Talk:Blackface/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Blackface. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The article shows an example of Mickey Mouse partially blackfacing in a UA poster (not Disney) but uses it within the scope of an argument which states that many cartoon characters were products of blackfacing. Mickey's face is white, not black.

The source used is ambiguous: "Sacks and Sacks 158." No title or any other information is given. Been unable to locate this source. Krozar (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This assertion should be removed. It's not necessarily accurate. This occurred within this theatrical tradition but was not inherent to it. Of course, perceptions of racism are fairly vague. There are people who would assume simply portraying yourself as black is racist. That claim is certainly baseless. They were portraying stock characters which existed at the time. At that time the portrayal of impoverished black buffoons was not inaccurate. If anything it was a sad show of the social stratification that faced blacks at that time. There were several blackface artists who were not even remotely racist, such as Al Jolson. There is no reason for an expository article to give the impression that its authors are critical of its validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.4.160 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article has been hijacked as a POV vehicle to talk about how racist whites were/are. In reality, Blackface is akin to drag and ranges across a spectrum that includes viciously belittling blacks to what might fairly be viewed as a celebration of black America or various notions connected with it. In any case, pigeon-holing it as a merely racist practice from the first paragraph is POV and devoid of the objectivity that an encyclopedia should have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.254 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has way too many em dashes (—). I think a lot of the sentences should be reworked. Agree? Disagree? Tkgd2007 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith, and reproduce the obvious here:

Forgive me for breaking up your post, but I feel it's the easist way to respond to each of your citation problems. — Amcaja (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Roots of 60s Rock." Wilson & Alroy's Record Reviews.

No established historical expertise, no reputation for fact-checking.

I had trouble finding one convenient citation for all of the genres being sourced from that website, but here are several to support individual genres as black-influenced or -derived:

Citation can be changed to Watkins's On the Real Side, p. 82, with regards to jazz, swing, and rock. Barbershop's influence by African American singing quartets is documented in Nicholls, David, ed. (1998). The Cambridge History of American Music. Cambridge University Press, p. 297. Ragtime as black music is supported by Watkins 143. Blues from Nicholls 125. Nicholls 48 talks about white appropriations of banjo, ragtime, jazz, and bebop. Nicholls 347 again mentions rock, and supports country as black-influenced as well. Rhythm and blues comes from Watkins 334. Funk is from Nicholls 360. Hip hop from Nicholls 268. I must confess that I'm not quite sure what neo-soul is.

In short, it seems fairly widely acknowledged that black artists pioneered and influenced these genres. — Amcaja (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ibma.org/about.bluegrass/history/index.asp

No authorship credit, no citations, thus no way of assessing reliability. Web page belongs to an organization. WP:RS discourages linking to such unless citing info on the org itself.

No problem. Bluegrass's debt to black music is also citable from Cantwell, Robert (2003). Bluegrass Breakdown: The Making of the Old Southern Sound. University of Illinois Press, p. xvi. The same page also mentions the blackness of blues, jazz, and swing. — Amcaja (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

^ Winship, David."The African American Music Tradition in Country Music." BCMA, Birthplace of Country Music Alliance. Retrieved 02-08-2007.

Broken link. Even if found, cites to organizations' websites are discouraged by WP:RS.

No worries. The banjo as a black instrument comes from Cantwell 91, and the black influence on early banjo music comes from Nathan, Hans (1962). Dan Emmett and the Rise of Early Negro Minstrelsy. University of Oklahoma Press, p. 207-8.

Lunchtime now. I'll continue later. — Amcaja (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/whatisoldtime/old-time-music-definition.htm

No authorship credit, no citations, thus no way of assessing reliability. Web page belongs to an organization. WP:RS discourages linking to such unless citing info on the org itself.

This information is citable from Cantwell 91 and Nathan 207-8, as above. — Amcaja (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.folklib.net/folkfile/e.shtml

No apparent relevance to the passage that cites it.

The fact that "Turkey in the Straw" and "Old Dan Tucker" come from minstrelsy should be uncontroversial and require no citation, nor should we need to mention Cockrell's name for that fact. But if you still want one, we can use Lott 173 and 16 respectively. Or we could just cite Cockrell's book directly if anyone has access to it. — Amcaja (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue8/larryclark.html

dead link

This is a live link for me. — Amcaja (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/jazz/jazz.html

Unpublished, no editorial oversight. While author is a historian, he has no apparent expertise in this topic, has never published in this field.

Here we're trying to find a citation that supports Mezz Mezzrow "turning to indigenously African-American performance styles, stage presence and personas" to look "hip." This guy, though Jewish, claims to have thought that he was black. This is supported by Roediger, David (1997). "The First Word in Whiteness: Early Twentieth-Century European Immigration", Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror. Temple University Press, p. 355. If this is insufficient, sources abound that describe Mezzrow's desire to be black. — Amcaja (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/11/01/coolwhite/index.html

dead link

This is a live link for me. — Amcaja (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Southerland, Julie. "A Discussion of Women and the "White Negro" in Hip-Hop.

Dead link

Weird. For some reason, the Way Back Machine is blocked by my school's nanny software. I can't find an alternate citation for the information, so perhaps someone with access to the Internet Archive can rescue it. — Amcaja (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There you have some of the problematic links I deleted. There is still the issue of all the unsourced material. Your argument that it is all common knowledge just will not meet the demands of WP:RS. You simply must come up with some sources to scholarly publications. If it really is common knowledge, then sourcing it should be easy for you.Verklempt 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the author of this piece, but I'll try to address (or refute :)) your concerns soon until such a time as she shows up. — Amcaja (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That should take care of all but one of your reliable sources concerns. I can begin replacing the citations this weekend or Monday latest. — Amcaja (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this article is not necessary. The material is already covered in the Minstrel Show article, which is far superior to this one. That article is well sourced, and based almost entirely on scholarly publications. It does not suffer from the unsourced POV and OR that permeates this article. Is there anything in this article that is not already covered in a superior manner in that other article? If not, then I propose deleting this article, and forwarding this article's title to the other article.Verklempt 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your assertion that minstrel show is "far superior" to this article, even if I did write it. I certainly think this article is well written and an enjoyable read.The difference is that the minstrel show was a single phenomenon with a finite origin, development, and end. Blackface lived on in vaudeville, movies, and television, and more importantly, the blackface stereotypes lived on beyond even that. This article's sections on darky iconography and modern-day manifestations of blackface would be out of place in minstrel show, in my opinion. And If we merge, there would be little room in minstrel show to describe such things as the minstrel show's structure, its characters, and its history (at least not in the same detail that is there now). In short, I see little problem with having one article on the theatrical convention of blackface and its legacy and another on a style of American music and theatre and its legacy. There were necessarily be some overlap, but the two are not the same. — Amcaja (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You have specified the topical differences between the two articles in a way that I agree with. However, what is unique to this article is nearly all POV, OR, and uncited. I find the notion that Elvis has anything at all to do with blackface to be absurd, and there are many other overreaching claims in the last section.Verklempt 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not so absurd; Elvis made his fame by imitating black dance and musical styles and by making them palatable and widely popular among white audiences. I'm still quite busy in real life, but I'll try to answer your WP:RS concerns above shortly. — Amcaja (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Elvis was to some degree influenced by black musicians, but what does that have to do with blackface? Elvis never pretended to be propagating or mimicing racist stereotypes. My major objection to this article is that it tends to label the majority of white musicians as somehow connected to blackface. That is an extreme perspective, pure opinion, and not encyclopedic.Verklempt 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Elvis connection is the assumption that he was appropriating a black cultural form and using it for his own enrichment, just as the blackface performers did. As for the connection of modern white musicians to blackface, well, blackface minstrel music was the first form of American popular music. Everything that has come since has been influenced by its predecessor. Blackface music opened what was, in the 19th century, strictly British music up to African influences such as syncopation, call and response, and percussive dance. Virtually every other genre of music that has come down the pike in America has been an adaptation or appropriation of music that black people pioneered. This is true for ragtime, blues, jazz (and its derivatives), gospel, soul, R&B, rock and roll (and its derivatives), and hip hop. What current white American musician hasn't been influenced by one of those forms? Blackface music's imprint permeates our current popular culture. It's an ugly fact, but it's a fact, and one shared by may, many (if not most) historians and musicologists. — Amcaja (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your argument is pure opinion. It's interesting, but not encyclopedic. First, in my opinion, it is utterly disrespectful to Elvis and other artists. There is no question that Elvis was influenced by black artists, but there is also no question that he was influenced by white artists, and that he made his own original contributions as well. To say that he was "appropriating a black cultural form" is to deny his creativity and his non-black influences. This is the realm of racial nationalistic agitprop, not scholarship. It is not documentable in any objective manner, and thus not encyclopedic.

Second, I fully agree that later American music is influenced by earlier American musics. However, the thesis you present here is so totalizing and deterministic that I find it extreme and subjective. Are there no artists who are uninfluenced by minstrel? Are there not other influences on American music as well?

Third, your argument that black people pioneered blackface has no historical basis in fact. Again, this is an extreme and subjective claim, and not encyclopedic.

Fourth, even if I accept your argument, you are speaking of minstrel show music, not blackface. "Blackface" refers to a style of make-up that performers wear. It is a conceptual error to confuse "blackface" with a historical style of music.Verklempt 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why my argument doesn't leave room for innovation by white performers as well. It wasn't a one-way street, with whites only taking from blacks. There's as much evidence that black performers borrowed from white musical forms, such as Irish folk music in the 19th century. However, rock and roll was black music until Elivis, Buddy Holly, and others popularized it for whites. The same goes for all of the other forms of music I mentioned. Do you have sources that deny the black origins of these genres?

As for artists uninfluenced by minstrel music, that's impossible to prove or disprove. Once American popular culture became world popular culture, pretty much anything that has been influenced by American music has been indirectly influenced by minstrel music (or at least by black American music). And of course it's not a one-way street either. American popular music has constantly been influenced by music from abroad, beginning with the minstrels' mixture of black and British music and continuing on to their borrowings from Italian opera, way down the line to the Beatles and the British invasion.

I never argued that black people pioneered blackface music. I said that white minstrels took elements of black music and appropriated them.

The "blackface music" vs. "minstrel music" argument is interesting. Perhaps that information belongs in minstrel show. But I think the point being made is that blackface was but the first of many white appropriations of black musical genres. Like I said, where is the evidence that ragtime, jazz, blues, gospel, soul, rock, et al where not black forms of music first? — Amcaja (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent jazz history indicates that most of the earliest jazz musicians were Creoles of color, people who did not consider themselves black. The origins of "rock" depend on how you define the crucial stylistic elements, which is an esthetic discussion, not a historical discussion. I really don't want to go down this road, because it is just so racist. Artistry is independent of skin color. There is no hard and fast boundary between "black" culture and "white" culture in the US, and never has been. Such racial essentialism is a reification of Jim Crow racism. Why perpetrate that nonsense into the present? The way you use the word "appropriation" in this context is so loaded and POV that it cannot possibly fit with Wikipedia policy.

I still want to know how this opinion essay element of this article is encyclopedic.Verklempt 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been arguing based on the sources I have available, which all support a black origin or strong black influences on these forms. To my knowledge, this is the consensus view of scholars, although I confess that I'm not a musicologist or historian. But, seriously -- if the Cambridge History of American Music supports this view, it must be pretty mainstream. At any rate, I still disagree with you, and no one else appears to be monitoring this talk page. You could go to WP:RFC if you still think more comment is needed, or you could wait a few days until Deeceevoice, the primary author of this page, starts actively editing again. — Amcaja (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The racial origins of those other music forms are not directly relevant here. The problems remains: 1) "Blackface" is a style of theatrical makeup, not a musical style. This article assumes that "blackface" denotes a particular musical style. Is there any scholarly research to support this contention? I seriously doubt it. 2) The article compounds that initial error by finding "blackface" influences in all American popular musics in the past century and a half. No reliable sources are cited. 3) This article does not offer any reliably sourced content that is not already covered in Minstrel Music.

The article cannot remain as it is without meeting WP:RS. I see no need to wait for the original author.Verklempt 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing my best to find you better citations for the sources you've questioned. And it would be an act of good faith to wait for the original author to have a chance to respond to your criticism before you begin removing chunks of text. At any rate, I've alerted her on her talk page about this discussion. Hopefully she'll find some time to drop by soon. — Amcaja (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite discourse. It has been a pleasure. I have changed my mind about the need to delete or merge this article. However, I still think that my edits were improvements. Obviously this article is very poorly sourced, and most of it is not sourced at all.Verklempt 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And, frankly, I think he just needs to read the article again for comprehension. deeceevoice 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added an NPOV tag to the section about The Netherlands' Zwarte Piet, as the section as currently written has a strong slant towards the view that the character is an expression of racism. While arguments towards that point of view can (and should) be made, the same holds for the opposite point of view, which is not represented. Accusations as serious as racism should have many references to highly regarded sources (which should be easy if indeed a rich western nation of 16 million is annually celebrating a racist holiday) and this section is much lacking in this regard. Great Cthulhu (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've added a short new section 'The black face in other contexts' that describes a European tradition, quite common in folk customs, of the black face representing night or the oncoming of winter. I've also suggested that Zwater Piet may well be associated with that tradition rather than racial stereotyping, whatever it may now have evolved into. Bob (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In that regard, it might be noted in addition to this part:-

Some of the actors behave dim-wittedly, or like buffoons, and/or speak mangled Dutch as embodiments of Zwarte Piet.[11]

-that most actors play out their Piet as a stereotype from any part of scociety, be it based on certain craftsmen (communication piet, acrobat piet, cooking piet, scout piet) or on certain natures and demeanors (joke piet, sleepy piet, dumb piet, forgetfull piet) which can be compared to the smurfs in that regard. It is true that most of the pieten tend towards acting somewhat clumsy and daft comparible to the actions of other child entertainers such as clowns, pupeteers and catoon figures which is because the main objective of zwarte pieten actors is to entertain children. with regards to:

The lyrics of traditional Sinterklaas songs and some parents warn that Zwarte Piet will leave well-behaved children presents, but punish those who have been naughty. Zwarte Piet will kidnap bad children and carry them off in his sack to his homeland of Spain, where, legend has it, he and Sinterklaas dwell out of season.

