Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blackface/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 21:04, 2 March 2008.

Blackface

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Update - Notified WP African diaspora and User:Deeceevoice.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Quadell aware; notified Amcaja. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first (second, I'm remembering I initiated another one some time ago) featured article review I've started, but I'll say this about it:

It fails 2(c). It doesn't have enough citations. Some paragraphs are barely sourced at all. "History and the shaping of racist archetypes" has just a single citation and it's a long paragraph. "Blackface and "darky" iconography" has just two citations. The neutrality of the section about the Dutch character is disputed, too, and in places the writing seems to be not of a professional standard.

It may also contain original research, i.e. "Sometimes it is done with a good deal of calculation by, for example, the many white lead performers, such as Amy Winehouse, who use black backup singers or musicians."

I would say it's a decent article, and would be applicable for GA with a few improvements, but does not meet the FA criteria at this point in time.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HisSpace. Do you mind alerting the original FAC nominator, heavy contributors, and relevant Wikiprojects listed on talk about this review? You can use {{subst:FARMessage|Blackface}}. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll try to do that.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how sensitive this topic is and how much controversy has surrounded it, I think it would be advisable to formulate somewhat more detailed pointers, particularly about the the amount of footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thinking about whether the topic is a controversial one or not - WP:NPOV must always take care of that. I'm thinking that the way that the article is written does not meet the criteria required of a featured article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a good idea to avoid overly vague criticism in a FAR. The more specific you are the less time will be spent on bickering over vagueness. I recommend providing more examples.
Peter Isotalo 07:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails point 4, going off on a tangent that is only peripherally related to the topic (i.e. the influence of African-American music on "world popular culture"). The NPOV status of the section is also disputed, and the fight over its non/deletion also detracts from the article's stability. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please give examples of where you believe the referencing is inadequate and your reasons for this belief. Joelito (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only now just seeing that the article is up for review. I won't be able to spend any time on this article until after the holidays. Wherever you feel text needs citation, just affix a fact tag, and I'll get around to it. General criticisms are meaningless/not helpful. Be specific about precisely what passages are problematic and what needs citation. I notice there's still(?) a POV tag on the Zwarte Piet section -- but there's been nothing advanced on the talk page (at least not last I checked) that would seem to merit the tag. If there's a problem there, then someone needs to state what and why. deeceevoice (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is with the opening sentence? "Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist American archetype—that of the darky or coon." The latter half of the sentence sounds pretentious and feels POV. More importantly, I have no idea what it means. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To affect is no take on the appearance, demeanor, and mannerisms of. Your countenance is your overall frontal presentation. It doesn't say "used to imitate the face of" or "used to display the appearance of", because those aren't really accurate. "Blackface" is an overall presentation, implying make-up, accent, mannerisms, etc. I can't really think of a better way to put it than "affect the countenance", but if you have a wording suggestion we're all open. I'm assuming that's the part you're having trouble with. You know what "iconic", "archetype", and "coon" mean, right? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good Lord. Please use your dictionary, PB. Or, consult the talk page archives. This matter has been discussed ad nauseam -- and I mean that -- by multiple editors. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's been brought up numerous times in the past and is now being brought up again, what does that tell you? It tells me that it will keep getting brought up until the sentence is changed. I don't literally mean I don't understand the sentence; I mean it's probably hard for the general readership to understand the sentence because of the way it's worded (and yes, that includes reasonably educated English speakers). Our general readership does not have time to read talk page archives to help decode the meaning of a sentence; the meaning should jump out at them, especially when it's the first sentence of the article.
You advise 'me' to use my dictionary, yet the dictionary is the source of the confusion. For example, it gives two very different definitions for affect, and 'I' have no idea which is right. As far as 'I' know, blackface is an attempt to influence the appearance of African American stereotypes. Quadell suggests that other wordings were inaccurate, but using an ambiguous wording is hardly better. I cannot offer a better wording at this time, but I guarantee there is one out there.
