in (like Zwarte Piet), it would be ridiculous to say in the introduction of Santa Claus that 'traditionally, Santa Claus has a bag to put naughty children in', rather than 'to put presents in' (which is now the only truth). Maybe if we have a source saying that the bag can be linked to the bag of Zwarte Piet, we could mention it (along with any other common theories) besides the explanation of the current tradition, but then it would be better to write 'originally' rather than 'traditionally', as the latter often means 'according to tradition' which would be very confusing for someone trying to understand the tradition. Or imagine 'abolishing' and forgetting Zwarte Piet and gradually making Sooty Pete totally black (because of the soot) and changing the name to Black Pete - now the historical explanation (and also 'the oldest tradition') would be the soot explanation, but how would this be different than gradually changing the tradition by passing on a different story, namely the soot explanation? Is 'the oldest tradition' in the second case really the only one that should be promoted even though this is something of the past and does not describe the tradition in its current form but only adds some historical background? I think only in exceptional cases - like Zwarte Piet because of discussion about the offensiveness of its racist appearance (for which historical background is relevant), but that does not mean the 'newer traditions' (here the current and most common tradition) should not be 'promoted' (this is assuming that the Moor explanation was without doubt 'the first tradition').

This is mostly all assuming that Schenkman's character was the first appearance of Zwarte Piet rather than the 'earliest known depiction of a black servant of Saint Nicholas', but that would be a whole other debate which will be difficult as there is no consensus in the sources (even not within the article). But with articles like these, we might not want to present that as a fact if there is no consensus.

I feel like we probably won't be able reach consensus, though, as you keep rejecting the idea (somewhat similar to linguistic prescriptivists) that when fictional characters are changed, the 'facts' about the fictional character do indeed change and so does the tradition or meaning. This has happened with so many traditions, customs, characters, stories, and celebrations. As I said this is not re-interpretating a historical account, as the historical explanations, including the Moor one, are acknowledged (and debated). But 'traditionally/according to tradition' is in this case (most likely) different than 'originally' or 'according to the oldest version of the tradition'. We might want to request for comment or a third opinion, or put this on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? The current form of the introduction is not accurate, neutral, or balanced.--Aivin G. (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not me that you will not reach consensus with. I'm just one editor. I'll step back and let others, such as @Constablequackers: who regularly contributes here, comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That looks a bit like canvassing seeing their involvement in other (similar) debates here in which they were supporting you, but the discussion has moved to the section below in case they still want to be involved. Aivin G. (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The editor thanked me when I reverted, so is aware of what's happening here. We are wiki gnomes on this article. The fact that we see the same is indication of our understanding of the situation, nothing else. We have disagreed on this and other topics in the past. I'm sure Constablequackers will decide if and when to respond here. The editor is aware of the content and the debate, which is the only reason I pinged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

they did? Caius G. (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry. It was Apaugasma. 1000 edits a day. Hard to keep things straight, but that the editor is knowledgeable is undeniable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)