In the song "Hij komt, hij komt" the following is indeed written; Wie zoet was krijgt lekkers, wie stout was de roe! which means; those who were sweet will get candy, those that were bad the birch. The exact same line appears in `Zie ginds komt de stoomboot´ and although zwarte piet isn´t mentioned at all in the first one, he is in the second, standing on deck as Sinterklaas´ steamboat arives into town. ´zijn knecht staat te lachen en roept ons reeds toe, wie zoet is krijgt lekkers wie stout is de roe´ which means ´his helper is laughing and calls out to us, those who were sweet will get candy, those that were bad the birch´

Zwarte piet is also mentioned in: ´hoor wie klopt daar kinderen´ (listen, who's knocking on the door children) in the lines of; 'Wees maar gerust, mijn kind, ik ben een goede vrind, want, al ben ik zwart als roet, 'k meen het wel goed.' (don't be afraid my child, I am a good friend, even if i'm black as sooth I only mean good.) and in: 'Zie de maan schijn door de bomen' in the lines of 'O, wat pret zal 't zijn te spelen, met die bonte harlekijn. Eerlijk zullen we alles delen, suikergoed en marsepein.' (Oh what great fun it will be to play with that skewbald harlequin. Honestly we will share everything, sugergoods and marzipan) --Paddy Fitzgerald (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you change about the section? Both sides are represented. This article examines ZP in the context of the blackface tradition. The obvious darky iconography in use to portray ZP, and the (IMO racist) buffoonery as well, have direct origins and/or parallels in the blackface tradition. Thus, they are relevant here. If you want an at-length discussion/examination of the pros and cons of ZP, then the place for that is at the ZP article. deeceevoice (talk)

This issue comes up every year because you are pushing your POV every year. The discussion recedes after Sinterklaas, but the issues many people have with this section remain. Nobody is discussing the relevance of the Zwarte Piet section, we are discussing POV of that section here.

Others detest him—perhaps most notably, some of the country's people of color.

Detest is far too strong. And Zwarte Piet isn't really someone to detest, he/she is giving you candy! Why would you detest someone who is giving you things?

So, at least once a year in the Netherlands, the debate over the harmlessness, or racism, of Zwarte Piet resurfaces—along with the usual smiling golliwog dolls; strolling Zwarte Pieten tossing sweets to eager children and other passersby; and the sometimes startling storefront-darky images.

Startling isn't really NPOV, is it?

The lyrics of traditional Sinterklaas songs and some parents warn that Zwarte Piet will leave well-behaved children presents, but punish those who have been naughty. Zwarte Piet will kidnap bad children and carry them off in his sack to his homeland of Spain, where, legend has it, he and Sinterklaas dwell out of season.

This is completely taken out of context. Those songs exists and they do have very archaic lyrics because they originate from the 19th century. It is true that parents a century ago threatened the children that they would be taken to Spain by Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet if they didn't behave properly, but insights in modern pedagogy have learned the Dutch that making such threats isn't really beneficial for the psychological development of children. So the Dutch don't say this to their children anymore (if that wasn't clear to you in the first place), and the lyrics are so archaic that the children who sing them often don't know what they are singing (the lyric concerned is "wie zoet is krijgt lekker, wie stout is de roe", many Dutch don't know what a "roe" is). And, last but not least, (the following sounds very silly, but I didn't bring this issue up) Zwarte Piet isn't the one that decides whether children will go to Spain or not, it is Sinterklaas who decides. Sinterklaas is very old and knows all children of the Netherlands, and does also know which children did behave properly in the last year and which did not. But seriously, I doubt the issue of the kidnapping of children to Spain by Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet has to be discussed so extensively here in this article.

Foreign tourists, particularly Americans, are often bewildered and mortified.

I guess this sentence explains a lot. The complete section is written in the point-of-view of an African American. I know that African Americans had a long struggle in the U.S. for civil rights and against dicrimination, and I know that racism still is an issue in the U.S. and a lot has to be done for the emancipation of the black minority.

But in the Netherlands dicrimination of blacks isn't that much of an issue. There were no plantations with slave labour in the Netherlands, and though I don't want to trivialize the role of the Dutch in slave trade (I feel deeply ashamed of that), blacks never had a position in Dutch society as they had (and have) in the U.S. South. Only with the independence of Suriname in 1975 the number of blacks in the Netherlands increased rapidly (as the article mentions, the Netherlands were a very homogenous society until well in the 20th century). The Surinamese are the most succesful of all immigrant groups in Dutch society, as a government report just concluded.

It would be far more controversial if Zwarte Piet would look like a Morroccan or a Turkish person, those groups are far more often the target of dicrimination and racism in the Netherlands.

Please remember that many of the people of colour in the Netherlands find the accusation of racism of Zwarte Piet far-fetched. Last Saturday I saw a show by a Surinamese comedian called Roué Verveer and he said exactly that. Maarten (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Last question: do you think that painting your face black sec is a racist act? I wouldn't find it racist if a black person would paint his face white. I think the history of slavery of people from Africa and the racism associated with it has made this issue so controversial. I think Zwarte Piet wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't a history of discrimination and racism of black people. Maarten (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't come in this space and suggest that only African Americans or only Americans find Zwarte Piete offensive. That simply is not the case, and it reeks of condescension. I've had numerous exchanges myself with any number of Dutch nationals and others who are aghast at the tradition. And did you even bother to click any of the links provided -- most notably the Expatica link? Very clearly there is debate on this matter in the Netherlands among Dutch nationals, white and those of color.

Even so, your response doesn't answer my questions. The information provided is adequately sourced and certainly accurate. And both sides are, indeed, presented insofar as is appropriate in this article space. Again, this is not an airing of the pros and cons of the tradition, but an examination of the tradition within the context of blackface and darky iconography. And, without question, represnetations of Zwarte Piet certainly fall within the category of darky iconography.

The central issue here is, what more would you have the article say? Numerous editors from the Netherlands have come in and out of this article space initially raising the same objections -- likely because of some national sensitivity on the issue -- but the text, with a few accommodations, has remained essentially the same. Why? Because we have agreed it is fair and balanced.

What specifically is your objection, and how do you suggest changing it? I don't care to be asked my personal opinion about this matter; it isn't relevant. Let's stick to the matter at hand: resolving editorial concerns and removing the tag slapped on the article. deeceevoice (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And, yes, "sometimes startling" does accurately describe the images. Just Google the words: "startled/startling Zwarte Piet" or "shocked/shocking Zwarte Piet" and see what you come up with. It's all over the Internet. deeceevoice (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, you still don't get the point. We don't want the article to say more, we want it more NPOV. I know "startling" is an English word and that it is used by some to describe the issue of Zwarte Piet, but it isn't a neutral term to describe something in an encyclopedia. Especially not when used in an observing and establishing way like in this article ("the sometimes startling storefront-darky images"). Who decides whether something is startling or not? I find the death penalty something startling, but I wouldn't write that "the death penalty is a startling punishment", because it's not NPOV, it is my point-of-view, and there are many proponents of the death penalty. Maarten (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article's treatment of darky iconography in its entirety, the point is clear: what some people find shocking or offensive, others do not. It varies from culture to culture, often because of differing historical experiences. Some find ZP shocking and can't stand the phenomenon; others consider him a cherished tradition. The same is true in England with Golly. The same is true in Japan with darky iconography. What's the problem? deeceevoice (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Further, you seem to misunderstand NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean bland. This is a potentially highly charged subject. It affects people viscerally. Some feel offended; others feel challenged and are defensive -- and then go on the offensive. If an image is startling to some people, then it is proper to characterize it in such a manner. deeceevoice (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If something is startling to some people you should write that it is startling to some people, and not in an observing/establishing way that it IS startling per se. That is in violation with WP:NPOV. It's the same as writing that "George W. Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States". Many people would think that, but it is not neutral. You can however write "Some/Many people think George W. Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States" (if sourced properly, that is). Maarten (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article very clearly states the images are "sometimes startling." So, what's your beef? Again, both sides are very clearly represented in the article, but if you want a detailed exposition on the matter, then it properly belongs in the article devoted specifically to ZP. If there are passages you feel are not adequately sourced, then put a fact tag on them, and we'll see what can be done. deeceevoice (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reread your first sentence, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't know if English is your first language, but the word "startling" is self-explanatory and not POV in any sense. It is what it is. I'm not saying this to offend, but look up the word, if you must, but you simply haven't made your point. deeceevoice (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my dictionary, the word startling means something like: "alarming", "worrying", "disturbing", "controversial", "shocking", "bewildering", "appaling". My beef is that it is written in an establishing/observing way. "the sometimes startling storefront-darky images" is written in such a way, that's not neutral, just like "George W. Bush IS the worst president in the history of the United States" is not neutral. "Sometimes" doesn't make it any more neutral, since it doesn't say that the images are startling to some, but that some images are startling, and some images are not. A more neutral approach would be "the storefront-darky images, that are startling to some", though I really would like to see sources for that statement. I find it really strange that this is so hard for you to understand. An POV word isn't offensive in itself by definition. A word like "beautiful" is POV in a sentence like "George W. Bush is beautiful" (I'd like to stay with my example ;)). (and no, my first language is Dutch, as you can see on my user page) Maarten (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:ASF, that's about all this. Maarten (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your word for it, Maarten. I don't need to consult your user page. ;)

Main Entry: star·tling

Function: adjective

Causing momentary fright, surprise, or astonishment - star·tling·ly/'stärt-li[ng]-le, 'stär-t & l-i[ng]-/ adverb[1]

“Beautiful” is in the eye of the beholder; it is a value-laden judgment/assessment. “Startling,” on the other hand, speaks to the effect it has on people – in this case, clearly some people. It makes no similar value judgment. In fact, the article verly clearly makes the point that what may seem perfectly acceptable to others still is jarring/startling to others. It is the way people perceive it -- not the way the text perceives it. The text itself makes no judgment as to whether the perception is justified/warranted or not; it is simply a statement as to the image’s effect on the beholder. The same cannot be said of the adjective "beautiful."

(God. Why do I feel like this is pulling teeth?)deeceevoice (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Those images do not have the same effect on every person. I do not find them startling, they do not cause "momentary fright, surprise, or astonishment" with me. So you can't say that these images ARE sometimes startling. Sometimes in this context is not 'clearly' about "some people", whether it is startling or not could also depend on the images itself (or external factors that may influence the appearence of a potential "startling image"). In fact this sentence suggest that it is dependent on the image itself or external factors, if it would mean "to some" it is better to write "to some".

WP:ASF defines a value or an opinion as "a matter which is subject to dispute." Whether those images are startling or not is subject to dispute, so WP:ASF applies. Maarten (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. That is simply incorrect. The fact that they "cause(/have caused) momentary, fright, surprise or astonishment" (per the precise and quoted definition above) is enough. And there is no doubt some of them have -- as is clearly attested to by the sources provided. From where I sit, you simply don't have a credible/valid argument, Maarten. WP:ASF does not apply. Your "beautiful" analogy doesn't hold.

But how about this, Maarten? How about you come up with some alternative language that you find acceptable, and we'll see what sticks? I'm in the middle of deadlines, and I am, frankly, losing patience with this. As I said, this comes up every year, and every year it ends up being resolved. The language you're reading was arrived at through consensus. And I'm, frankly, bored with this annual rigamarole -- usually occasioned by the overractions/misreading by Dutch nationals of the text. But my boredom is no reflection on you; you're perfectly welcome to raise your concerns/objections. It's all about me being impatient, weary of this and feeling pressed for time.

So, you come up with some language that floats your boat, and we'll see if it works. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This Blackface wikipedia entry was brought to my attention after I wrote a short wiki entry about a traditional folk dance group within our local community (Bacup). An editor, trying to be helpful, linked the 'blackface' description that I used to the Blackface entry. Not unreasonable, I thought, but when I looked at the page I realised that it was entirely dominated by the ".....style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist American archetype....." meaning.

I therefore asked that the link was removed from my Bacup entry as it wasn't relevant. The other editor (Friejose) agreed, but suggested that I should modify the Blackface entry to add the information about Blackface within the European folk tradition.

The interesting thing about Zwarte Piet is that it almost certainly started out as part of the widely observed European folk tradition of representing winter (the coming of the dark season) by the use of black face makeup or masks. Subsequently the Zwarte Piet character has undoubtedly been affected by American imagery, and in the process losing aspects of its original context and sometimes teetering close to imagery of a rascist and condescending nature.

