- List of black Academy Award winners and nominees (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
The list was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [1]. Its scope was later changed without discussion to "black Academy Award winners and nominees", where it stayed for some time. I then moved the page list to "List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees" to reflect its original purpose. Another user subsequently started an RfC asking "should the title of this article be changed to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees so that its scope would include black Oscar winners and nominees from countries other than the United States?". After much discussion, the RfC expired, resulting in a stalemate of five votes for the proposal and five votes against it. There was thus no consensus for the page move, so the page title should have been kept at "List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees". However, the closing administrator disregarded the arguments of the editors opposing the move and instead suggested that there was consensus for the move. I and the other editors whose arguments had been discarded then attempted to discuss the matter over with him, explaining that the RfC close did not reflect the actual consensus [2]. He initially defended his closing rationale, but eventually stopped responding altogether. On the advice of the uninvolved User:DD2K, I've consequently now started this formal move review. Middayexpress (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - There was definitely no consensus for this move. The rational by the closer seems to ignore the fact that only 2 support editors are regular contributors, the other 3 are either brand new editors who gave convoluted reasoning, or an IP that's lone contribution is a support vote. The move and the closing rational doesn't make sense. The editors who opposed the move cited policy(WP:ETHNICGROUP,WP:PRECISION,WP:EGRS) and the fact the article was originally created to list African American Academy Award winners. While most of the editors who supported the move gave silly reasoning. Mentioning Charlize Theron and Steve McQueen. Yet the closing rational mentions that the oppose editors were actually in support of adding these other actors, when in fact that is not true. So I really cannot understand this close at all. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "...the other 3 are either brand new editors..." Firstly, how do you know this? If you are making an assumption based on the fact that these editors do not have accounts or long edit histories with their IP address, then you assume wrongly. I have been an editor for many years on Wikipedia and have a dynamic IP address, so you might think I'm new when I've been editing for years more than some of the other contributers to the discussion. Secondly, length of experience editing is irrelevant. If a person who has been editing a long time makes a bad argument and a newcomer makes a good one, a closing admin should not count it as a 1-1 tie and not count it in favour of the experienced editor but in favour of the good argument. 99.192.50.212 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)[reply]
- Few editors edit for more than a few months using anonymous ips, let alone years. They usually by then have registered an account. Middayexpress (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's (probably) true, but also completely irrelevant to the question of the move review. 99.192.50.212 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if it applies to your dynamic ip as well. Middayexpress (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - "...five votes for the proposal and five votes against it. There was thus no consensus for the page move..." Surely, you are familiar with Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE? The vote count, especially when the other "votes" were canvassed by you, is irrelevant.
- "...the closing administrator disregarded the arguments of the editors opposing the move..." Not true. You are mistaking disagreement with disregarding. The closing admin took your arguments into account. Just because you don't like the outcome does not mean you were not heard.
