Template:Did you know nominations/Nigg*rs in the White House
Appearance
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Niggers in the White House
[edit]- ... that "Niggers in the White House" (1902) was written after President Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Official language
- Comment: I am unable to correctly title this nomination myself, because of Wikipedia' fabulous blacklist. Created in a sandbox and moved to mainspace by a kind administrator.
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 08:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC).
- Article was new enough at time of nomination, and QPQ is done, but it is barely long enough (1,500 characters exactly). The article feels a bit stretched thin, with coverage not just about the poem, but also ancillary issues to get the total up to 1,500. This is a valid article topic, and Wikipedia is not censored, but the hook is very problematic (although its fact is verifiable). I think the poem title itself could be displayed on the main page (others might reasonably disagree with me here), but there are other problems with the hook. Given the unambiguously pejorative use of the term "nigger", the use of the term in a link to Booker T. Washington is a severe violation of WP:NPOV and common sense (particularly for something that will be featured on the main page). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed that by removing that pipe. Yea I'm gonna add common sense to my Christmas wish list this year. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good, but the article now seems to be below 1,500 characters. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have scoured the Net for more, but it seems that there is no more new content to be found. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good, but the article now seems to be below 1,500 characters. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Would someone else take a look at this in relation to its length? It was just 1,500 characters at the time of nomination and is now just slightly below. Everything else seems ok with this. Should this be IARed? I am on the fence. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have expanded it a bit so it is now 1600 characters.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good to go. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are seriously ok'ing this piece to appear on the front page of Wikipedia, IronGargoyle? It seems deliberately provocative. There will be backlash. Liz Read! Talk! 11:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I considered it too, but I think this is one of the cases in which WP:NOTCENSORED actually applies. As long as the hook shows that this is 1. a title and 2. a historical usage I think it should be ok. The piece clearly reflects a significant part of US history that is not going away.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Relax, negroes ain't gonna chop off our heads.The hook is written in a NPOV tone, according to the strictest of Wikipedia's policies. If anyone were to offer negative criticism of this hook, then the person would be deemed to have issues. We cannot aim to please everybody. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)- First of all, I don't think flippant comments (even if preemptively struck) or attacking critics are helpful, Bonkers. The earlier version of the hook with the piped link to Booker T. Washington (and the comments) could convey an impression to other editors that your motives are partly provocational. That being said, I agree with Maunus that the use of the term as used in the original title is important (see: WP:DYKSG B3), and removing it would be one of the key areas that WP:NOTCENSORED is specifically designed to address (in a very brief search through the talk archives, I found precedence for "bad words" appearing in DYK article titles like this). I would be happy to have this be opened to a wider discussion at WT:DYK in any case, if others think this would be helpful. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are seriously ok'ing this piece to appear on the front page of Wikipedia, IronGargoyle? It seems deliberately provocative. There will be backlash. Liz Read! Talk! 11:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good to go. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)