So Zwarte Piet is an interesting case; not straightforward particularly but complex and demanding subtlety in response. I'm not sure the arguement raging here is going anywhere, and to my eyes the Zwarte Piet part of the Blackface entry lacks context and understanding of a European root quite different to the US Blackface tradition. Bob (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that! Maarten (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the article again. Zwarte Piet is addressed solely as a tradition that employes darky iconography and blackface images in the stereotpyical blackface tradition, which has origins in blackface minstrelsy. That is the context in which it is discussed in this article. One of the quotations, taken from an article written by a black woman married to a Dutchman, does draw a parallel minstrelsy based on the way she has seen ZP portrayed as a simpleton-like black figure speaking mutilated Dutch and the buffoons of blackface minstrelsy (incidentally, a parallel in minstrelsy are the exaggerated, ersatz versions of AAVE). I see nothing inappropriate in that. Several other sources consulted made similar observations.

There is absolutely nothing in the article that states that the ZP tradtion itself is rooted in blackface minstrelsy. Quite the contrary, the article mentions Moors and Sinterklaas -- which have nothing to do with the U.S. If you're looking for some detailed explanation of the roots of the ZP tradition, then -- again -- you're in the wrong place. Go to the article dedicated to the subject.

What about that isn't clear to you? What about it concerns you?

I know nothing of Bacup or under what subhead the link was included in the article. If it is not directly related to blackface in the U.S. context, but is a tradition wherein people blacken their faces in a non-Black ethnic/"racial" context, then it likely appropriately could be placed in the "Compare" section, as Ganguro is included there, as opposed to the "See also" section, which treats more directly related phenomenon.

Did I address your comment/concern? Speak up.

And I'm still waiting for citations of problematic language and suggested alterations. It's not terribly helpful to write of what appears to be a past problem you perceived with the article, but which you think has been corrected (the process worked, then -- yes?) or to complain, but with no valid argument to back up your contention (as in WP:ASF) or a concrete, suggested remedy. deeceevoice (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You deeceevoice removed (10:23 27 Nov 07) my short addition to the opening definition of Blackface with regards to another, more ancient, European tradition, despite it being a referenced entry. It suggests that you wish to claim personal ownership of the definition of Blackface, and censor other contributions that don't coincide with that view. Just accept that 'blackface in the U.S. context', while being a key definition of this entry is not the only one, and therefore it is entirely appropriate to expect the Zwarte Piet entry to acknowledge its root source (the European folk blackface tradition) and describe 'darky iconography' as a twentieth century corruption. Bob (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Bobf. What my removal of that information suggests to you is not, in fact, the case -- though, yes, I am the editor primarily responsible for the shaping and writing of the article. But keep in mind that a core handful of editors collaborated closely on the article, reaching consensus on its focus, scope and general content.

I removed your addition from the lead for the reason that appears in the edit note; it was inappropriate there. Other black face traditions are not the focus of the article, which should be quite evident from the way the subject is very specifically framed in the lead paragraph. If you wish to address another form of face paint that involves darkening the face, then I suggest you open a disambiguation page and then begin a new article about black face traditions (not the U.S. "blackface" tradition) in Europe, if the subject matter warrants an entire article, or about black face in folk culture worldwide so that various traditions can be addressed more comprehensively in a single venue. If you'd like to do so, then feel free. That would be great, actually, because then the ancillary mentions tacked on to the end of the article about other cultures could be removed from Blackface and placed in the separate article as well, with the disambiguation page (or an italicized note at the beginning of this article) serving to redirect/guide readers to it. Links to these phenomena, that are unrelated to blackface, could be provided at the "Compare" section as with ganguro, etc. Such an article could prove interesting.

If you consult the article talk space history, you will find that blackface -- one word -- is and has been the agreed-upon focus of this article, which is already quite lengthy. It was deemed prudent not to lump wholly unrelated phenomena in the same article just for the hell of playing what essentially amounts to a word association game, or because of apparent relatedness. After all, a squirrel may look like a fuzzy-tailed rat, but it makes no sense to include info on squirrels in an article on rats based merely on superficial visual cues. Black face forms in other cultures are addressed as they should be, as ancillary phenomena near the end of the article -- and by design. They are not at all central to the scope and nature of the explicitly delineated subject of article itself (blackface) and do not merit mention at the beginning of the article. The purpose of the introductory portion of this (and any proper) article is to summarize and preview the most salient points to follow related to the specific subject at hand -- which, by definition, means the U.S. cultural phenomena arising out of the minstrel tradition. And again, Zwarte Piet is mentioned because of its clear link to darky iconography.

Any more questions? deeceevoice (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro claims that blackface originated in the US. This appears to be false. It's a problem easily fixed by incorporating the Euro origins. I see no reason to segregate a discussion of the Euro version to the bottom of the article if it is relevant nearer the top. If a Euro precedent is a contributing influence to the US phenomenon, then it is hardly "wholly unrelated".Verklempt (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackface (not black face) as defined in the article did, in fact, originate in the U.S. It's a very particular style of ethnic/"racial" caricature. Not every black face is blackface. Further, there's absolutely no evidence that blackface is related stylistically to European black face. Similarly, ganguro can't be attributed to blackface or European black face, though both preceded it. I mean really, Verklempt. You simply haven't made your case. deeceevoice (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If the European Blackface has nothing to do with the American Blackface, then why put it in this article. More and also (IMO) less biased information can be found in the Zwarte Piet article. A reference at the bottom of the page should be enough. I think people reading this article get the wrong impression about Zwarte Piet and see a similarity with the American Blackface that isn't there. Also the racist portrayal of Zwarte Piet by some people (mostly in the past), doesn't make Zwarte Piet or the tradition of Zwarte Piet racist. There are stupid and awful people everywhere (as can been seen here on Wikipedia). BTW, if the opinion of one American expat is so important, can I also put my opnion in this article?(213.10.46.8 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

My apologies for not responding sooner. Regrettably, other matters occupied my time.

Please allow me to further explain my concerns regarding this section. As this article is a featured article (not merely a former featured article), it needs to be held to wikipedia's highest standards. At the time I made my original observation, I felt the article did not meet this standard. In particular criteria 1c and 1d.

While the section has improved noticeably, I still feel that it does not meet these criteria, particularly criterion 1c (and solving that will likely solve my remaining issues with 1d). The reason for this is that the statements made in the section are not backed by reliable sources. A section about a cultural phenomenon such as this should cite peer-reviewed articles by anthropologists, studies by respected human rights organizations, etcetera. Not magazine articles, personal web sites, and quotations of people who are not experts in the field.

I do not suggest that the section should become a comprehensive treatment of the subject (that's what the Zwarte Piet article is for), but the statements that are made in this section need to be held to the same high standard as the rest of the article, or else the section should be shortened to just a mention of the phenomenon with a link to the Zwarte Piet article for further information. Great Cthulhu 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article is woefully undersourced. The sections that do contain cites look like something a freshman college student pulled together by browsing the Internet the night before his paper was due. WP:RS mandates cites to scholarly sources, not to random web pages and journalistic opinion pieces.Verklempt 22:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The immense popularity and profitability of blackface were testaments to the power, appeal, and commercial viability of not only black music and dance, but also of black style. This led to cross-cultural collaborations, as Giddings writes; but, particularly in times past, to the often ruthless exploitation and outright theft of African-American artistic genius, as well— by other, white performers and composers; agents; promoters; publishers; and record company executives. The precedent set by blackface, of aggressive white exploitation and appropriation of black culture, is alive today in, for example, the anointed, white, so-called "royalty" of essentially African-American music forms: Benny Goodman, widely known as the "King of Swing"; Paul Whiteman, who called himself the "King of Jazz"; Elvis Presley, known as the "King of Rock and Roll"; and Janis Joplin, crowned by some "Queen of the Blues".^{[citation needed]}

This seems on topic to me I don't understand why it was removed? Perhaps we should look for better sources? Ideas? What do others think? futurebird (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted the text with copious citations. This has been discussed on the talk page before, and the connection to blackface is made clear in the article. This information was also present in the article at the time of its designation as a featured article and passed review. It is not a good thing for an editor to unilaterally remove a key paragraph from particularly a featured article without first bringing it to the article talk space. That is not the meaning of "be bold."deeceevoice (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Several points: 1) Unsourced materials should be aggressively removed. 2) One-sided presentations need to be balnaced or removed. 3) The notion that capitalism as usual is "ruthless" or "exploitive" is a contested interpretation. 4) The notion that these are "essentially" black musics that have been "exploited" by whites is a contested interpretation. You can find authors who make these contested claims, but few professional musicologists would ever print such a thing.Verklempt (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Come back with some sources that say the ruthless exploitation of black musicians didn't happen. I've provided plenty. I don't need your opinions. Give me citations, if you can. Otherwise, please don't waste our time simply being argumentative. deeceevoice (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your own citation to the UK newspaper article, after Elvis, gives the alternative opinion. You cited that article to support one extreme perspective, when the article itself gives voice to multiple perspectives. In other words, you've cited an openly and unabashedly biased article in support of a claim which is even less nuanced. This, my friend, cannot pass for NPOV. It is a trivial exercise to cite alternate narratives for the rest of your cites in this section. The more important question is: What does any of this have to do with blackface? Have any of the performers named here ever performed in blackface? If not, then this paragraph belongs in a different article, but not an encyclopedic article.Verklempt (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deeceevoice - Reading the whole of this Talk page it becomes clear that you feel profoundly proprietorial about the Blackface page, summed up by your ‘Any more questions?’, the final resort of the frustrated teacher to their unruly pupils. I know it’s easy to slip into that mindset when you’ve steered an entry into existence. However it becomes necessary to remind oneself of some of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Start with Wikipedia:About – the second paragraph starts “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world….”. So bear this in mind when you reread your last Talk entry – ‘a core handful of editors collaborated closely on the article’; that’s great, it’s often how articles get written – but that group isn’t a controlling cabal, it doesn’t preclude others from modifying the entry, just so long as it’s done in the spirit of assumed good faith and further elucidating the entry.

Then there’s the ‘the agreed-upon focus of this article’. Agreed by whom? Let’s get this into perspective. You’ve overseen the writing of a good article, but it isn’t perfect, it can be improved. One section – the Zwarte Piet’ - has been queried for its questionable NPOV. As the Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV dispute says ’Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral — or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.’ Please accept this, and move on. It’s ultimately a detail, but small modifications would certainly improve the entry without in any way taking away from the great work you’ve done on Blackface. Best wishes Bob (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with any sense of ownership, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making that accusation. I'm pressed for time -- like a lot of people. If you must know, I was crunching deadlines ad seriatim to try to get by to see a friend in hospice later today. The clock ran out on those plans about 5 this morning, so now I'm dealing with another set of issues. But, yes, these matters have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam. If you'll bother to check the talk page history -- as I suggested -- you'll find the answer to your question of "who". User: Andries, whose comment on ZP appears at the Dutch message board, is one Dutch national who comes to mind who participated in a rather lengthy discussion and tweaking/correction of the ZP section. We reached an agreement on tweaking the language that the involved editors found acceptable, Andries included. Of course, his concerns may not be yours, so if you have any more questions, then ask away. I'll see what I can do. Characterize that however you will. But I'm not here to debate opinions or change your mind about my motivations. To be honest, I really don't care what you think in that respect. But in the interest of civil, productive discussion, again, Bobf, WP:AGF. No one yet has made a convincing case to me that the text is POV. But I'll be around from time to time, so if you have something more --other than your personal opinion on ZP and false accusations -- then I'm willing to read what you have to say.