- "...I and the other editors whose arguments had been discarded..." Again, disagreement is not the same as discarding. By your logic, it is always true that the arguments of the side that loses a decision are disregarded and discarded. There was nothing wrong with the process. It just came to a conclusion you disagree with. 99.192.50.212 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)[reply]
- Of course you would feel that there was nothing wrong with the process ip since you were pretty much the main (and often only) disputant arguing for the page move. Unfortunately, the RfC was indeed a bad close, as explained point-by-point here. Middayexpress (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of course you would feel that there was nothing wrong with the process ip since you were ... arguing for the page move." No, I agree with the process when the process is done right. That is independent of outcome. I have been involved in many processes and discussions of how pages should be titled or edited and I don't base my assessment of the process based on whether the outcome went my way. Unlike you, I do not assume that my arguments were "disregarded" or "discarded" when they are merely disagreed with. 99.192.50.212 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. Claiming as a closing rationale that there was consensus for including non-Americans when I and the other opposers in fact argued the opposite of that is also not a mere disagreement. It's a fundamental misassessment of the discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn – This close really surprised me as I did not think there was a consensus or a compelling policy-based rationale for the move. 1) WP:PRECISION and Wikipedia:Systemic bias: The term "black" is too poorly defined and open to interpretation in a global sense, ranging from "one drop" of African blood in the US to not one drop of European blood in Africa. The awards may be a US topic but the idea of the move is to add non-Americans to the list and applying a local racial classification system to non-local people goes way beyond applying WP:ENGVAR quoted by the closer on their talk page. 2) WP:EGRS and WP:ETHNICGROUP: "Black" is a socially constructed race, specific to the society in which it is constructed, not an ethnic group per se. A race-based list of people effectively categorises people by race which is against Wikipedia policy. HelenOnline 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To specifically address the stated closing rationale, I disagree that there is consensus that the list should include non-Americans and that the solution is therefore to broaden the scope of the list (which creates a whole new problem of a subjective race-based inclusion criterion). HelenOnline 10:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- *Overturn. I was shocked to see Wikipedia an encyclopedia turn into a tabloid listing site? What next, top 10 black guitarist? We know what South African means, (as a nationality), we know what African American means. We also know what Somali means. I might debate what African means (a race, not a nationality) and we can discuss that with passion what I do not understand is what on God's Earth is "black" is this Black in SA which is political and also includes Indians and so-called Coloreds? B/c in Ethiopia no one calls themselves "black". The short reason why this is nonsense is because Wikipedia is not Ebony Magazine. Stick to clear terms and groupings. Avoid the confusion of "race" and black is def not a "race." List of Somali directors, List of British directors, List of even Muslim or Jewish directors, things which at least have some structure in their definition. (i am typing fast just to weight in).--Inayity (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I can see no coherent rationale in the closer's statement for why he thought the support votes were significantly better rooted in policy than the oppose votes, which would have been the only legitimate reason for closing this against the weight of numbers. Quite to the contrary, I find a lot more weight of policy on the oppose side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. per state made by Helen and other users. AcidSnow (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn per Helen. The arguments of the oppose camp (keep scope to African Americans) were much better rooted in policy and practice, especially around NOR - no-one has demonstrated what the inclusion criteria for 'black' is supposed to be, since black is defined differently by every culture - eg black person in Brasil may not be considered black in the Dominican Republic or South Africa for example - as such it's not a valid designator for a list. The closer failed to note that the original scope of the list was AA, and we should bring it back to that. Whether AA are more frequently called black is irrelevant, since AA more precisely describes the scope vs 'black' which other users hAve interpreted to mean anyone of the black race, which as we all know doesn't exist in any biological sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - the article is about a US award, thus the term is used as commonly (and generally uncontroversially) understood in the US, and as used as a self-designation by people on the list, including the person's whose inclusion on the list started this debate. The scope of the article has included non Americans for many years, and the article was changed without discussion shortly before the RfC. Thus even if the result was no consensus, the article should have remained titled 'black' as noted by the admin who closed the RfC. That this is how the list is commonly understood in the culture which the article primarily refers to was evidenced by the significant number of editors who attempted to add non Americans to the list during the short period of the RfC discussion when the article title was 'African American.' It may also be worth noting that those who originally voted to move it back to 'black' all did so independently, whereas those who voted to limit it to 'African American' were all canvassed to comment by the editor who originally made the change without discussion. The real issue is not the