To answer your question, Quadell--no, 'I' apparently don't know what coon and darky mean. 'I' thought they were disparaging terms for African Americans. In this article, they instead seem to refer to some archetype, but the lead does not do a good job of making this connection. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review the voluminous discussion in the talk page history about the terms, PB. Alternative wording also was discussed ad nauseam, and no one was able to come up with anything that conveyed the meaning as accurately as what remains. Perhaps you'll come up with something that hasn't been discussed and that is an improvement. Actually, I think the average reader does understand what the sentence says -- perhaps not on the first pass, but the meaning is easily gleaned from context. And if they learn another application of a perfectly serviceable English word, then so much the better. For every person who reads the article and has a complaint similar to yours, there likely are at least hundreds more who do not. Furthermore, it is clear the terms "darky" and "coon" are disparaging terms; the lead makes it perfectly clear that the archetype(s) are "racist." I don't know how much clearer one can get on that point. And, if a reader has any questions about those terms, they are wiki linked for easy reference. deeceevoice (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something: why should PB, or anyone, have to look at a voluminous discussion, on the talk page, in order to make sense of an encyclopedia article's opening sentence? It's interesting that there's been much discussion of what that sentence should say; it's also irrelevant if the result is nearly unintelligible, which in my opinion it is. I gather the wording was the subject of much negotiation; in this case, consensus seems to have failed. atakdoug (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, somewhere along the way, the link to List of ethnic slurs for "darky" was removed. I've reinserted it. Any reasonably attentive reader will understand that the terms are pejorative. deeceevoice (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is seriously flawed and really boils down to OR. The editors take the concept blackface makeup and generalized it to everything under the sun involving black music (blackface was not music), white music and it's history of black influence, racial relations (some having to do with blackface, some not), claims that such singers as Elvis, Jimmy Rogers and legions of others -- are a result of blackface makeup. The sources used in the article are obscure or idiosyncratic. There is not one of the many black music historians and critics used as a reference. In fact, not even mainstream white music critics are used. None of the biographies of the musicians referenced supports these claims. This is OR and POV because the article seems to be trying to make a point. I could go on but I am too offended by the article. Mattisse 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong remove I would vote where the others did but I can't seem to get there on this page. Please move my comment and vot to the correct place. Thanks! Mattisse 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong remove. With its lack of references and abundance of original research, this article hardly represents Wikipedia's very best work. Most sections have very few citations, which is very troubling for a topic like this. The section with the most citations, "Blackface minstrelsy and world popular culture," is actually rife with original research: it supports its central claim mostly with sources that don't even mention blackface (and a biography of Bing Crosby—?). There are numerous other examples of original research throughout the article (and since WP:OR and WP:V are related, it's worth repeating that most of the article is unreferenced). The article is unfocused and, in my opinion, is a pointless fork of minstrel show (and yes, I read the brief merge discussion). Punctured Bicycle (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The objective of this "pointless fork of minstrel show" is to examine the vehicle of blackface as a cultural phenomenon separate and apart from the minstrel show. As the article points out, the impacts are far-reaching and long-lasting. Such information is not included in minstrel show and would not have been addressed absent the article on blackface. In fact, blackface addressed the issues of race and racism in blackface minstrelsy before the related article, which didn't even mention the term "racism" until I injected it. Clearly, the articles, though related, have different areas of emphasis. As such, the article on blackface is valuable and informative and not only should remain a separate article, it should retain its featured article status. If you have problems with text that needs to be substantiated/sourced, then there are clearly established remedies to accomplish that end. deeceevoice (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time understanding how blackface can be treated as a cultural phenomenon separate from the American minstrel show. The first sentence of minstrel show indicates that blackface is a defining aspect of the minstrel show, and everything else I have read mentions blackface only in the context of the minstrel show. As I view it, the article blackface amounts to this:
  • "History and the shaping of racist archetypes" - A reiteration of information from minstrel show, only with less detail and less sources.
  • "'Darky' iconography" - An unsourced section that, once sourced and cleaned up, could easily be incorporated into the "Legacy" section of the minstrel show article.
  • "Modern-day manifestations" - The first part of this could likewise be incorporated into the "Legacy" section. The parts on Zwarte Piet and Coon Carnival could either be a.) summarized concisely in a section called "International variants", b.) incorporated into the "Legacy" section, or c.) relegated to "See also" links. The part about the U.S. could, once again, be incorporated into the "Legacy" section of minstrel show.