Just don't expect an immediate answer for the next week or more. I've got other, more important things on my plate than this at the moment. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What this boils down to is that a number of people contest your point of view over a small but significant part of the Blackface entry. It’s not about my opinion. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. Whether you’re convinced or not is ultimately irrelevant, as the guidelines are clear. Wikipedia is not about having to convince any one individual, it’s a cooperative enterprise. Regards Bob (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Sorry, I meant to write collaborative, to quote directly from Wikipedia:About. Bob (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that. But broadening the lead to include something that is pretty much irrelevant to the subject matter at hand isn't the way to improve an article. I believe a poster on your talk page suggested that one way of addressing the subject would be to write an article on the European black face tradition. And that's right on the money -- because this article is most certainly not about that topic. deeceevoice (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit more about the origin and first years of ZP within the Netherland because it helps exclaim a bit about the 'why' he might have appeared at that time and in that form, which even though this article focusses on blackface should be included if you want to link Zwarte Piet to blackface beyond visual comparison. Referenced writer is a Dutch language scholar with an expertise in traditional childrens stories and a research background into the origins of Zwarte Piet. I also added a reference to the online version of the Royal Dutch Library which houses illustrations of Zwarte Piet througout the 19th and early 20th century in cronological order.

furthermore; 'Others detest him—perhaps most notably' was changed. Wether or not it is most notable that people of color detest Zwarte Piet remains in the eye of the beholder. Is is an example however that definatly warrents mention. As for linking both S & ZP together relating to the songs and legends, because in said songs and legends both of them put the children in a dufflebag and take them off to Spain where most songs about punishment only mention Sinterklaas. His involvement can also be seen in the aforementioned illustrations. As for 'smartly packaged', this was a point of view. As for 'some of the Dutch have tried replacing', this year there has been no reoccurance of the rainbow Pieten. As for ' So at least once a year, in the Netherlands', is written as a factual conclusion. The resulting discussion isn't obligitory. Hope that this doesn't come out to harsh, but I rushed through the last few summery change conclusions in a bit of a rush. My potatoes are turning black and my smoke alarm just went off because of it (buggrit. I shouldn't be writing and cooking at the same time) Paddy Fitzgerald (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me Paddy. I've corrected a few typos (writing and cooking don't mix) and added a few words to associate the foolish, possibly drunken behaviour of ZP revellers with Carnival. Only my opinion of course but the ZP subset now conforms to a balanced encyclopaediac entry. Well done. Bob (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the NPOV dispute tag? Bob (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure ZP-behaviour can be linked to carnival in that matter. Though I can see the comparison, carnival is indeed close to 'possibly drunken behaviour' where alcohol consumption makes for a lot of it's athmosphere. The ZP athmosphere is about the same, but no alcohol is consumend by ZP (perhaps a few beers after the parade ends when the entertainers are together but certainly not in public or before the parades). The article states that some ZP act like baffoons, and that is true and could quite reasonably be linked as a remains of the blackface influence where at carnival the baffooning can be linked to alcohol and other causes (such as simple public festival spirit) but perhaps the question should be whether or not to mention ZP's baffoning as a remainder of old blackface influences since although ZP can still be linked visually to BF his behaviour shows less links like that every year. The accent has disappeared with most entertainers (especially every ZP appearing on tv or great public events) and the ZP demeanor has become so versatile that charactaristics that can be linked to the classic darky are becomming less obvious and frequent. Hence my previous comparison to the smurfs. Paddy Fitzgerald (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, you make interesting points. By all means revert and remove the Carnival analogy I made to your ZP update. But what I tried to suggest was that foolish, buffoon-like behaviour is a characteristic of many revels, parades and processions and is not specific to ZP, especially if the implication may be taken in the BF context that this behaviour is specifically rascist in nature. Regards Bob (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point and I recognise the comparison. I think many ZP entertainers (myself included for that matter) don't link the clownish part of ZP to classic darky nor to any racial matter for that matter but rather to an excelent means of entertaining children and building atmosphere. After reviewing many different sources I think that the origins of Zwarte Piet and the timeframe that comes with it can't exclude the influence of the darky stereotype although I must admit I have found no sources to prove the link between this behaviour and those times. Only about the visual comparisons. I've found some memmoires that describe the experience of a kid around 1920 that descibes a different behaviour but I foolishly failed to save the referrence at that time. Whether this behaviour was rasist then, and whether it might have outgrown rasism now is in my opinion a POV that calls for a different discussion altogether perhaps better discussed on a forum. Can a racist stereotype outgrow racism completely or partly and when would this be. It might lead to an interesting discussion, I think.

At the moment I can only reffer you to the book 'Op zoek naar Zwarte Piet : een speurtocht naar de herkomst, de ontwikkeling en de betekenis van de dienaar van Sinterklaas' ISBN: 90-9017443-5, which shows research into 6 different origins of ZP, their viability, the links between them and the present racial discussion about the character, in which the writer comes to the conclusion that ZP is not as racist as todays discussion might imply. I do not have the book in my possesion at the moment though, so I can provide no citations nor proof. What might be interesting for the ZP article (not this one) is that the story of Zwarte Piet as a boy from Ethiopie could not be proven nor could any sources that mentioned this legend be found at all. Paddy Fitzgerald 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every major, new genre of popular music in the United States from the twilight of the 19th century to the dawn of the 21st century—from the tight harmonies of barbershop quartets to ragtime, to blues, to jazz and swing, to blues, rhythm and blues and rock and roll, to funk and classic rock, to hip hop and country— is a product or byproduct of African-American innovation

NNPOV? Opinion?

It's not incorrect, but it is one of those trivially true statements. One could just as truthfully say: "Every aspect of African American culture has been profoundly influenced by white Americans." But of course the article doesn't say that. There are significant POV issues with this article, as well as reliable source issues.Verklempt 03:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would add that this very passage was extensively debated back in Fall 2006, and the overwhelming consensus at that time was that it is problematic. And changes to it are still getting reverted by one proprietary editor who "doesn't have time" to cite scholarly sources.Verklempt 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Every aspect of African American culture has been profoundly influenced by white Americans." I think this isn't said because it goes without saying the inverse statement must be noted because it it isn't as obvious. I mean, the very term "African American" acknowledges this fact. futurebird 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not the issue. The question is: What does this passage have to do with blackface?Verklempt 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's explaining that the influence of blackface was not an isolated occurrence, rather it is one of many. It provides context that illustrates a boader trend, of which blackface was only one part. futurebird 02:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to cultural diffusion? Shall we also enter a paragraph here that says that African Americans are human beings? Shall we go over to the hiphop article and enter a paragraph describing how much hiphop owes to white culture? Such observations are so obvious that they don't need explication. They are simply off-topic.Verklempt (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some problems with the article part Netherlands' and Flanders' Zwarte Piet. I'm Dutch and I am going to celebrate it tomorrow. I must say that the article makes Zwarte Pieten sound racist, but they are not. They are treated with much respect and do not act like baffoons to portray iconic Blackface. They are sometimes even themed as professors and highly intelligent people. I will name some popular TV shows that prove the contrary of racism.

 de Club van Sinterklaas  :  Zwarte Pieten are themed as professors & mathematics.

 Het Sinterklaasjournaal  :  Highly responsible (though, they are in all really) and
                             serious people.

       Ontbijt Piet       :  Motivate children to eat their breakfast (wich is currently
                             a big problem in the Netherlands) and let them make a wish 
                             (like take the class to a theme park etc.).

Paleoblues --Paleoblues 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Though this has nothing to do with racism I would just like to state that the night of 5 december is pakjesavond in the Netherlands and that in Belgium (mostly Wallonia) it is celebrated in the morning of 6 december.

--Paleoblues --Paleoblues (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that Zwarte Piet is racist. It simply describes the controversy. Can you point to specific sentences that are unsourced or POV? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If no one can mention specific sentences that need NPOVing, I'll remove the NPOV tag after a few days. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackfaced, googly-eyed, red-lipped Zwarte Piet dolls, die cuts and displays adorn store windows alongside brightly packaged and displayed, holiday merchandise. Foreign tourists, particularly Americans, are often bewildered and mortified.

I have never seen a Zwarte Piet doll (and you would think that they would at least be sold in Amsterdam). And a thing that I want to slip in is that because Americans are insulted by Zwarte Pieten, that we now have to have police boats aroud the Stoomboot of Sinterklaas during the Intocht. I mean, were not attacking Santa's eleves are we?

Paleoblues--Paleoblues (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that statement is adequately sourced. An NPOV concern is where one side is presented, but the other is not. I don't see an NPOV concern here. If you can find a source that says Zwarte Piet dolls are uncommon, we should include that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to what Quadell has said. The article is NPOV. And if you'd like to see photos of Zwarte Piet dolls on display in windows in Amsterdam (they're essentially golliwogs), click the "See also" link "Downwind of Amsterdam." It includes some very interesting uses of darky iconography in the portrayal/depiction of Zwarte Piet. deeceevoice (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the information that was deleted in this edit was sourced. I'm not going to revert the edit, to avoid and edit war but can we please discuss why? For example:

The immense popularity and profitability of blackface were testaments to the power, appeal, and commercial viability of not only black music and dance, but also of black style. This led to cross-cultural collaborations, as Giddings writes; but, particularly in times past, to the often ruthless exploitation and outright theft of African-American artistic genius, as well— by other, white performers and composers; agents; promoters; publishers; and record company executives.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} The precedent set by blackface, of aggressive white exploitation and appropriation of black culture,^[6] is alive today in, for example, the anointed, white, so-called "royalty" of essentially African-American music forms: Benny Goodman, widely known as the "King of Swing"; Paul Whiteman, who called himself the "King of Jazz"; Elvis Presley, known as the "King of Rock and Roll"; and Janis Joplin, crowned by some "Queen of the Blues".^{[citation needed]}

With the exception of the last statement this is all sourced, and it says that this is the view of the academics who proposed it. There is no reason to remove this. It is on topic and sourced, and frankly I don't see how it is even controversial. There are whole books that support this interpretation.

For more than a century, when white performers have wanted to appear sexy, (like Elvis)^[7]; or streetwise, (like Eminem);^[8] or hip, (like Mezz Mezzrow);^[9] or cool, (like actors Marlon Brando and James Dean^[10] and, more recently, John Travolta and George Clooney);^[11] or urbane, (like Frank Sinatra), they often have turned to indigenously African-American performance styles, stage presence and personas. Sometimes this has been done out of genuine admiration, as in the case of blues revivalists. 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. Pop culture referencing and cultural appropriation of African-American performance and stylistic traditions—often resulting in tremendous profit—is a tradition with origins in blackface minstrelsy.^[12] The international imprint of African-American culture is pronounced in its depth and breadth, in indigenous expressions, as well as in myriad, blatantly mimetic and subtler, more attenuated forms.^[13] This "browning", à la Richard Rodriguez, of American and world popular culture began with blackface minstrelsy.^[14] It is a continuum of pervasive African-American influence which has many prominent manifestations today, among them the ubiquity of the cool aesthetic]^[15] and hip hop culture.^[16]

Why was this removed? Can someone please explain, I don't understand these deletions. futurebird (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The first passage is highly contentious, and does not even attempt to present a balanced presentation of the range of scholarly opinion. The major cite is to Kofsky, an extremist black nationalist. The second two passages have the same problems, and are off-topic. None of the artists mentioned have ever performed in blackface, nor do the cites address blackface.Verklempt (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is contentious about it? If you feel there are other ideas that are missing can you name some sources to support those ideas and describe them? futurebird (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to come up with countervailing opinion. However, the issues are too off-topic to expand in this article. Perhaps they deserve their own articles. Who is the appropriate "King of" various 20th century music styles has nothing to do with blackface. Whether certain artists were exploited or incompetent businessmen is a more interesting question, but still off-topic for the blackface article, unless it's regarding artists who actually performed in blackface.Verklempt (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's "easy" to come up with a source can you please cite one? You have removed sourced information, and, as far as I can tell, it is on topic. So, what is the source that you are using to say this idea is "contentious?" futurebird (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to cite for something that is off-topic? What does any of this have to do with blackface make-up, the he topic of the article? If the people being discussed didn't wear blackface, or weren't involved with people who did, why should they be included here? Verklempt (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is explains how blackface has been a part of a larger cultural trend. It's not off topic at all.futurebird (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources cited link the purported trend to blackface.Verklempt (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like Futurebird is correct about this. Please don't remove sourced content. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources mention blackface?Verklempt (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The removed paragraphs do not mention blackface directly. It's related material. All the content of the statements are adequately sourced. If you think they're not relevant to the article, that's worth discussing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've laready made clear that I think these passages are off-topic. If the sources do not mention blackface, then we are in violation of WP:OR. These passages are the original work of a Wikipedia editor who sees a linkage with blackface that cannot be found in the sources cited. As you know WP:OR is a non-negotiable policy.Verklempt (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the removed paragraphs are essentially off topic, although they are clearly serious attempts to describe a phenomena that is tangentally related to blackface. This whole debate is extremely loaded, and it is a difficult one to pick an objective path through, although that shouldn't prevent us from trying. What I think editors are trying to express is the enormous cultural influence of African-Americans on contemporary American culture, and how that influence itself becomes subject to a kind of cultural colonisation. This obviously has some relationship to the processes underlying blackface - as an example of how black identity is superfically represented by non-blacks in an attempt, among other things, to appear 'cool' or 'sexy'. There is a very real need to further define and understand this, but perhaps not under 'blackface'. The Yoruba concept itutu - a kind of mystical coolness - relates to this and perhaps the debate is best carried on in regard to that definition. Bob (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Or better still under cool (aesthetic). Bob (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This, too, has been debated before. I'm familiar with cool (aesthetic). I fought for the creation of the article and am, in fact, responsible for a good deal of the text/sources/information treating African and African-American cool. The paragraphs in question here, however, are not off-topic. They present a continuum related to the precedent established by blackface w/regard to the pop culture referencing/exploitation/adaptation of African-American cultural expression, and as such, that material is perfectly germane to the subject at hand. The purpose of the article, after all, is to examine blackface as a historical and cultural phenomenon and its impacts on American and world culture. What I don't get is what people don't get. But I don't have time right now to discuss this. Again. After the holidays, yes, but not now. deeceevoice (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to create a section on the impact of the blackface tradition on European immigrants in the US in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The quote below from Whiteness of a Diferent Color by historian Matthew Frye Jacobson explains the connections between blackface, race relations and the whiteness of European immigrants:

This then, was the vision of difference [Jaboson has just discussed how many non-Jews and Jews and in the early 20th century believed in racial Jewishness as distinct from whiteness] that the blackface of an Al Jolson or an Eddie Cantor sought to efface. The Jazz Singer marks the beginning of the drift by which Jews became racial Caucasians and illustrates Franz's Fanon's contention that, when it comes to race-hatred and race-acceptance, "one has only not to be a nigger." As with all racial transformations, he next big leg of the Jews' oddysey--the cultural trek from Hebrew to Caucasian--would be a gradual affair, glacial rather than catastrophic. A new paradigm was in ascendance in the 1920s and after.... (page 186-187)

Analyzing The Jazz Singer, Jacobson goes into more detail on how Jewish racial difference is effaced through the juxtaposition of whiteness with blackness through blackface. Michael Rogin has also written about this question in Blackface, White Noise and a number of articles.