article title, but whether the list should exist as an article at all, a discussion a numbers of editors have repeatedly indicated a willingness to have, and which may hinge on the kind of arguments made by those who wish to overturn. But until that discussion is had, it should remain as it is using the word as understood in the cultural context of the primary topic. Melcous (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing is not necessarily inappropriate, so be careful about suggesting otherwise per WP:NPA. (Already thrashed out at Talk:List of black Academy Award winners and nominees#Threaded discussion if anyone is interested, there is no need to repeat the discussion.) HelenOnline 06:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The users were contacted per appropriate notification. What's actually telling is that all the uninvolved users who have weighed in have also seen the close for the discussion misassessment it is. Middayexpress (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- By my count "all the uninvolved users who have weighed in" consists of a grand total of two users, and it doesn't take into account User:Liz below who appears to disagree with you. Everyone else who has called for the move to be overturned participated in the original move discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a majority all the same, which is still quite telling. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- how praytell do you proposed determining if someone is of African descent? And which parts of Africa? Does Egypt count? What about Mauritania? They have 'white' Maurs and 'black' Maurs in Mauritania - but which ones are of 'African descent'? I remember a case recently where a white supremacist had his blood tested, and he was shown to have 18% genetic markers from sub-Sahara Africa - so he is technically 'black' if that's your definition. Many so-called 'coloured' people in South Africa certainly have blood from SSA but they don't really identify as 'black' and wouldn't be so-called outside of SA (except they are 'black' under the law there, as are Chinese people.) The deeper you dig the more you realize that any equating of 'black' with 'African ancestry', while certainly common in the vernacular as a shorthand for what used to be called the 'negroid' race, is problematic from an encyclopedic POV. and any equation of black with 'what they self-identity with' runs into a massive variation in definition of black across societies, thus no clear inclusion criteria.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also plenty of white people of African descent. Liz did you know there is already a separate List of African Academy Award winners and nominees? HelenOnline 09:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The reason the RfC was necessary in the first place was that Middayexpress had unilaterally moved the article to List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees and removed the black British and black African winners/nominees from the article. No consensus was ever sought for that initial decision, which I believe made the article less useful to readers of the encyclopedia. Middayexpress's idea that the list was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees" (as opposed to including black people from other countries) is speculative at best, given that the page was initially titled List of black Academy Award winners and nominees and included non-U.S. nominees starting from the very first edit (Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Sophie Okonedo, Jonas Gwangwa). In any event, the article creator has not edited Wikipedia for seven years and we are not bound by their decisions.
I would also strongly question whether Middayexpress used appropriate notification to contact users to participate in the original discussion, given that they contacted all the users on their own side (against the move) to notify them of this move review, but did not contact any of the users who supported the move, such as myself (who opened the RfC to request the move), User:Melcous, User:Shivertimbers433, or User:AdamBMorgan. That looks a lot like WP:Votestacking to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I have struck the implication of canvassing in the original discussion as it is no longer really relevant. My concern is mostly with the votestacking in this move review, and whatever notification went on before is not really the problem now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speculative? That's reaching, at best. The truth is, the list was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [3]. That's the page creator's own statement of purpose, not mine (though I certainly agree with it). As for the bad faith charges of "votestacking", I obviously contacted User:Obiwankenobi, User:Inayity, User:AcidSnow and User:HelenOnline because it's our arguments that were unjustly and unilaterally discarded in the name of a false consensus. WP:MR also does not require me to contact you, the anonymous ip (who, incidentally, could be anybody), or any of the other users. All it requires is that I notify the closer and post a notice of the move review in the same section as the RfC discussion, both of which I did. The latter by default obviously serves to notify all of the interlocutors of the move review. It's also linked to at the top of this section (under RM), so I'm not sure how you somehow missed that as well. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are endorsing this close as appropriate? As for Middayexpress 'unilateral move', the page has been moved back and forth to various titles over 8 times the past 5 years. Unilaterally. The article creators original intent seems obvious. The very first edit to the article states:
"The following is a list of African-American winners* and nominees from 1929 to the present".
- So that seems pretty clear as to 'intent'. You cited absolutely no policy reasons for the move. The same goes for all '5' support editors. The support editors only argued that the polices cited by the opposers didn't exclude moving the page. Which was an incorrect and non-policy argument. Look at some of the reasoning by the move supporters.