  • "In world popular culture" - Again, "Legacy".
  • "Face paint and ethnic impersonation" - This seems like it should be in its own article (perhaps titled ethnic impersonation ?).
  • "Other contexts" - Tangential information; connecting it to this topic is arguably original research.
Of course, we can't cram everything into the "legacy" section of minstrel show. In accordance with summary style, we could spin it off into a new article if it gets too long. In fact, renaming blackface to something like impact of the minstrel show in culture and cutting out all the duplicate information from minstrel show would seem to be the most reasonable course of action, in my opinion.
When there are problems with sourcing in a featured article, the clearly established remedy is for you—or someone else who cares about its featured status—to add the sources. Otherwise, it gets removed. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article says nothing about what percentage or portion of the South African populace participates in the festival. Whatever you're reading to that effect is something you're reading into it. It says simply what it says. Furthermore, the entire article deals with the racist origins of blackface and darky iconography. There is nothing in the Cape Coon Carnival section that contradicts that. It does, however, examine the acceptance of the term "coon" by those who participate in the carnival and the wearing of blackface by them. I wrote that section -- indeed, much of the article -- and I'm the last person to "portray a positive view of blackface and [skate] over sensitivities." I do, however, see the need to recognize that there are those who have appropriated the term -- Black and non-Black -- and who use it in a non-racist sense. Do I think it's twisted? Does it make my head hurt? Yes. And yes! But what I think about it is neither here nor there. The tradition in South Africa is what it is, like it, or approve of it, or not. Finally, your reservations about this section are hardly grounds for rescinding the featured article status of the piece. deeceevoice (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose.Articles should not be dumbed down or soft peddled in an attempt not to offend; they should be written to inform. Blackface is in itself a potentially "shocking" and offensive subject. The definition of blackface is what it is. I'm an African-American, and I have no problem with the article as written. (I wrote most of it.) The terms are there because they succinctly and accurately describe what blackface is. deeceevoice (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The article favors the theory that minstrelsy is the natural forerunner of modern African-American culture...." I have no idea where you got that from! The article most certainly does not! deeceevoice (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already long enough, and the subject of the article is made explicit in the opening paragraphs -- the American phenomenon of blackface makeup and performance tradtion. And that is why the other, non-American examples are mentioned only in passing, at the end of the article. They are meant to lead the reader interested in other similar, but unrelated phenomena, elsewhere. The non-American examples treated in some depth in the article are addressed because they are related in some way to American blackface. If you'd like to insert something about local opposition to the Coon Carnival (and that is certainly appropriate), then feel free to do so. I would research it and do it, but I'm crunching deadlines at the moment. deeceevoice (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that this article developed long before the article on Minstrel show, and whatever duplication of information that exists is more than likely a case of that article borrowing from this one. In fact, "Minstrel show" didn't even mention, let alone address, the issue of racism at all until I made a remark on that article's talk page about the blandness of the article. Even with the overlap in subject matter, however, this article is well-structured and comprehensive in addressing the cultural impacts of blackface -- with the article on the minstrel show more devoted to other matters outside the purview of "Blackface." It's strong enough to stand on its own. deeceevoice (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything herein that warrants removing FA status. There are a few worthwhile suggestions, like fixing the citation format and possibly shortening the "See Also" section, that easily can be addressed. The questions about Mickey Mouse and the Grand Ole Opry come from people (a person?) who hasn't/haven't done their research. I believe that information is accurate and should be cited in the text. If not, then slap a fact tag on it, and someone will get to it. I see absolutely no problem with the Bert Williams photo or caption. Most of this stuff should just be changed by those who've raised issues, or taken to the article talk space. IMO, much of it exceedingly minor. I'm out. deeceevoice (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the business about self-published websites. I don't see a problem with that in some instances -- so long as personal blogs are not used for substantive references and they're not commercial or controversial, per se. The "Downwind of Amsterdam" website, for example, is useful because it provides photographs that could not be found elsewhere. Photographic evidence speaks for itself. deeceevoice (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not meant as a substitute for use of the article talk page space