Please let me know whether you think explaining such connections should be part of this article and, if so, how it should be fit into the existing article. Fairlane75 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Facinating! Still, to me, judging from the material you've presented, it seems to be overemphasized. I've long been aware of Jews and the blackface tradition (theater and vaudeville being prominent venues for Jewish artistic expression in the U.S. and elsewhere) and that somewhere along the continuum of their existence in the West (Europe included), Jews stopped being non-whites in popular perception. The last generation of Jews, the majority of whom used to consider themselves non-white (and they weren't white until so many became so very, very assimilated genetically -- an important difference between Ashkenazim and Sephardim -- and even to a great extent culturally with Europeans), seem to be those of the World War II era. I never considered blackface a pivotal phenomenon -- merely a manifestation of the "me, too," wannabe kind of racism commonly practiced by non-Anglo/WASP immigrant communities -- part of the process of Americanization, part of Hoffer's "true believer" phenomenon -- another reason why blue-collar immigrant communities often are so virulently racist/segregated. Blackface was merely a common bandwagon for non-blacks to lampoon/ridicule blacks and, in the process, reinforce/appropriate/assume a common American/white/Otherness of putative inherent superiority; and social, political and economic advantage, power and privilege.

Yes, interesting -- and possibly contentious (a little over-wrought and theoretical for my taste) -- but I don't think it's suited for this article. This piece is already very long (and it will be longer once certain excised material likely is returned to it). It seems the information you wish to bring to bear would be better situated in an article on Jews/Jewish identity, or, perhaps, the forging of a white, "American" identity (after all, racism is as American as apple pie) -- even in the article on white people (a subsection on white identity?) -- than here. deeceevoice (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks to Dr. Kiernan for his comments at the FAR page and for some of his changes to the piece. However, there are certain changes which need a second glance. I've asked him to take the discussion regarding these changes here, but he has simply block reverted the selective changes I've made.

I must say that I did not intend to revert his last two changes, made to the references, but that happened during an edit conflict. I was editing one version, he another.

First, something minor. Photograph size was not addressed on the FAR page and is a matter of preference. The smaller images, IMO, are not an improvement.

He's deleted an entire chunk of text ostensibly because it was "fact tagged since JUne 2007." He is mistaken. The only portion of the text that was fact tagged was something I myself placed there. It related only to the last sentence about Japan flooding the U.S. with darky iconography after World War II -- and not to the entire section. This is a well known fact --all the kitschy stereotypical kitchen stuff labeled "Made in Occupied Japan" and "Made in Japan." I've been meaning to find a suitable source simply to slap on this statement, but after looking for a short while online and searching my personal library, I couldn't find anything. Hopefully, someone else will provide something. It's not even a point of controversy. However, if one cannot be found, then that sentence can go. If there are other statements in the section that require documentation, then fact tag them as well.

Now, with regard to the text he excised regarding Amy Winehouse on WP: BLP grounds -- the tag simply doesn't apply. And, contrary to his assertion in the edit note (unless I missed it), this issue was not at all addressed at the FAR page. It is a known fact that Winehouse has appropriated/copied black performance styles and uses black musicians as backup. The article quotes a member of the group who backed Winehouse on "Back to Black." There's nothing inaccurate or libelous in the information presented, and the quote amply illustrates the point being made. deeceevoice (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Photograph size was explained in my edit summary: "per MoS". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. This is a minor style issue, which I don't particularly care about it, I'm simply give you my rationale for the edits.

I do not object to the reinsertion of the deleted paragraph from the "iconography" section without the final sentence.

The sentence on Winehouse is removed as explained at FAR: "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 also note that another editor, His Space Research, complained about the same sentence in the first post to the FAR page: "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."". DrKiernan (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I was looking for the reference to Winehouse among your comments and did not notice the earlier mention by another editor. You're right about image size being a style issue. Editor after editor worked on that piece, and the images were sized and resized and generally agreed upon over time. Your unilateral changes to virtually every image in the article were not even mentioned in your edit summaries. Fine. The comopletely uncontested last sentence about Japan will remain out of the article until I or someone else digs up a source.

But about Winehouse: did you bother to read the article used as a citation? I'm assuming you didn't, much as you didn't look into Mickey Mouse being derivative of blackface minstrelsy or the Grand Ole Opry.

“Even what’s-his-name, Ronson,” she continued, referring to the New York D.J. Mark Ronson, who produced the bulk of “Back to Black,” Ms. Winehouse’s hit album. “They came to us to get the sound they wanted behind their music. We were just sitting here minding our own business, doing our little 45s and albums, and all of a sudden they were like, ‘I want your sound.’”

Thanks to Ms. Winehouse and singers like Joss Stone, Ryan Shaw and Marc Broussard, retro soul styles are enjoying a greater presence in mainstream pop than they have had in years. The Dap-Kings are the most obsessive and skillful revivalists of the bunch, and they are clearly grateful for the exposure they have gotten from Ms. Winehouse and Mr. Ronson, who recently hired the Dap-Kings horns to back him up as the house band at the MTV Video Music Awards.

The relevance of the source article is clear, and the passage in the text in no way violates WP:BLP. deeceevoice (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I did read the source material. I stand by my comments. DrKiernan (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit note says "Forget it. I don't care what you do." But you took the time to weigh in and make some welcome changes to the article. Thanks again. If you have a valid concern about BLP, then let's hear it. Seriously. I visited the WP:BLP page and read the guidelines, and none of them seems applicable here. If you seriously believe otherwise, then I'd like to hear why. deeceevoice (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-read it. It's not a guideline; it's policy. The applicable text is "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". You are connecting a person to blackface using a source that doesn't even mention blackface; that is original synthesis and qualifies as "poorly sourced contentious material". It's unfortunate that DrKiernan didn't delete the rest of the section because it suffers from the exact same problems. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just plain silly/groundless. Any reasonably attentive reading of the text by anyone with a modicum of reading comprehnsion clearly results in the understanding that the connection to Winehouse is the tradition of the proliferation of black performance styles/traditions into mainstream popular culture -- in the tradition of blackface performance. Policy or guideline, WP: BLP does not apply here. deeceevoice (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you blabbering on about? "Retro soul styles," clearly referring to "1960s-style soul and funk," is not magically in the tradition of blackface just because you say so. Any reasonably attentive reading of Wikipedia:No original research by anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension clearly results in the understanding that "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." That New York Times article is an interview with a contemporary singer; it is not directly related to blackface in any way, shape, or form. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are misreading the very clear language of the article. Regrettably, tThere's nothing I can do about faulty reading comprehension. deeceevoice (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way have I misread it? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. I'm in the middle of some awful deadlines right now. But I'll come back -- hopefully, sometime tomorrow -- and try to explain and/or answer questions. Please check back later. Regards deeceevoice (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the article is blackface, its history and cultural impact. The information on how blackface served as a precedent for the assimilation of African-American culture into American and world popular culture is in keeping with that. And the mention of the various artists -- including Amy Winehouse and the New York Times article are clear follow-ons and examples of the phenomenon. That is their relevance. deeceevoice (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that entire section suffers from the same problem as the Winehouse bit. There is no sourced connection with blackface specifically. This material should pretty much all be taken out of the article. Numerous editors have made this same observation for many months now. The writing is on the wall. It is time to find sources that specifically identify blackface and link it to the contemporary artists mentioned in the article.Verklempt (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New edits to the article lead me to make two other observations: (a) mentioning Sarah Silverman is trivial and (b) the link supposedly backing up the claim that Mickey Mouse is black shows him, very obviously, to have a white face. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse is black and always has been. His entire body is black -- except for his face. (Duh.) And in the poster, his mouth is widely outlined in orange -- the equivalent of the big, red lips of the blackface make-up style. deeceevoice (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deecee, please review WP:OR. If your edits draw a conclusion that is not in your sources, then those edits violate WP:OR. All of the stuff you recently put back in has to come out again to conform to WP:OR.Verklempt (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand full well what WP:OR means. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your continuing support of paradigmatic cases of original research suggests that you don't understand WP:OR at all. Articles are supposed to be built in the following way: you read reliable sources, then you write the article based on what the sources say. This part of the article, as well as others, was built backwards: the article was written, then examples were added to support what the article says. If Amy Winehouse, Elvis, etc., were "clear follow-ons and examples of the phenomenon" then the sources accompanying these names would in one way or another say "X is an example of the historical impact of blackface." But none of these sources specifically mention blackface, let alone cite these people as examples of its influence. Again, these are paradigmatic cases of original research; if they aren't original research, then nothing is. I think we should refer this to the talk page of WP:OR and let those intimately familiar with the policy chime in. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I tagged most of the paragraphs that need sourcing with {{fact}}. Sources should be found for this information. Yahel Guhan 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please explain what is going on where citation-heavy material was removed with the bare claim that it was OR? - Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the cites address blackface and state the conclusions drawn in the deleted paras. It's open and shut OR.Verklempt (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's properly cited and relevant. If it's cited, it's NOT OR. reverted. Also, in a number of instances where passages have been fact-tagged, the citations existed in earlier versions, but were removed by other editors or, possibly, vandals. I'll look up the information and reinsert the citations in a week or two. deeceevoice (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand WP:OR. The sources cited must contain the conclusions that you attribute to them. They do not: "...even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research".Verklempt (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt: Precisely how spelled out do you feel the source needs to be? For example, do you need the source to state explicitly that Amy Winehouse is not black? - Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:OR, the source needs to link these contemporary performers to blackface. If there is such a linkage, then it should be easy to document according to WP:RS. If an editor assumes a linkage that is not explicit in the source, then there is a WP:OR violation.Verklempt (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The NYT source says nothing of calculating. It does not "directly or explicitly" support what thewikipedia article text says. 192.94.73.30 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"According to WP:OR, the source needs to link these contemporary performers to blackface." Actually, I don't think that is true. We need a solid citation linking certain aspects of contemporary performance to blackface, and solid citations linking these performer to those aspects of contemporary performance. It's not as if the article (in any version I've seen) is asserting that they are doing blackface as such. It is asserting that what they are doing is part of the legacy of blackface.

At some point, a certain amount of synthesis is necessary to write an article. Otherwise, an article is nothing but a set of strung-together quotations and tight paraphrases. - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant policy from WP:OR: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The probelem here is that the sources cited do not reach the same conclusion, nor are they directly related to the topic of the article.Verklempt (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But if there is a source cited for the conclusion (roughly, that Blackface minstrelsy continues to echo in our culture through such aspects of contemporary performance as whites performing in traditionally black forms, or blacks "cooning"), and other sources are cited to give examples identified as whites performing in traditionally black forms, or blacks "cooning", then that is not OR. Deeceevoice is (and other contributors are) fleshing out a demonstration of someone else's (a reliable source's) thesis, explicitly given in that source (though not in each of the sources cited). Again, we do this all the time. And we must. Otherwise, for example, we'd have to find the information about (say) the architect, date of construction, and materials of a building in the same source that says it is a good example of a particular style; in practice, this is rarely possible. Some synthesis is almost always needed. The problem comes when the synthesis draws conclusions that are entirely the contributor's own. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy once again: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research...'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." The policy is quite clear. It does not permit just a little bit of synthesis.Verklempt (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

After dealing with this guy, now, over a period of months, I'm finding it very hard to believe Verklempt's edits are in good faith -- particularly after his antics/attempts at whitewashing Jazz. He seems to have a problem with acknowledging the importance of African-American cultural influence in both articles -- and his objections are clearly groundless. deeceevoice (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments are unproductive, and evade the issue at hand.Verklempt (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no credible issue at hand -- except, seemingly, the one I just raised. And, no. Making that point, given your history at Jazz and the flimsy/groundless nature of your objections here, is certainly not an "ad hominem" attack. deeceevoice (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue you've been asked to respond to is this: The problem here is that the sources cited do not reach the same conclusion as the disputed paras, nor are the sources cited directly related to the topic of the article. This is a violation of WP:OR. A number of other editors have raised this objection. You cannot evade it with ad hominem.Verklempt (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Jmabel's comments above and below. Ditto. deeceevoice (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt, I see that on the basis of ostensible OR you are removing not only mentions of specific performers but also passages like "The immense popularity and profitability of blackface were testaments to the power, appeal, and commercial viability of not only black music and dance, but also of black style. This led to cross-cultural collaborations, as Giddings writes; but, particularly in times past, to the often ruthless exploitation and outright theft of African-American artistic genius, as well— by other, white performers and composers; agents; promoters; publishers; and record company executives." Are you saying that this is not borne out by the half a dozen or so citations that follow it? Inevitably, I haven't read all of the cited sources, but I'm familiar enough with some their work to say that this is probably a pithy and accurate summary. Are you saying you've looked at these sources and they don't bear this out? Because otherwise it looks to me like you, while protesting your own good faith are, in effect, questioning the good faith of the person or people who wrote the passage. I believe this passage should be restored, quite independent of the other discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove that passage; I reworded it for NPOV. And please lay off the ad hominem. It is not at all productive.Verklempt (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You almost entirely removed the passage. And my remarks were only minimally ad hominem (it's pretty difficult to discuss this without ever mentioning that your actions appear to me to be inconsistent). Your response here does not answer any of the substantive questions in my comment. To repeat those:

• Are you saying that this is not borne out by the half a dozen or so citations that follow it?
• Are you saying you've looked at these sources and they don't bear this out?