- Shivertimbers433 states:
"African American" is a nonsensical politically-correct neologism. Charlize Theron is from Africa and became a naturalized American citizen. Why is she not considered an "African American" Oscar winner?
- You support that type of reasoning?
- The anon ip states:
The list is noteworthy for documenting how the Academy has homored people of a particular race. The nationality of those people is of minor significance.
- Which totally contradicts WP:EGRS. We don't list people by race, but by ethnicity or nationality. That doesn't stop people from adding people of African decent with different nationalities to a list. See List of African Academy Award winners and nominees and List of English Academy Award nominees and winners. There is a very specific reasoning we do not list people this way, and a reason why we have these policies. I can't understand how one could endorse this close with the closing rational. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Dave Dial (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- how do you define "black" people from other countries? Is it by their skin color? Tightly curled hair? Presumed descent from sub-saharan Africans with dark skin? It's pure OR - every country has a different definition of black there is no globally accepted definition because black as a race is a social construction not an objectively real characteristic of people. The title of the page is irrelevant, if we want it to stay at black I'd be fine with that, the point is the scope - I believe African-American makes the scope much more clear. And to your question, African-American is an ethnicity and people like Charlize are not considered to be part of that ethnicity.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to DD2K above, yes, I am endorsing this close as appropriate. That is not to say that I endorse every statement by every other commenter who supported the move in the prior discussion. The concept of "black people" as a group may be a social construction, and it may not be meaningful to some of the participants in this discussion, but it is meaningful to reliable sources in relation to the Academy Awards. See The New York Times: "Mr. Daniels was overlooked this year for “Lee Daniels’ The Butler,” which received no nominations. But he remains one of only three black directors — along with John Singleton and, now, Mr. McQueen — to have been nominated for a directing Oscar. Overall, the number of black nominees through history stands at about 125, with this year’s addition of Mr. McQueen, and two of his stars, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Lupita Nyong’o, among others." The Guardian: "Steve McQueen may not be the favourite to win the Oscar for best director when the statuettes are handed out on 2 March, but if he does it will represent a historic breakthrough for black film-makers: none has ever been honoured in this category and only two others have even been nominated – John Singleton in 1992 for Boyz n the Hood and Lee Daniels in 2009 for Precious." Hindustan Times: "At the moment, McQueen – though with an emotionally engaging film behind him – is not the favourite to walk away with the best director statuette. But if he does, he would be the first black helmer to actually clinch this Oscar, although there have been two other black directors who were nominated in the past. One of them was John Singleton for the 1992 Boyz n the Hood, and the other was Lee Daniels in 2009 for Precious." In any event, this move review has been so tainted by votestacking that it would be a bad idea for an administrator to reward such behavior by overturning the move. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguments should be centered on actual website policy, not the opinions of random film critics. Fact is, no Wikipedia policy supports categorization by race. Quite the opposite, actually. Your idea of what the term "black" means in the context of this list is also altogether different from that of the new Melcuous account. He/she asserted in the move discussion that this list actually "seems to be about skin color rather than "race"", which by definition would pertain to any number of dark skinned people from around the world, including many people on list of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees. As for your continued bad faith charges of votestacking, I remind you that WP:MR does not require me to contact you since, per that same policy, I already left a notice of the move review in the very same section as the RfC (at the top of it, no less). Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone genuinely believes there was votestacking, did they follow the relevant procedures, which would require evidence to support their accusations? If not, raising it now is nothing more than a personal attack which is usually a sign of a weak argument. As I have already stated, Middayexpress did not know what my opinion would be in advance (and we do not always agree). HelenOnline 06:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Resorting to personal attacks/ad hominem is never a good idea, and is a telltale sign of a weak argument. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just now followed the procedures, notifying the user involved and including evidence (links to the notices under dispute). I find Helen's claim that "Middayexpress did not know what my opinion would be in advance" of this move review implausible, given that the point of this move review is to overturn a move which Helen had opposed in the RfC. In fact, Helen had also written, "I would also support a review of the move" at [4] before this move review began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not talking about the move review, I was talking about the original move discussion. HelenOnline 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The move review was advertised on the article talk page (here and here). HelenOnline 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in principle though, there shouldn't have been selective notification of the move review of participants in the orginal discussion (bar the dynamic IP as I am not sure how one would do that). HelenOnline 13:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The votestaking claims are more amusing than anything seeing as how notification of the move review is literally built into the move review process. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- suggestion I suggest we deal with the allegations of vote-stacking in a simple fashion - we post notifications of this move review directly to the talk pages of everyone who participated in the first move but who wasn't notified directly, then we agree to let this move review sit for 7 more days. That way, even if there was vote stacking, we have re-stacked the vote, and given everyone a chance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The votestacking claims are nonsense. Besides User:DD2K, User:HelenOnline was actually the first person to specifically suggest/link to a move review in our followup discussion with the closer [5]. It's thus quite a stretch to assert that it is "votestacking" to have informed her and the other involved users who actually participated in that discussion that I had taken up her suggestion and started a move review. Moreover, WP:MR doesn't require such userpage notifications to begin with. It only requires that one notify the closer and post a notice of the move review in the same section as the RfC discussion, both of which I did [6]. I also indicated in DD2K's move review section that a move review discussion was underway, and a link to it could be found in the RfC section above [7]. One would thus have to have literally almost gone out of one's way not to have been aware of the move review. Middayexpress (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with that, though I thought they were talking about the original move request. I see now that all the opposers(plus you) were notified, but none of the supporters. It is not policy to notify one side or the other for move reviews, but it probably should be. In any case, I don't think that any amount of editors should influence this move review. Policy is pretty clear, and the closing rational was not. Dave Dial (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, although WP:MR doesn't require it, I contacted the other two accounts as a followup to the 21 April general notice that I already posted on the page. Policy is indeed pretty clear on the matter. Middayexpress (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I think the list should remain List of black Academy Award winners and nominees, as I wrote during the RfC. Regarding the closure: RfC's aren't votes, they are discussions attempting to reach the optimum solution. The closing admin is meant to interpret that discussion, not just count the number of supports vs. opposes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Regarding the list: I don't think WP:ETHNICGROUP has anything to say either way on this issue. Attempting to erase black people as a race by removing reference to their accomplishments may be well intended as an act of a post-racial society but we are not in a post-racial society and it still has the negative result of erasure. We live in a world with a Black History Month, which is supported by organised Wikipedian editing efforts: "black" anything counts as a valid subject. Limiting the list to Americans does not give the full picture and hides relevant achievements made by non-American; such as Steve McQueen, the first black filmmaker to win Best Picture. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The accomplishments of all of the winners and nominees are already acknowledged on pages such as list of African Academy Award winners and nominees and List of English Academy Award nominees and winners. So with respect, the notion that they are somehow being neglected is not valid. It's the insistence on forcing this page -- which was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [8] -- to adopt a subjective racial scheme at odds with WP:CATGRS, among other Wikipedia policies/guidelines, that is the actual problem. Further, no comparable list of white Academy Award winners and nominees, list of brown Academy Award winners and nominees or list of yellow Academy Award winners and nominees pages exist. The individuals on the list are thus is in effect for some reason being singled out on a skin tone or racial basis. This is despite the fact that the Academy itself certainly did not and does not reward its nominees for their skin tone, perceived "race", or what have you. It only honors them for their actual film work; it's not a special interest group. As for the RfC close, you're right, the closer is meant to accurately interpret the discussion. However, it has amply been shown above that that interpretation was at best a fundamental misassessment. Claiming as a closing rationale that there was consensus for including non-Americans when I and the other opposers in fact argued the opposite of that is just one example of this. Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The process was followed correctly in my opinion, hence my use of the word "Endorse". Consensus does not mean that everyone agreed to the same thing. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to make the same arguments all over again but, briefly: "Accomplishments acknowledged on other pages" — those pages do not acknowledge them in the context of race, only nationality. The context of race is important here. Anyway, they can be acknowledged on multiple lists. "No comparable list of white Academy Award winners, etc" — WP:OTHERSTUFF is an invalid argument. "Academy did not reward them for their skin tone" — it also didn't reward them for their nationality but you seem to have no problem with those lists. Related to this: you also tried to get List of black fashion models deleted using the same flawed rationale. I think you have good intentions for trying to erase black culture from Wikipedia but erasure is still a bad thing socially and detrimental to an encyclopedia when it would remove notable topics. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam it is extremely bad faith to accuse editors of trying to erase accomplishments of the 'black' race, but you, nor anyone else supporting this page, have failed to adequately describe who is considered 'black'? Is it based on use of 'black' in reliable sources? That's problematic because black in English in the US has a different meaning than 'black' in English in South Africa and 'noir' in French in Algeria and 'black' in Brazil and 'black' in Tamil Nadu. Do we do Build an intersection of these definitions, or a union? Is it based on skin color? Are people from Papua New Guinea 'black' or people from the Andaman Islands black? While there's no doubt a social conception of the black race exists, race as a biological concept is meaningless but the definitions of race are almost all biological. Since we don't have an authoritative way to determine whether and who is truly 'black' (even some disputed whether Obama was truly 'black') as a global encyclopedia we should not perpetuate such race-based divisions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is extremely bad faith" — No. I assume good faith in that erasing black accomplishment is an unintended side effect. I definitely believe that erasure will be the result of this campaign. "Is it based on use of 'black' in reliable sources?" — Yes, everything is based on reliable sources. "That's problematic because black in English in the US" — There are ways around conflicting sources, assuming you can find specific South African/Tamil/etc sources on the subject. For a start, we have the entire black people article to back up this list. "'noir' in French in Algeria" — Irrelevant, this is not French Wikipedia. "While there's no doubt a social conception of the black race exists, race as a biological concept is meaningless" — True and irrelevant. The social construct of race is still a real social construct. It doesn't go away because you want it to do so. This is coming back to the "erasure" concept, however well-intentioned the motivations may be. "we don't have an authoritative way to determine whether and who is truly" — we have a good enough way; again the black people article is right there and reliable sources should be used. For the record, I suggested "African diaspora" as an alternative but that was apparently not good enough (and it would probably fail WP:COMMONNAME to some degree as the international common term is "black"). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam, you're dodging the question. What is the specific definition of "black" that should be used for this list? And you can't discount french-language sources, this is a global encyclopedia, and we use sources from any language. So, if a Brazilian source calls someone preto or pardo or negro, are they all black? None of them? Or are you just going to look at a picture to make sure? Would "African disapora" cover tribes from the north of the Sahara desert? Or only those with darker skin? No-one is denying that "Black history month" exists or that Pan-Africanism is not a real concept - but to build an encyclopedic list that includes and excludes specific people based SOLELY on a source calling them "black" - no matter where they are from - and given the huge number of definitional issues with "black", is extremely problematic, and yes, I think we should get rid of all "Lists of black X" in the same way I would eliminate "Lists of white X" and "Lists of yellow X". Otherwise, the criterion for inclusion in the list are subjective. We have many social groupings that are widely discussed but we don't build LISTS based on them because the borders are always fuzzy in these social groupings, and a given individual can be black in the eyes of some and non-black in the eyes of others, ESPECIALLY as you cross borders - that's why nationally-based ethnic groups are much easier to deal with, as they aren't race based but rather based on identification with a specific ethnic group in a specific place. A Kikuyu in Kenya may look 'black' to you and I but his identity is of a Kikuyu, and that identity is quite different than the identity of a Luo or an African-American. Grouping all of these people together is not encyclopedic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam, I wholeheartedly support all of your replies here. Well said. Obiwankenobi, "What is the specific definition of "black" that should be used for this list?" One could ask those