User: DrKiernan, as I requested earlier, please utilize the article talk page space to discuss your recent changes to the article. Some of the changes you've made to the article are welcome and appropriate. Contrary to your assertions in your edit notes, however, some changes you made do not fall within the purview of your remarks here -- notably the, IMO, off-the-mark WP:BLP contention regarding Amy Winehouse (and the text you've deleted without any discussion whatsoever), photo size and the deletion of another huge chunks of text because a sentence at the end of the section was fact tagged (by me).

Please note that this page is for the purpose of discussing the featured article status of Blackface and not for routine edits to the article. Such discussion appropriately belongs in the article talk space. Furthermore, cryptic edit notes referring to nonexistent comments here do not suffice as appropriate explanation for some of the substantial changes you've made.deeceevoice (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated more than once, many of your edits were helpful -- most specifically, with regard to the footnotes and the paring down of the "See also" section." Others were less so, and we've discussed them -- thank you -- in the article talk space. I'm perfectly happy with your continuing to edit the article, but you must justify your changes -- particularly when they're substantial. And you simply haven't done so, preferring instead to tell me to "do what you want." I'd much rather have a meaningful explanation of your concerns, particularly with regard to WP:BLP, but it's your choice. deeceevoice (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Inline references are too few for a featured article. I have also noted heavy and opinionated prose of the article, especially in the lead: expressions like "used to affect the countenance", or this gem: "Blackface minstrelsy's groundbreaking appropriation, exploitation, and assimilation of African-American culture—as well as the inter-ethnic artistic collaborations that stemmed from it—were but a prologue to the lucrative packaging, marketing, and dissemination of African-American cultural expression and its myriad derivative forms in today's world popular culture.", which is more appropriate for a J'accuse pamphlet than for an encyclopedia. Beit Or 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curiously, in looking at the first few fact tags, I've noticed that some of them affixed to passages that previously were amply cited -- but those references have been removed from the article. Annoying as hell. I'll (or someone else) will get around to replacing them within the next few weeks. Other flagged passages can/will be attended to as well. But there's nothing at all accusatory about the article. Facts are facts, and the fact is that A-A culture has been appropriated and exploited. Check the copious citations in that regard. While I'm not equating them, that's like saying an article accurately recounting the trans-Atlantic slave trade/Maafa, or Holocaust "is more appropriate for a J'accuse pamphlet than for an encyclopedia." Ridiculous. deeceevoice (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep, assuming certain issues can be addressed. I've been adding quite a few citations to the article and have begun discussion on the talk page about how we might cite for some others (e.g. a music video that was censored, and where the web is full of presumably unauthorized copies of the earlier, uncensored version, but these unauthorized copies are not citable according to Wikipedia's rules; it obviously exists, but how do we cite for it?).
It seems very odd to me that people are voting to remove the article from the FA list while active work is clearly still under way to address issues that were raised. In FARC processes I've been involved in before, the discussion was always about substantive issues to be remedied in the article. and any decision to remove came only after there had been a chance to address these substantive issues. Here it seems to be about people being uncomfortable with the topic, or aspects of the topic, which is not a valid reason to remove it.
To address one remark above: the article is by no means a fork of minstrel show, any more than, say Romanian people is a fork of Romania. Yes, they are intimately related topics, but blackface has a longer and broader history than that particular form. Judy Garland, Bob Hope, and Pigmeat Markham all did blackface; to the best of my knowledge, none of them were ever in minstrel shows. There may be material that should be refactored among the two articles, and if so that should happen, but it is hardly a reason to oppose keeping this as a featured article.
As for drawing the line from blackface to other later examples of appropriation of African American culture, I believe that very much belongs in the article. The legacy of a past (or largely past) institution belongs in an article about that institution. Blackface minstrelsy played a major role in the history of commercial entertainment in America (its rise is part and parcel of the rise of the music industry) and it set a pattern of white appropriation of black culture that has, on the one hand, exposed white people to a lot of more-or-less genuine black culture (more so in the post-minstrelsy era, with the blues, jazz, hip-hop, and, for that matter, early rock'n'roll), but has also often resulted in white people profiting from that culture, sometimes at the expense of, and more often than not without benefit to, the African American creators of that culture.
I'm pretty comfortable in saying that it is the prevailing view among scholars of popular culture. but I expect it will take me some time to find solid citations, because not many articles say so in so many words. (It's the proverbial "fish don't notice water" problem: it's so much the pervasive paradigm that few scholars bother to state the generality.) Conversely, I'd be genuinely interested if someone can find any respectable source that says this is not the arc of this history. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: in terms of my remark that blackface has a longer and broader history than minstrelsy, here's a solid citation: John Strausbaugh, Black Like You: Blackface, Whiteface, Insult and Imitation in American Popular Culture (Jeremy P. Tarcher / Penguin, 2006, ISBN 1585424986), p. 24. "[Blackface] existed before the heyday of the minstrel show, and has persisted long after the minstrels faded away. Its influence or at least its echoes can be seen in American music, theater, literature, film and TV, right through to today." - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see minor stylistic problems with the article throughout, but it is responsibly cited throughout, and the prose is clear and readable. The existing problems should be dealt with on the article's talk page, not through FARC, IMHO. Nandesuka (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if there is recent work in the history, it won't be removed. People are entitled to note remove at this point, but if a remove has become stale after work done, it will be ignored. DrK is an attentive reviewer and I'm sure will come back to reconsider his comments if people feel it's ready. On specific points raised:

  • This is in no way a content fork. It clearly merits its own page.
  • "Darky" and "coon" are not too shocking and are preferable to a circumlocution. (Speaking of which, "used to affect the countenance of" should be reworded for brevity.)