Unless the answer to these questions is yes, then why remove a pithy, accurate, pointed summary in favor of a bland one? Again, I believe this passage should be restored, quite independent of the other discussion. - 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my version better meets NPOV, and is more accurate. A number of the adjectives in the original version are tendentious and POV. Furthermore, several of the cites are tendentious as well (e.g., Kofsky). We need to make this article more balanced.Verklempt (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Balanced between what and what? Are you saying that there is also scholarly literature out there that does not see blackface minstrelsy as mainly a white appropriation and caricature of black culture? And, if not, what exactly is the view with which we need to achieve balance? (If there is such a view, we should acknowledge both views, each stated clearly and with citation, not try to write in some watered-down middle ground.) - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is to this passage: "to the often ruthless exploitation and outright theft of African-American artistic genius, as well— by other, white performers and composers; agents; promoters; publishers; and record company executives." The adjectives are POV and ahistorical, and the entire sentence smacks of racial grievance and identity politics. Furthermore, the cites do not mention blackface, except the first, which does not support the passage as written.Verklempt (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As an independent observer, I have to agree with Jmabel. Verklempt's version is unhelpfully neutering the article of any substance and trying to "balance" opinions when there is no credible opposing opinion. That is, unless we are supposed to balance the scholarly opinion of 1940 with the scholarly opinion of today, since that's about how far back you'd have to look to find anyone outside of supremacist circles writing favorably about blackface. The history of minstrelsy is a sort of pet subject of mine, and I'd be happy to provide information from works by Robert Toll, Eric Lott, William J. Mahar, Hannah Winter, and others that support (and, in fact, wholly represent) the current scholarship on this subject. — Dulcem (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a straw man argument. The major debate on this page is over the article's violation of WP:OR, and it has been for nearly a year.Verklempt (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. And I am asking you what in that passage constitutes original research. So far, you have not responded to any of my questions. - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I did, actually: "My main objection is to this passage: "to the often ruthless exploitation and outright theft of African-American artistic genius, as well— by other, white performers and composers; agents; promoters; publishers; and record company executives." The adjectives are POV and ahistorical, and the entire sentence smacks of racial grievance and identity politics. Furthermore, the cites do not mention blackface, except the first, which does not support the passage as written."Verklempt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I acknowledged below [remark dated 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)], I didn't initially notice it interspersed. - Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt, I'm working in the article trying to cite for the things people have said are inadequately cited. Would you please not keep going at the article with an axe while others are trying to deal with specific issues?

Please engage constructively in discussion here. If you have questions, ask them, but also please answer mine (see previous section).

And could you be concrete about what you think hasn't been cited for, rather than lop out entire sections in which each statement is cited for? I understand that you feel that there is some step in the presentation here that is OR rather than coming from the sources, but I honestly don't see what it is. In the area you keep cutting unilaterally, can you please state coherently what assertion you think the article makes (explicitly or implicitly) that isn't borne out by its cited sources? - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed your interspersed remark above. I missed it because it was out of chronological sequence, and I didn't notice it slip into the middle. Lousy timing here, because it may be 48 hours before I next have any real time to put into this, but I will try to find citations more tightly tying that to the history of blackface minstrelsy. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that Frederick Douglass's abhorrence of blackface minstrelsy is marked as needing citation. I'm pretty sure this can be found in Lott's Love and Theft. If anyone has a copy available, could you please check the index? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it would be great if someone can just find a relevant passage in Douglass's own works. - Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a solid citation for this, I'll add it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In the section Blackface#History and the shaping of racist archetypes I see several comments asserting that citations were previously there, but have been lost. These seem to come from Deeceevoice. Deecee, I've searched the history a bit (not exhaustively, but pretty extensively) and I think not: these seem never to have been cited. The only "citation" I found at any point in the last few years' history was a blind URL that turned out simply to point to another Wikipedia article. Maybe it was there more than two years ago, but I doubt it, since few Wikipedia articles had much citation then. That's not to say that I have any problem with the text, nor that I doubt that you or whoever wrote it had good sources at hand, but there doesn't seem to have been explicit citation of those sources. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I specifically remember searching and citing the information about blackface being the point at which A-A culture impacted maintream American pop culture. I can hunt it up again. I also specifically remember dragging out the oversize volume and citing Black Fire on the info, I think, about Lucas and the info regarding TOBY. I see Black Fire co-authored by Amiri Baraka (then LeRoi Jones, I think) no longer appears in the list of references. And there is likely other info as well that has gone missing over time. deeceevoice (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[TOBY in previous presumably a typo for TOBA].

Very possible that they were in the reference list, but not used for inline citations.

In any case Dulcem seems to be doing a good job of finding citations for this material. - Jmabel | Talk 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two requests for citation in the article that are for material that already has incomplete citation.

• For the quotation from Gary Giddings beginning "Though antebellum (minstrel) troupes were white" the text already explicitly says it comes from Bing Crosby: A Pocketful of Dreams, The Early Years 1903-1940. Does someone have a copy to add a page number?
• Similarly, the paragraph about the Grand Ole Opry, Hee Haw, Jimmie Rodgers, and Bob Wills makes explicit mention of Cockrell as its source (presumably Cockrell and Wilmeth, Demons of Disorder mentioned later in the page). Does someone have access to this, and could they please add the page number? - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have an alternate citation for Jimmie Rodgers and Bob Wills, but not for the Opry and Hee Haw (though the statement is certainly true). - Jmabel | Talk 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If nothing else, we can fall back to Eric Lott saying much the same thing about Hee Haw, although he doesn't mention the Opry. On p. 5 of Love and Theft (part of the Intro): "The tone and format of the early minstrel show, with its knee-slapping musical numbers punctuated by comic dialogue, bad puns, and petit-bourgeois ribaldry, should seem familiar to anyone who has seen American television's 'Hee Haw'." He also cites Robert Winans as having written about the influence of "the black style of banjo playing" via minstrelsy to bluegrass. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have a copy of Cockrell that I've been poring over trying to find the Hee Haw reference. It's not in the index, and the book is not indexed via Google Books or searchable via Amazon, so I'm skimming it. I'll report back tomorrow. — Dulcem (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I've finished skimming the book, and this quote about Hee Haw and "rubeface" does not seem to be from Demons of Disorder. It's possible I overlooked it, but the double H's in italic print should have made it jump out easily. Perhaps we should dump the direct quote and use one of the alternates you describe above. As an aside, B. Wilmeth is not a co-author of Demons; Cockrell is the only author. I've got my hands pretty full at the moment, but I'll try to help here wherever I can as the article undergoes its FAR. — Dulcem (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Then let's cite Lott for Hee Haw and drop the Opry remark. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What, if anything, is supposed to be the difference between the References section and the Bibliography section. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Copies of Taco's "Puttin' in the Ritz" video incorporating blackface is all over the Internet, but they are all presumably unauthorized copies, which our policies say we cannot link to and which oddly do not qualify by Wikipedia's rules as being citable even for its existence (which, when you think about it is rather silly). The presence of these copies makes it very hard to use Google to find anything else about the video. Apparently, judging by the commentary on these many dubious sites, there was later a "censored" version of the video that removed the blackface sequences. Anyway, does anyone have a suggestion of how to cite for the existence of the video? - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why bother about it? The article does not need to mention every last instance of recent blackface.Verklempt (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm "bothering about it" because the mentions were made in the article, and were marked as uncited. Do you feel that only your requests for citation should be responded to? When I try to help out with citations in what is basically someone else's article (and, in this case, a featured article), and I encounter obviously true statements, I try to find usable citations to back up the text more or less as it stands, making minor changes as needed. This is rather more cooperative and collaborative than hacking away large chunks of text or hectoring those who are working on it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not requested cites. As another editor noted above, that approach represents an impoverished conception of scholarship. An objective writer does not begin with a hypothesis, and then seek out cites to back it up. That is a recipe for POV. I do think that this article is in need of surgery, a major POV-ectomy. Finding cites for extreme statements does not solve the POV problem. This is a more general observation, not specific to the Taco bit. Taco seems too trivial to bother with IMO, but if you want to run it down, I don't object.Verklempt (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[No longer on Taco] Ah, perhaps I've misunderstood you. For the passages you've been removing, you don't merely think that the citations fail to back up the content, you think the content is false. Then, I think, the burden is at least partially on you to find some writers on the subject who present a different, conflicting narrative, not just to remove this because you personally disagree with the apparent consensus cited from half a dozen or so sources. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. The content I object to is not "false", per se. It is biased, OR, and off-topic. I've left it alone for a few days to give folks a chance to improve it, but nothing is happening.Verklempt (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think your remark beginning "An objective writer does not begin with a hypothesis…" misrepresents how excellent articles get written. It's not a matter of beginning with a hypothesis. It's a matter of already knowing the topic well before you start writing.

I would say that nearly all of the best articles in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) are written largely or entirely by either one or a small number of writers who know their topic well, who start out with a pretty good idea of the literature on the topic, who could write quite a decent article on the topic (albeit not one that meets Wikipedia's standards of citation) with no references at hand, and who use sources to bring that article up to Wikipedia's standards of scholarly citation. Otherwise, people tend to start from one or two sources, or from what happens to be easily found with Google, and end up (at best) either with a faithful summary of one or two writers' presentation of the topic or of what is to be found with the obvious web searches on the topic (with some sifting for quality of sources). Not to put that down: that's what most of Wikipedia is, and it's valuable, but it's not as valuable as an article where people are writing on topics they know well, and seeking citations mainly to back up what they already solidly know. (I'm not saying that the two scenarios are completely distinct, because articles here are collaborations. Still, I don't think this can be done entirely "bottom up", accumulating single facts and adding them up to an article, which I take it is the model you are proposing. If I've misunderstood, please feel free to clarify. What you said was brief.) Jmabel | Talk 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such a model could work, but it's not happening in this article, and it often doesn't happen on Wikipedia. The danger is when you have an editor with an extreme POV, who then seeks out cites to support that POV. This is the problem with this article, and numerous others. When you have that kind of a start, the best solution is to weed out or radically rewrite the POV passages.Verklempt (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the question at the beginning of this article: How do we cite the fact that Taco's video uses blackface? It is my understanding that the source material itself (in this case, the video) is a perfectly acceptable source for basic facts about that source. That the video uses blackface is evident to anyone who watches the video. We may need to add an explicit reference to the video (with the director, date, etc.), but I'm not sure if that's even required. As for the fact that copies on the internet are YouTube bootlegs, I say so what? — Dulcem (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone offhand have a solid citation for this? Some of it can be cited from Cape Town Minstrel Carnival & 2nd New Year in Cape Town, CapeTownMagazine.com, but it's not very well written, has at least one factual error (18th century minstrelsy?) that casts some doubt on the accuracy of other details, and has an obnoxious frequent reload, all of which makes it a page I'd rather not cite. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Donald G. McNeil, What' Doing In Cape Town, New York Times, October 26, 1997 is a decent partial citation (though not at all for the 1848 date, and of course not for the official name change, which postdates the article): "Cape Town's chief annual event is so politically incorrect it horrifies Americans. It's the Cape Coon Carnival, which has its roots in 1880's tours by American minstrels. Every January for more than 100 years, choirs in the mixed-race communities have picked banjos, paraded nightly and held singing competitions and marches. Capetonians generally think American shock is funny." - Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a book called Coon Carnival: New Year in Cape Town : Past to Present by Denis Martin (New Africa Books, 1999, ISBN 0864864485). Does anyone have access to a copy? Presumably everything but the recent history about the name change could be documented from there. If worst comes to worst, much of the book seems to be online at Google Books, possibly enough to cite for the discussion here. (Our article Coon Carnival does not cite this book at all; presumably it should. I'll make a note there, too.) - Jmabel | Talk 07:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If I follow Verklempt's argument correctly—and I'm honestly not at all sure I do—he's saying that the problem with the material beginning "For more than a century, when white performers have wanted to appear sexy…" is that we do not have it cited from someone writin about blackface. I think the following citation should meet that concern; I will be looking for additional citations.