who support the use of "African-American" what definition of that term they want to use. The answer would (and should) be "the one reliable sources give us". Same for "black". If a reliable source says a person is "African-American", then we count them as such. If a reliable source says a person is "black", then we count them as such. Where's the mystery? I should also add that in American-based publications, the terms "African-American" and "black" are taken to mean the exact same thing most of the time. One term will be substituted for the other all the time for political reasons. So there is no less a sourcing issue for one term than the other. "And you can't discount french-language sources, this is a global encyclopedia, and we use sources from any language." True, but we should only use French-language sources that use the word "black", not some other different word that might not mean the same thing as "black". The same for your list of Brazilian words. If there is some question, as you suggest there is, about any of those words meaning the exact same thing as "black" does in English, then none of them can be used to source claims in English that a person is "black". Translations of words are almost never exact, so if none of "preto" or "pardo" or "negro" mean the same thing as "black", then we should use none of them as source claims for an English article. "Otherwise, the criterion for inclusion in the list are subjective." No. If we include all and only the people sources say are "black", then we have exactly the same degree of objectivity we have when we include all and only the people sources say are "African-American". It is only a subjective list if we allow the opinions of the editors to determine who is black and who is not. So long as we leave it to the sources, we have no more of a subjectivity problem than any article has with any claims that are based on what sources say. Now if it were common for some sources to say "so-and-so is black" and other sources to say "so-and-so is not black" then there would be a problem, but I see no conflict of reliable sources. 99.192.81.161 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205)[reply]
- you're missing the point. Definitions of 'black' are not consistent, whereas African-American is much more so, and African American is an ethnic group in a particular country with a specific history, culture, even languages - this cannot be said about 'black'. Of course if an American source says Bill the American is black then that means the same thing as African American and I'm not problemstizing that - I'm problemstizing the use of the word 'black' in other cultures - in the Brazilian example I pointed to, only one of those words translates as 'black' but all could potentially refer to someone who is Afro-Brazilian. So is black an intersection of different cultural definitions, or a union? Is a Tamil considered black if reliable sources in his country describe him as such? You can't get around the problem that different countries define race and ethnicity completely differently, so relying on a facile translation of the word black is a terrible idea and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of identity globally. Again, you can't just say 'reliable sources call them black' - because 'black' means very different things and sub-saharan-African dark-skinned descent people are not universally called 'black'. Ultimately you're attempting a racial definition and the inability to delineate race makes it subjective and thus not allowable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That old deletion (not move) discussion ended in a stalemate and has nothing to do with the current move review. A lot has also transpired since then, including new information that completely invalidates the central claims made therein. At any rate, as User:HelenOnline wrote below, that and other similar lists will be dealt with later by her, myself and User:Obiwankenobi once this move review ends. Regarding your other remarks, the context of race is actually only important for you, the anonymous ip, and the other accounts insisting on making this list about skin tone or "race" in contradiction to its original purpose. It certainly is not important for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences since the Academy obviously did and does not reward its nominees for their skin tone or perceived "race". It only rewards the nominees' actual film work, while acknowledging along the way their nationalities. And it can do that because citizenship, unlike the subjective matter of "race", is an objective, uncontroversial sorting criterion. Besides actual Wikipedia policy discouraging sorting by race, that is what makes those other lists appropriate. Per WP:MR, this move review discussion should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed policy and reasonably interpreted consensus in the original move discussion. This is of course a tall order since the actual rationale provided to justify the RfC close is fraught with inaccuracies. An example of these factual errors is the claim that "the opposers' rationales for their votes were all over the place", when in fact it's the supporters whose arguments were literally all over the place. User:DD2K clearly demonstrates this above, with quotes. The most glaring of the various factual errors in the closing rationale, though, is the claim that "in general, we appear to have consensus for the idea that this list, as long as it exists, should include non-Americans". I and the other opposers have