The people working can keep us updated. Marskell (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove I feel that the biggest problem of the article is a lack of focus that is exacerbated by occasional POV. The definition of blackface seems clear enough to me: a performance that centers on a racial stereotype of blacks. It's only natural that related issues be mentioned to some degree, but this article does a lot more than that. It goes off on long-winding sidetrack discussions about racial stereotyping and cultural appropriation, and in some cases goes completely off topic. Darky iconography, for example, is a separate, if related, topic that should be handled in a separate article. Large, dedicated sections for phenomenons like Zwarte Piet and Coon Carnivals are certainly not merited. The tedious discussion about everyone from Elvis to Eminem (ab)using black cultural traits to boost their careers would probably be more at home in an article about assimilation of black culture. In this article, however, it comes off more as campaigning than encyclopedic information. Peter Isotalo 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the relevance of Zwarte Piet is arguable either way, but that the Coon Carnival is quite on the mark. It is probably the single most prominent continuing "unreconstructed" blackface tradition continuing in the present day, and it has a clear lineage from 19th century blackface minstrelsy. - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter's comments on diversions are fair. Zwarte Piet, particularly, should be reduced significantly. It skews the relative emphasis to have so much on a single modern instance. In terms of POV, the Legacy section is most difficult. That list of names needs to be scrutinized. The Travolta and Clooney link goes here, which tells me nothing. The larger concern is the segue between blackface and modern appropriation of black culture. I'll save that, as I think Jmabel is hard at work and hasn't gotten down to that section. An enormous amount of work has been done, and we can let it continue. Marskell (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on decreasing the Zwarte Piet material. As for the "legacy", I've partly sourced that section. Note especially the Strausbaugh citations I added there, which make the connection more explicitly than any of the others (with direct analogies of Elvis Presley to Thomas D. Rice and Mick Jagger and Eminem to Al Jolson). I think this section is essentially accurate, but notably hard to cite for: it's relatively easy to find books about the history of blackface; it's harder (but possible) to find reliable sources that write about the analogies between entertainers in different eras (for example, at the Pop Conference I've heard Eric Lott, Robert Christgau say things along these lines, and even discuss the relative strength of the analogies, but I'm not sure either has ever written anything about it).
I've noted about a dozen weak citations in the article; for about half, I've found solid replacements. The others are explicitly called out on the talk page. It would be very helpful if someone would go systematically through the citations in the article and make a list on the talk page of the ones they consider inadequate. So far, most remarks on this have been rather useless, to my mind: e.g. saying that entire sections of the article are undercited, but usually without indicating any specifics that lack adequate citation. (I have already made a list there of the other issues that I believe are in contention.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC
I can at least go through the paragraph in Legacy I'm concerned about (but not tonight). The first two sections are fine, I think, and give a good overview. It's only after this that the article seems somewhat unbalanced. I think we're OK, in general; I'll try to give more specific comments on sources over the next couple of days. Marskell (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Zwarte Piet and the Coon Carnivals in a few sentences is fine, but they do not deserve dedicated sections. We have sub-articles for that.
Peter Isotalo 13:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice if you could restate them here. Some I think I can answer:
    • I see no claim that Mickey Mouse is always blackface, merely that one particular MM short was; and that this displayed the mouse's blackness by contrast, just as blackface performers did.
    • The derivation of wog from gollywog should be weaselworded more, but is perfectly possible; the OED 's first citation of wog is from 1929. (And while they refuse to endorse any etymology, I read the tone of their dismissal "Origin uncertain: often said to be an acronym, but none of the many suggested etymologies is satisfactorily supported by the evidence." as primarily targeted at the acronyms, which are silly.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The JSTOR article to which you refer says there was a debate on the origin of the word "wog" amongst letter writers in the local Peebleshire News in 1992, and that the outcome of the debate was that the term was innocent and has no relation to colour. There's no mention of lexicographers. I don't consider this information to be useful, except to illustrate the provincial ignorance (call it rustic innocence if you prefer) of people from Peebles. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those who have JSTOR, it is Susan J. Smith, "Bounding the Borders: Claiming Space and Making Place in Rural Scotland"; Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 3. (1993), pp. 291-308. One of the letterwriters gave the OED etymology; and the connexion was insisted upon by the Aberdeen schoolteacher who protested the golliwogs, not by the locals, who deny it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong remove Fails four of the criteria:
1(a) Prose