In John Strausbaugh, Black Like You: Blackface, Whiteface, Insult and Imitation in American Popular Culture (Jeremy P. Tarcher / Penguin, 2006, ISBN 1585424986), p. 40: "To this day, Whites admire, envy and seek to emulate such supposed innate qualities of Blackness as inherent musicality, natural athleticism, the composure known at 'cool' and superior sexual endowment." This from in a book precisely on blackface in cultural context. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How does he link this assertion to blackface?Verklempt (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Futher from the same source, p. 55–56: he concludes that same chapter with a paragraph about "images of Blackness" that are "not Blackness at all, but some version of Blackface… as a recurring theme in… American… literature and film, in advertising and fashion, in rock and hiphop… integral to American popular culture…"

Also, on p. 61, he makes an explicit analogy between T.D. Rice with "Jump Jim Crow" and Elvis Presley with "Hound Dog" (by way of explaining Rice in terms of the presumably more familiar Presley). - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, does he link Presley's performance style to blackface?Verklempt (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Strausbaugh's book is all about blackface and its reverberations through the years. Amazon describes it like this: "Although blackface performance came to be denounced as purely racist mockery, and shamefacedly erased from most modern accounts of American cultural history, Black Like You shows that the impact of blackface on American culture was deep and long-lasting. Its influence can be seen in rock and hiphop; in vaudeville, Broadway, and gay drag performances; in Mark Twain and "gangsta lit"; in the earliest filmstrips and the 2004 movie White Chicks; on radio and television; in advertising and product marketing; and even in the way Americans speak." So, yes, he does explicitly link Elvis and his assertions to blackface; it's the thesis of the book. — Dulcem (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind giving the quote where he links Elvis to blackface? Also, does he link Eminem, Mezz Mezzrow, Marlon Brando, James Dean, John Travolta, George Clooney, Frank Sinatra to blackface? I have no problem with the notion that earlier pop music styles influenced later pop music styles. That's trivially true. I have a problem with the passage as written, which infers blackface influences on these specific performers. WRT Elvis in particular, there is a considerable literature, and I have never seen blackface mentioned as an influence on Elvis. If only one author makes such a claim, in the context of a large literature on the topic, then I question whether it deserves any mention at all in this article.Verklempt (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the point is that "Elvis was influenced by blackface." I think it is rather that Elvis borrowed/ripped off/[choose your term] black performance style as part of a long chain of such cutural appropriations that began with blackface. Mel Watkins makes the same assertion in his On the Real Side (though you'll have to wait till I get home from work for a citation from it). — Dulcem (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "began with blackface" is an overstatement of Strausbaugh's views. He sees blackface as emerging within an already-established tradition of "displaying Blackness for the enjoyment and edification of white viewers" that dates back to the display in Portugal in the 1840s of captives from West Africa. (p. 35-36) If I read him correctly, what he finds innovative in blackface was that it no longer required actual Black people to create that display, and this is the tradition continued by more recent cultural phenomema. In short, his view (again, if I read him correctly) is that the central fact of blackface is not the "corking up" but the simulation (whether by Whites or Blacks) of "supposed innate qualities of Blackness" (from the quotation I gave above). - Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's far more interesting and objectively sustainable than what's in the article now. I'd like to see you enter an elaboration of the above in place of the current problem passage.Verklempt (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems to me that's more or less what the article already says. But a transitional sentence might be in order. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've written a couple of sentences of transition. If this meets your major issue with this material, then this has been a tempest in a teacup, because I think that what I added was already implicitly there (albeit without explicit citation). If it doesn't, then we can go on from here and see what else is at issue. - Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the OR mentions of Eminem, Mezz Mezzrow, Marlon Brando, James Dean, John Travolta, George Clooney, Frank Sinatra. There is still the remaining problem of biased, tendentious language. My issue has never been with the substance of the section , but with the non-encyclopedic aspects of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verklempt (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a clarification: I don't think anyone is saying that Elvis Presley as an individual performer was particularly influenced by minstrel shows as such. But the topic of this article is blackface; minstrel show is a different article. What Strausbaugh and others are saying is that Elvis was influenced by (and part of) precisely the aspect of blackface that is referred to in the lead sentence of this article (and which has also been fought over at length): the affectation of a countenance of the darky or coon (in Elvis's case, definitely the coon more than the darky). In the case of blackface in the narrow sense, a performer (usually white) literally blackens his (it's almost always his) face. But quite a few people in cultural studies and related fields (Strausbaugh is only an example) do not see that as the central fact of blackface. What they see as central is precisely the affectation of stereotyped blackness, whether that is done by whites or blacks (e.g. what Tom Wolfe called "maumau-ing" would also fall more or less under this heading).

A more literal legacy of the minstrel show lives on, mainly in oldtime and country music; ironically, while it has more connection to the structure of the minstrel show, it has considerably less connection to the racially tinged aspects of blackface.

I don't think anything in Strausbaugh's general thesis here is particularly novel or unique, but I think he is more articulate and direct about this (at least in writing: I've heard Eric Lott say things this direct, but I'm not sure he's written them) than anyone else I can find to cite. (I'll keep looking; I grabbed a stack of books when I got hold of his.) - Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with this, I have changed the heading "In world popular culture" to "Legacy". - Jmabel | Talk 08:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article still seems very american in tone especially at the beginning. Blackface (in mintrelsy) was massively popular in Britain throughout the nineteenth century. Don't know about other countries90.11.199.50 (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly other countries should have more mention (we do take up Cape Town, because it survives there), but it was definitely of American origin, and reverberated heavily in American culture. Similarly, there is plenty of reggae outside of Jamaica, but an article on reggae should be mainly about Jamaica. Do you have any good citations for blackface minstrelsy in Britain? I doubt anyone would object to adding it. But then again, people have objected to material here that I would have thought straightforward enough... - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Found one such citation, added it. I suspect there is much more to be found (certainly articles, possibly a book), and I gather that blackface was indeed very popular in Britain but, of course, the innovations in blackface minstrelsy were mostly American and the cultural significance was almost certainly deeper in the U.S., because blackface was built on stereotypes of people who were in the U.S. There wasn't a similarly large population of African origin in the UK (or anywhere else in Europe) at that time. - Jmabel | Talk 08:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Southgate's "Coolhunting" paper seems to me to be a very weak citation for the identification of "cool" as black. There is only one short passage in this 9-page paper that refers to race at all: a passage near the top of p. 457, the majority of which is direct quotation of Naomi Klein's No Logo and the rest of which seems to me to be a paraphrase of Klein. Why not just cite Klein directly? - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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. Not impressed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much what I'm proposing belongs here and how much in minstrel show, but following Eric Lott's notion of "love and theft", somewhere we should take up the different views that have been held by different writers about blackface minstrelsy on two issues:

1. The degree to which blackface minstrel material was an appropriation and adaptation of materials of black origins, vs. the degree to which it was the creation of material of non-black origin, disguised as being of black origin.
2. The degree to which blackface minstrel material represented an affectionate representation and imitation of blacks and black style vs. the degree to which it was an expression of racism and hostility.

Obviously, the balance was (wildly) different among different performers, but there is also an interesting arc in how the same material has been perceived at different times. The following is not necessarily something for which I have citation, which is why it is here on the talk page rather than in an article; I think we should give some thought to how to cite for something along these lines, and probably much expanded.

Constance Rourke (who richly deserves an article, and apparently doesn't have one as of this writing), at the dawn of cultural studies in the 1930s, saw the music and dance of blackface minstrelsy as a rather legitimate representation of black culture. Almost everyone actively involved in the Civil Rights movement from the end of WWII through the Black Power era—whether black or white—saw it as entirely fake (and entirely hostile), blackface became so unacceptable that even African American performer Pigmeat Markham was pressured out of using the accoutrements of the form on which he had built his career. More recently, many of the scholars we've been citing (Cockrell, Lott, etc.) have seen it as a very complicated mixture (a view I share, although I think racism was absolutely central, and even the affection involved a lot of condescension; I think Lott pretty much agrees with that) and different at different times (e.g. changing as working-class white racism hardened in the 1830s). As Strausbaugh says, fans of blackface could be "hopelessly confused" (p. 81) in their racial attitudes, and the status of the material could be very "muddled… Some minstrel songs started as Negro folk songs, were adapted by White minstrels, became widely popular and were readopted by Blacks." (p. 72; he lays out several other similarly complicated scenarios) - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your observations entirely. This article would be greatly improved by redacting the tendentious, loaded language, and acknowledging the immense cultural complexities at play with this topic.Verklempt (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just a place to gather some citations to allow such a section to be written. I'm also adding some citations for about the type of racism involved in blackface. - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strausbaugh 2006, p. 8: "Is it mocking Black culture or celebrating it? … a conundrum at the heart of blackface."
• Strausbaugh 2006, p. 24: "a complicated web of love and hate, fear and guilt, attraction and repulsion, mockery and mimicry."

• Strausbaugh 2006, p. 27: "[Constance] Rourke [in American Humor, 1931] argued [that blackface] brought the humor, songs, and spirituality of the Southern Black into the mainstream of American culture," but (p. 28) "[Rourke tended] to overstate how much blackface minstrelsy was an accurate depiction of authentic Black life and culture."
• Toll 1974, p. 44–48 talks about elements of black culture found in blackface performance: some dances, mode of playing banjo, some aspects of Southern black folklore but (p. 51) caricatured and stereotyped: "exploit[ed] and manipulate[d] Afro-Americans and their culture to please and benefit white Americans."
• Toll 1974, p. 216: "…although within a heavily stereotyped framework, black minstrels clearly demonstrated the diverse talents of black people." Blackface minstrelsy gave them "their only chance" to do so.
• Toll 1974, p. 222: Minstrelsy "involved Afro-American culture" and therefore appealed to many blacks; (p. 227) black troupes were such a draw for black audiences that even in the South many theaters made an exception to confining black patrons to "Nigger Heaven" in the upper balcony. (p. 258-9) The pleasure of seeing their own culture reflected in performance; compares Moms Mabley.
• Toll 1974, p. 239-243: Toll makes a case that the southern black religious material that entered black blackface minstrelsy from about the mid-1870s was more legitimate, in fact, than the jubilee singers who "cleaned up" black religion to make it more acceptable to whites (dropping, for example, the concreteness of black visions of Heaven). At the same time, it "allowed whites to maintain their negative caricatures of blacks by focusing on and exaggerating the alien aspects of Afro-American religion."
• Toll 1974, p. 262: conjectures that there actually was more material of African-American origin in the shows than we have on the page.
• Toll 1974, p. 273: the "enthralling vitality" of genuine African-American material incorporated into blackface

• Strausbaugh 2006, p. 33: (defending the cultural appropriation inherent in blackface): "Americans are cultural magpies."

• Toll 1974, p. 65: "During the sectional crisis, minstrels shaped white Americans' vague notions and amorphous beliefs about Negroes into vivid, eye-catching caricatures as they literally acted out images of blacks and plantation life that satisfied their huge audiences… When public opinion shifted, minstrelsy shifted."
• Toll 1974, p. 66: pre-1850 minstrelsy included not just the "ludicrous" images that characterized later blackface but "diverse black common people": hunters, fishermen, young lovers, black frontiersmen, etc. A single show could contain both happy plantation scenes and representations of "the cruelty and inhumanity of slavery". Still, (p. 67) even then the Negro was always portrayed as inferior. In particular (p. 68) Northern Negroes were always portrayed as buffoons or, at best, as the "classical Fool". (p. 68–71) The black dandy figure was used as (p. 71) "confirmation that Negroes could not play a constructive role in a free society." Still, (p. 80–87) a recurring theme was masters breaking up slave families. But (p. 88) folk and anti-slavery content was largely gone by the mid-1850s.

• Toll 1974, p. 76: Attractive "yellow girls" (played by white men in drag) were a standard feature, but there was no equivalent male character.
• Toll 1974, p. 119: At best, the attitude toward blacks was "benevolent paternalism", viewing (especially southern) blacks as children.
• Toll 1974, p. 179: Northern blacks presented as "living embodiments of vice and folly… low-comedy fools, pretentious incompetents"; southern blacks as "contented subordinates on the plantation".
• Toll 1974, p. 271: "however confused, bewildered, or helpless the [white audience] felt", the "ludicrous Northern Negro" portrayed by blackface performers "was much worse off". "…ridiculously stupid black characters…"
• Toll 1974, p. 272: "…a nonthreatening way for vast numbers of white Americans to work out their ambivalence about race", a justification of a "properly ordered" society with whites in charge.

• Strausbaugh 2006, p. 62: "Minstrel music was played and enjoyed by both Whites and Blacks. It was also despised by both Whites and Blacks."
• Toll 1974, p. 227: The black bourgeoisie generally ignored or disliked minstrelsy

• Toll 1974, p. 104–105: Blackface was rarely performed (and widely disapproved of) in the antebellum South.

I actually doubt the statement that Bert Williams was "the first black performer in vaudeville", though he may well have been the first black performer to top a bill at a major vaudeville venue. Does anyone have a citation for the mentions of Williams here? - Jmabel | Talk 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can cite for him being Florenz Ziegfeld's highest-paid star and only black star, so I am going with that instead. If someone can cite for the previous statements in the article, feel free to restore them with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 08:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that the article says "Initially, blackface performers were part of traveling troupes who performed in minstrel shows," but that's not quite true. Blackface minstrelsy was important by 1832, but the proper minstrel show dates only from 1844 (when it took off like wildfire, and became the dominant form of American popular theater for roughly the next 50 years). In the period 1832–1844, blackface minstrels were basically novelty acts, often performing as an entre'acte in other entertainments. Shouldn't be too hard to cite for (I'll try to find something). Should change. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, I see "Minstrel shows were a very popular show business phenomenon in the U.S. from 1828 through the 1930s." I seriously doubt that there was such a thing as minstrel show (as against simply a minstrel-style performance) as early as 1828. That would mean that the form was already established before the period of "Jump Jim Crow" and "Zip Coon". Seems very unlikely to me. And at the other end: one hand, amateur minstrel shows continued to be pretty common at least down to 1950, but professional mistrel shows pretty much faded out before World War I. Certainly they had ceased to be "very popular" long before World War I, probably as early as 1900 or so. This is not to say that blackface, even in the narrowest sense, had faded—the 1890s and early 1900s are the heyday of the "coon song", and black characters in films were played largely by whites in blackface down to the time of Birth of a Nation—but the minstrel show was fading. The big blackface stars of this era were vaudeville stars, not minstrel-show stars. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with that but I see another problem: the lyrics of "Jump Jim Crow" were cited vaguely as "1823 sheet music". Since, by all accounts I've seen, T.D. Rice's version was the original and dates only from 1828, I seriously doubt it. Maybe someone working on this articl had actual 1823 sheet music in their hand, but I doubt it: this must have come from somewhere. If someone can help sort this out, it would be helpful. - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am using the word portray in the sense of "the actor's portrayal of Hamlet", which refers to the whole performance style, not just the makeup or the costuming. I think blackface is more about a theatrical performance style, rather than merely "affecting a countenance" or "taking on an appearance" with makeup.--Pharos (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, I don't consider it a "weak" wording, but rather a stronger one, because it emphasizes that's it's about more than just a superficial "appearance".--Pharos (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked a good deal of this article, and still have more I intend to do. I want to point out several things in particular that I have done:

1. I've added a lot of citations. Certainly more are still needed, but the majority of requests for citation that were here 10 days ago have now been addressed.
2. I've reorganized the history section, mainly to provide more context for the arc of the rise and fall of blackface, but also to separate the material about blackface performance by blacks from the material about blackface performance by whites. They were already handled largely separately, but there were some odd jumps from one to the other.
3. I changed the heading "In world popular culture" to "Legacy", because that is what it really was. I hope that the combination of this recontextualization and the citations from Strausbaugh explicitly tying these phenomena to blackface go a good ways toward addressing Verklempt's (and possibly others') objections to the presence of this material.