made it abundantly clear in both our followup discussion with the closer and this move review discussion that there was no such consensus since we actually argued the opposite of that. To claim that the close was legitimate is thus to support its factually inaccurate rationale, and this cannot credibly be done. Middayexpress (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "that and other similar lists will be dealt with later" — This is precisely what I mean about the Black Erasure. If this move is overturned it will lead to a spate of attempts to move or delete every list with "black" in the title, leading to the systematic erasure of black people and black achievement (and systemic bias against the same, for that matter) across Wikipedia. Anti-racist intent can still lead to racist effects. "the context of race is actually only important for you, ..." — No. Those are just the people who have commented, there are far more who read articles without contributing to them or even being aware of these backroom affairs. The context of race is important to everyone in the black pride movement, everyone contributing to Black History Month, to the African diaspora and black people in general, to authors writing books on the subject, to journalists writing articles on the subject, to—in fact—a lot of people. "the Academy obviously did and does not reward its nominees for their skin tone or perceived 'race'." — No, they don't (officially); neither do they reward nominees based on nationality (despite what you say here), nor, most importantly, do they have any control or say over the way lists are formed on Wikipedia or any other media. The facts that (1) the nominees are nominees and (2) the nominees are black are intersecting in this list. The Academy's stated opinions only matter for the former. "there was no such consensus since we actually argued the opposite of that" — I still don't think you understand what consensus means. It does not mean complete agreement. There can be consensus even if people have opposed that consensus. Consensus does not need to be unanimous. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, it is quite a stretch to claim that opposing such unencyclopedic list titles constitutes systemic bias. For one thing, the Academy itself indeed has never, does not, and almost certainly will never reward its nominees for their skin tone since it is not a special interest group. It certainly does, though, acknowledge the nationality of nominees (e.g. [9]). And it can of course do that because citizenship/birthplace, unlike skin tone or perceived "race", is an objective, uncontroversial sorting criterion. On the other hand, the people outside Wikipedia that you allude to clearly do have a special interest. And there is no place for advocacy on this website. While such classifications may be uplifting for those individuals and groups with a special interest, it is offensive to just as many if not more people; especially populations who do not traditionally see themselves in that way or as being closely related to others on the list and have the scientific data to support them to boot. Another reason why the "systemic bias" argument is invalid (which, btw, is an essay, not a policy/guideline) is that WP:EGRS explicitly discourages sorting people by "race" in the first place. Lastly, when I spoke of consensus, I was specifically referring to the actual closing rationale's claim that "in general, we appear to have consensus for the idea that this list, as long as it exists, should include non-Americans". This is obviously false since I and the other opposers in fact argued for the "List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees" title, which is by default reserved for African Americans. This is also in line with the page's original stated purpose ("the following is a list of African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [10]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because Steve needs to be in the list we must change everything from the term African-American to black. create a Black British page. African American is notable enough, big enough to have its own space. I think hiding the race pride of a people is a problem. I made this argument that people need to feel pride in their race and their accomplishments. And if we have a Black history then that proves "race" is a serious topic. As a Pan-Africanist I can appreciate a need to showcase African accomplishments beyond borders (no problem), just as Jewish people celebrate theirs. My issue is with this word "black". I seen someone say that White SA are Africans, that holds zero water in the real world of real world identity politics. NONE. It is a minority position, not supported in reality in Africa, or anywhere else. It is supported by 0.000000001% (if that) so why is it still being argued. Well because of another problem white privilege. So African have no right to define themselves, and when they do someone above tells us African American is nonsense because it does not include one white SA actress. --Inayity (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess white people (and black people) in America aren't Americans either? (as you can see, the opposers of the move don't agree on everything) HelenOnline 07:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot wrong on Wikipedia and this was raised in the threaded discussion already. If this move is overturned, OWK and ME and I will address those lists afterwards. HelenOnline 06:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