The first sentence needs rephrasing. It should set the scene for the article but instead it gives the impression that it and the rest of the article is bad.

1(b) Comprehensiveness and (d) Neutrality

Arguments countering the main POV of the article are not presented at any point anywhere. The article favors the theory that minstrelsy is the natural forerunner of modern African-American culture, however, the counter-argument that minstrelsy has been retroactively appropriated by some black performers, whose work is actually derived through different traditions, is far more likely. Why doesn't this counter argument receive attention? Why isn't it covered in the article?

Where are the counter-arguments for minstrelsy contributing to the development of Mickey Mouse? Limitations in cartoon technology; need for sharp contrast; black and white photography; primitive production methods. Where is Disney's own statement on the issue? Why aren't cartoon historians, who are the experts in this area, cited? All the early cartoon characters were black and white and drawn in a certain style; the backgrounds were white and the foreground figures were black. Are they all minstrels? If so, why single out Mickey Mouse when the point made is a much wider one? Why, if he's a minstrel, does he have a white face? What have "bushy, white sidewhiskers" got to do with blackface influence on Disney? A short film from 1933 can not be responsible for the development of a character which was already fully developed (with the exception of gloves) in 1928. Gloves were added the following year not 1933 as the article implies.

The section on the "Coon Carnival" presents a positive view, with the exception of a brief mention of tourist sensibilities. The statement in the article, "carnival participants have appropriated the term coon and don't regard it as a pejorative" misleads the reader into thinking that carnival participants represent the bulk of the South African population. In the source given, which is a self-published tourist web-site, the organiser "admits the historical title...is derogatory, but shrugs it off" but it also says "Vincent Kolbe...disagrees. He says there is little doubt as to the racist origin of the word coon...Its continued acceptance in South Africa is because "people can't get out of the apartheid mode"." The views of local opposers need to be inserted into the section.

Blackface traditions in other contexts, such as British morris dancing and Zwarte Piet, may have different origins to American minstrelsy. The article needs to be restructured so that the different origins of blackface theatricals, and their later convergence through the globalisation of images, is made more explicit. Currently, it overconcentrates and overemphasizes the contribution of American minstrelsy, which already has its own article: Minstrel show.

No mention of European blackface possibly being founded on a tradition associated with pretending to be devils. Hellish sprites were frequently depicted as black, until the advent of the now more familiar red variety, as it was assumed they would be covered in soot from the hellfires or charred by the heat.

1(c) Factually accurate

The claim that "Grand Ole Opry" is derived from blackface is unsupported by a reference.

The last two paragraphs of the "world popular culture" section are not academically convincing, and probably contain original research by synthesis. Modern music is derived from jazz and folk traditions certainly but saying Eminem and George Clooney are followers of a tradition founded on blackface is simply ludicrous. The sentence on Amy Winehouse is not fully backed by the reference: the reference does not support the contention that Ms. Winehouse is deliberately exploiting black performers in order to acquire some sort of status through using popular black traditions dating back to minstrelsy.I am aware that the Winehouse sentence is presently removed, but I am not striking my comment because the sentence has been removed before—it just gets re-inserted a few days later.

The claim that lexicographers believe "wog" originates from "golliwog" is not supportable. The OED's etymology says: "Origin uncertain: often said to be an acronym, but none of the many suggested etymologies is satisfactorily supported by the evidence". The source actually given in the article says "There is some speculation that wog is an acronym for one of the following: Western Oriental Gentleman, Worthy Oriental Gentleman, Wily Oriental Gentleman, Wonderful Oriental Gentleman, or Working On Government Serive(sic)." The professional lexicographers of the OED do not endorse the thesis that "wog" derives from "golliwog", nor even mention it as a possibility. Featured articles should represent the body of learned, published opinion not what the editors of wikipedia consider possible.

"NAACP had begun calling attention to such portrayals of African Americans and mounted a campaign" is not referenced.

The five references at the end of the student campus paragraph should be separated to illustrate each of the claims made in that paragraph in turn.

The references and the external links contain self-published web-sites. These should be removed.

IMDb is not a reliable source; its use is contentious (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb).

My comment at Talk:Blackface#Cool and "Coolhunting" is not addressed: "I've tried to visit the "Julie Sutherland" reference twice. The first time it took me to an online dating site, the second time it's taken me to a site advertising cheap flights."

The only Coon Carnival reference is a self-published tourist site.I am aware this issue is under discussion on the talk page and better references have been identified but not consulted because of access issues.

The article contains numerous uncleared [citation needed] markers. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mickey Mouse, I disagree that this article is the place to debate whether or not he is derived from blackface traditions. The contention is a common one (see this Google Books search), but it's enough of an aside here that it should be enough to simply say that scholars X, Y, and Z have made the claim (being sure to frame it this way and not in the "authorial Wikipedia says" voice) and to leave any opposing claims to the Mickey Mouse article. — Dulcem (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Presenting a one-sided argument and ignoring the opposing claims is POV. DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heartily disagree. We can't have a claim and counter claim for each instance where a cultural studies scholar has claimed something is related to blackface. There isn't room, and it's beyond the scope of the article on blackface. Leave the arguments over individual examples to those examples' own articles. For example, we don't need to include all the arguments back and forth that Elvis copied black performers. It's enough to say that the argument has been made that he did without saying authoritatively that that is the case. It would be annoying and distracting to then go into detail about how scholars A, B, and C disagree and say Elvis was a great guy who never did a dirty thing in his life. Ditto for Mickey, where going into the cartoon inkblot hypothesis of early character creation is well beyond our scope. — Dulcem (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am relieved to be told at last that my comments will never be addressed, and I can leave this discussion with my remove "!vote" intact without the need to revisit it. DrKiernan (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said your comments would never be addressed? Discussing matters and trying to come to consensus hardly means your comments won't be addressed. — Dulcem (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Seems to suffer from insidious POV from the first sentence, which manages to identify blackface as racist before mentioning minstrels. Reviewing the talk pages and archives seems to suggest this may be caused by a case of WP:OWN. The article later deviates away to general issues of appropriation of African-American culture, which surely cannot belong here (about an archetypal form of theatrical makeup) except as part of a polemic. --Rumping (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blackface preceded minstrelsy, so why shouldn't the article mention racism first? And where is the scholarship that contends that blackface is not racist? Issues of cultural appropriation are rightfully mentioned in the "Legacy" section, as they should be. — Dulcem (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It's clear that a lot of good and honest effort has been put in the page, but I can't help also feeling a povish flavour and, more problematic, a tendency to lose the scope. As for claims such as "facts are facts", sorry, but quite on the contrary I was taught since my universitary years that facts are fictions.--Aldux (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Jmabel is still working I'm inclined to continue to hold on this one. I can't agree that this irredeemably POV. Marskell (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove; in spite of two and a half months at FAR, we still have an article that doesn't meet even the minimum requirements. There are numerous unformatted citations, examples: ^ Conguitos. ^ The African-American Image Abroad: Golly, It's Good!. No publishers makes it hard to evaluate reliability of sources, but we find sources like musicals101.com. HTML is the default format and need not be cluttering the citations. Dates in citations are inconsistent both in format and wikilinking. See also need pruning, and the appendices don't conform with WP:GTL. There are raw URLs listed in citations and no consistent bibliographic style. More examples: ^ web.archive.org/web/20051027061922/http://www.africapetours.com/Coon+Carnival.htm. ^ Blackface Drag Again Draws Fire Gay City News. VOLUME 3, ISSUE 308 | February 19 - 25, 2004 With 122 citations, incompletely formatted and with no bibliographic style, how is reliability of sources to be evaluated without mousing over or clicking on each citation. Clean citations is a minimum requirement for an article that is prepared for FA status. Endashes need cleaup, there are numerous citation tags still, and there are WP:MSH issues. Sample prose, my eyes fell on this sentence:
Lewis Hallam, Jr., a white actor of American Company fame, brought blackface in this more specific sense to prominence as a theatrical device in the United States when playing the role of "Mungo", an inebriated black man in The Padlock, a British play that premiered in New York City at the John Street Theatre on May 29, 1769.

What more specific sense? Snake for chopping. Another snake for chopping with wild punctuation:

The 1830s American stage, where blackface first rose to prominence featured similarly comic stereotypes of the clever Yankee and the larger-than-life Frontiersman;[17] the late 19th and early 20th century American and British stage where it last prospered[18] featured many other, mostly ethnically-based, comic stereotypes: conniving, venal Jews;[19][20] drunken brawling Irishmen with blarney at the ready;[21][22][20] oily Italians;[20] stodgy Germans;[20] and gullible rural rubes.[20]

In the lead:

Blackface was an important performance tradition in the American theater for roughly 100 years and was rapidly popular overseas, particularly so in Britain, where the tradition lasted even longer.[1]

Patience and two months have not been enough to bring this article to status: I don't think it likely to make it with another two months, and I haven't even examined it yet for the issues of comprehensiveness and POV that have been mentioned. Even if the citations and MoS issues could be cleaned up and everyone agreed POV had been addressed, the article would still need a copyedit. Two and a half months is enough; time to delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from wrong place at top of page - sorry for screw up)

Comment This article is seriously flawed and really boils down to OR. The editors take the concept blackface makeup and generalized it to everything under the sun involving black music (blackface was not music), white music and it's history of black influence, racial relations (some having to do with blackface, some not), claims that such singers as Elvis, Jimmy Rogers and legions of others -- are a result of blackface makeup. The sources used in the article are obscure or idiosyncratic. There is not one of the many black music historians and critics used as a reference. In fact, not even mainstream white music critics are used. None of the biographies of the musicians referenced supports these claims. This is OR and POV because the article seems to be trying to make a point. I could go on but I am too offended by the article. Mattisse 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong remove I would vote where the others did but I can't seem to get there on this page. Please move my comment and vot to the correct place. Thanks! Mattisse 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't (and shouldn't be) an article about makeup. It is about a performance tradition characterized by a particular type of makeup. As I remarked a week or so ago on the talk page "the central fact of blackface is not the 'corking up' but the simulation (whether by Whites or Blacks) of 'supposed innate qualities of Blackness'" (the phrase is Strausbaugh's, and it certainly characterizes the understanding in the literature on the topic). On exactly that basis it seemed that Verklempt and I, who have been totally butting heads, reached some degree of consensus on how to move ahead with the article. Then Matisse entered the picture. To my mind edits like this one by Matisse are utterly wrongheaded.
As to the claim of OR: I've added numerous citations from the literature on the topic. I have no idea why Matisse thinks that music critics rather than the academics I am citing would make better sources.
A day or so ago, Matisse said "I just cannot relate to the article at all. But that is o.k. ... Write your article as you want and I will stay out of it." After saying that, she proceeded to hack at the article all over the place with edits like this. There is no way I can work effectively on the article in this environment.
I invite the people involved in this to look at what I have done over the last couple of weeks. I stand strongly by the work I've done, mostly on the first half of the article (not counting the intro, which I haven't really taken on in comparable degree). But, you know something? I'm sick of fighting about it. I came into this trying to address problems with an article in terms of an FAR. Instead, I'm being pulled into the kind of contention that has nearly made me quit Wikipedia in the past. So I'm probably out of this after tonight, and back to the work on the history of Seattle I was doing when my help on this was requested. I still reserve the right to work on the article, but I no longer have the intention of trying to bring it up to FA level. It is clear that I cannot do that in the midst of edits that, whatever their intentions, are damaging the article.
Since no one but me seems to have been hitting actual books on the topic and trying to bring it up to current FA level, either someone else needs to come forward or it probably will not survive the review. - Jmabel | Talk 08:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd rather not, I'm going to remove this, given the sense that Jmabel has hit the wall on editing. At the three month mark, it's very hard to justify leaving this open with this many outstanding removes.
The work done has been good work. Balance of coverage, sourcing, and prose have all improved. The people who have worked on it shouldn't regret it at all—as has been pointed out at FARC before, an article can improve even when it's removed. The concern over WP:NOR#SYNTH is non-trivial, however, particularly in Legacy. Prose and formatting do need further work. But I think this forum has exhausted itself for amicably addressing the issues.
If editors can come to a working understanding on article talk, this could go back to FAC easily enough. Marskell (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Blackface/archive1&oldid=1138476604"