As you can see above, there are things in the article I still think need improvement, but I think I've addressed the bulk of the serious issues that had been raised. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful at this point to try to list what is currently either in contention or otherwise in need of improvement in the article. Please add to the list; please, though, let's use this section for the list itself and use separate sections on this page for discussions of the various issues. Note that the following are not necessarily my issues; I'm trying to describe where we stand.

1. Possible need for more material on non-US blackface
2. Possibly too much Zwarte Piet material: may be out of proportion to its relevance to the topic, and it has an article of its own. Possibly refactor some of this.
3. Contention over whether there is material in the "legacy" section that does not belong.
4. Claims of lack of balance
   • This is the one place in the list where I'll editorialize: balance with what citable material (as against contributors' opinions) that has not been given adequate weight?
5. What, if anything, is supposed to be the difference between the References section and the Bibliography section?
6. Several requested citations in the article
   1. Incomplete citations, as noted above
   2. Does anyone have a copy of Denis Martin's Coon Carnival: New Year in Cape Town : Past to Present? (see discussion above).
   3. The lyrics of "Jump Jim Crow" are cited vaguely as "1823 sheet music": a vague citation and an unlikely date
   4. Other citation problems mentioned above (see Cool and "Coolhunting")
   5. Are there more things that need citation? If so could people please put explicit {{fact}} tags in the article?
7. The issues above I mentioned under the heading Love and theft about the complexity of the phenomenon; this won't be easy to cite for, though.
   1. The degree to which blackface minstrel material was an appropriation and adaptation of materials of black origins, vs. the degree to which it was the creation of material of non-black origin, disguised as being of black origin.
   2. The degree to which blackface minstrel material represented an affectionate representation and imitation of blacks and black style vs. the degree to which it was an expression of racism and hostility.

- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than the "love and theft" matter (which I will try to work on), I've started sections for each of these immediately below. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See above for some notes toward working on the "love and theft" matter. - Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen statements in passing in various sources that blackface was very popular in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, but I've seen nothing citable with any detail. Does anyone have concrete, citable material they want to add? - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• In November I added a short rider to the top definition that blackface as 'a style of theatrical makeup' predates its meaning as 'the appearance of an iconic, racist American archetype', adding the easily citable examples (I'll happily forward some) of European blackface folk performance that use blackface as a represention of winter or the dark season. Deeceevoice removed this shortly afterwards as she believed this wasn't the 'agreed upon focus' of the article. Several other editors have commented on this. I know that you respect deecees opinion and haven't pursued this. But with your overhaul of the article I wonder what your opinion of this base definition issue is? I appreciate and have no reason to feel that the article should not be primarily about the US meaning, but would not an impartial visitor to the encyclopedia expect a full overview of the meaning as part of the top definition, even if it means being presented with an disambiguation link? Meanwhile the other meaning sits way down the article. Bob (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the material you want to add belongs in Wikipedia, and should be linked from this article, but it's really a different topic. Given how controversial this has been, I'm sure you want some reasoning, not just an opinion.

I'm not even sure that the simple theatrical device of face makeup that darkens the face, in its own right, would merit an encyclopedia article. It is precisely the simultaneously racially imitative and racist aspect of blackface performance—what Eric Lott called "love and theft" and what I'd be more inclined to characterize as "love, hate, and theft", not to mention a fascinating mixture of admiration and contempt, emulation and distancing—that makes it an important topic. That said, I can imagine us doing another article on, say Face paint and ethnic impersonation. Or maybe something even broader, because the Northern European traditions you are referring to aren't even about ethnic impersonation (which makes them even less connected to the topic of the present article). Would that be a solution?

In a way, the title of this article is a bit of a shorthand, but I think it is as good a title as we are going to get for this topic. (By the way, that reminds me, the term Ethiopian delineator, which was sort of a PC term for blackface circa 1840 is currently missing from this article. I'll find a citation and add that) At one point I thought of suggesting that it be retitled Blackface minstrelsy, but I think that would then err at least equally in the opposite direction, tying it too closely to minstrel show, an article we already have. As noted, blackface in the sense discussed here predates and postdates the minstrel show. We constantly have this problem in Wikipedia on how to "lump" and "split" topics. I think that with a few tweaks to decrease the Zwarte Piet material, the next thing I plan to do, the scope of this article is roughly appropriate.

But, regardless of title, the article has a coherent topic as it stands: the phenomenon of (mainly American) whites imitating and parodying (mainly American) blacks through a particular set of theatrical devices, and the legacy of that phenomenon in American and world culture, including after the time when the theatrical device itself became culturally unacceptable. - Jmabel | Talk 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Point well made. Thank you. I found myself involved in this discussion because an article I edited relating to a British folk-dance troupe was linked with blackface. I successfully argued for the removal of the link because the original reference had nothing to do with ethnic impersonation which, as you say, is the substance of the blackface article. I'm not at all certain what would be a suitable title for an appropriate article to cover this usage, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not the person to write it. Bob (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to refactoring about 50-70% of what is here on this topic to the Zwarte Piet article (which could use a lot of work, by the way). I think it would probably make both articles stronger. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Jmabel | Talk 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the way the article is written is wrong right now. The definition given of blackface at the very top is US-centric (that's Ok). Citing Zwarte Piet further down makes it seem as if that tradition evolved from American blackface. It didn't at all. This distinction is essential, I think, in understanding why blackface is considered so offensive in the US, while it's not such a big deal in Europe at the moment. The point of American blackface _was_ to vehiculate stereotypes. That was not the point of Zwarte Piet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.9.14 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone would give a specific list of what here they think:

• Belongs but needs better citation
• Does not belong, and precisely why

So far as I can tell, my citations from Strausbaugh should address a lot of the objections previously raised. I'd like someone to be specific about problems with the current state of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt apparently prefers to "discuss" this matter by editing. This series of removals with minimal edit summaries cut

or cool, (like actors Marlon Brando and James Dean<ref> "Frank Houston The Dearth of Cool." salon.com. November 1, 1999. Retrieved on 2006-08-25</ref> and, more recently, John Travolta and George Clooney);<ref>Southerland, Julie. "A Discussion of Women and the "White Negro" in Hip-Hop." Left Hook. Retrieved 2006-09-27 </ref> or urbane, (like Frank Sinatra)"

The Southerland link and the mentions of Travolta and Clooney were removed with the summary "dead link, pure nonsense anyway". I don't think these particular names are any great loss, so I will not fight over this at present, but I will note:

1. The Southerland link is only in a narrow sense "dead": it is available on the Internet Archive.
2. I'm not sure I'd consider it an A-1 citable source, but it is certainly not nonsense. Southerland is herself referencing Todd Boyd's The New H.N.I.C.; I see no reason to think that Southerland is misrepresenting Boyd.

- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If the source does not specifically link the subject matter to blackface, then the passage violates WP:OR. This problem remains. I have just begun the necessary weeding.Verklempt (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt, I replied to a similar claim of yours above, and won't repeat myself here. Unless I have misunderstood you, I think you are dead wrong, and clearly we will not be able to work out this disagreement between ourselves. Are you saying that an article may only cite facts from sources that are explicitly about the topic of that article? If so, then it appears that we have a fundamental disagreement, and I suggest that we open an RFC.

Have I understood you correctly? If so, should we start an RFC, or do you want to propose some other forum? - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The OR policy is very open and shut, and easy to understand: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." I don't see that this policy leaves any wiggle room.Verklempt (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If one were to take that narrowly one would have to delete the majority of Wikipedia. An equally fundamental policy—Ignore All Rules—basically means that all policies have wiggle room. I believe that it is entirely legitimate synthesis to have two sources, one of which says "A is closely related to the topic of the article" and the other of which says "B is an example of A". I am not necessarily defending the inclusion of these particular names (Sinatra, Travolta, Clooney) in this article, but without a common understanding of principles, I don't think we can resolve our other disagreements about the article, and especially about what will be required to bring it to featured status.

Should we start an RFC, or do you want to propose some other forum? - Jmabel | Talk 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If there were no controversy, then yes, a small amount of synthesis is necessary to avoid plagiarism. My objection is to the following names: Marlon Brando, James Dean, John Travolta, George Clooney, Frank Sinatra. It's absurd to link these people to the blackface tradtion, or even to label them as imitators of black culture. I have no objection to including Eminem and Mezz Mezzrow, who are clearly emulating black role models. I think that Elvis should be included, but the article's mention of Elvis should be better balanced. Elvis was far more than an imitator of black culture. He was a synthesizer, and deserves acknowledgment for that.Verklempt (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we are not as far apart as it seemed. I have no objection to requiring strong citation for inclusion in that particular list. I would object to subjecting every sentence of the article to comparable rigor, which you seemed to be advocating.

As for Elvis: T.D. Rice himself was far more than an imitator of black culture. His music was mainly Irish in origin; his lyrics were a mixture of nonsense verse (drawn from a variety of black and white cultures) and topical verses (very much his own). This is exactly what I alluded to in my "Love and theft" remarks elsewhere on this page, and which I want to get to writing. Before adding that section I'm in the process of reading through several books and taking notes, because I don't want to go off half-cocked. - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That said, let me reiterate my initial remark that has still not been addressed :

I would appreciate if someone would give a specific list of what here they think:

• Belongs but needs better citation
• Does not belong, and precisely why

-- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I remarked above: balance with what citable material (as against contributors' opinions) that has not been given adequate weight? - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a simple matter to substantiate that record industry business practices, and cultural notions of intellectual property, were radically different during this time period. Thus contemporary notions of exploitation are ahistorical when applied to the minstrelsy and coon song era. Furthermore, it is a simple matter to substantiate that such "exploitive" practices were not exclusively white on black, but took all kinds of racial combinations. However, since none of this is specifically related to blackface, it should not be in the article at all. The current passage violates WP:OR.Verklempt (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What, if anything, is supposed to be the difference between the References section and the Bibliography section? Any reason not to merge them? - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Nothing in the "Bibliography" section was explicitly cited in the article (although it all looks to me like potentially good sources). I'll retitle it as "Further reading", which is more normal for a Wikipedia article, and if we later cite from some of these we can move them to "References". - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE. - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would either (1) make a comprehensive list of what may be undercited, including both lack of citation and citation from "unreliable" sources and/or (2) mark these all in the article with "citation needed". If you want to remove an inadequate citation, I say go for it, but please make a clear edit summary and/or note here on the talk page what you did. I will do my best to find citations; I would hope I won't be alone in doing so. Please remember, I didn't have a major role in initially writing this, I don't know where people originally got the material, and I'm really not in a better position to find such citations than you are. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Jump Jim Crow" lyrics are almost certainly from 1832 (or rather, ca. 1832), not 1823. See my recent notes at Talk:Jump Jim Crow for full details.--Pharos (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds much more likely to me. I'll change the date in the article, and for remove any claim of citation for it until someone can provide something solid. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Status update: I've done pretty much everything I plan to do with (1) the introduction; (2) the history section, which is almost half of the article; (3) the "Darky" iconography section; (4) the Zwarte Piet section. Does anyone have any outstanding issues in these sections? - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Drama, Theatre, and Identity in the American New Republic by Jeffrey H. Richards, starting pg. 217. This has a little better context on early Anglo-American stuff.--Pharos (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pharos, offhand I don't see much from there worth adding to this particular article, but clearly it is a solid source on theater of the period. There is more detail on The Padlock, and a few other plays are mentioned, but I'm not sure that would strengthen this article. Possibly worth adding as an additional citation on The Padlock, if only to provide another reference for anyone using this as a starting point for a scholarly search. Feel free to point to what you think is germane. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that we should list all these plays, but I do think the "prehistory" section could focus a bit more on the 18th century English theatre, which was the huge direct influence on early American theatre (as opposed to Portugal or Shakespeare).--Pharos (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No objection, as long as it doesn't get too large. Shakespeare is relevant: his plays were commonly performed in the period, albeit in reworked versions (thank you Colley Cibber et. al.). And we explicitly mention Mungo in The Padlock, the most specific antecedent I'm aware of. But if there are a couple more that you think or on the mark, or a citable general remark about this as an antecedent, go for it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We mention NAACP opposition in the mid-20th century, and we have the 19th-century quotations from Frederick Douglass and James Monroe Trotter, but there was organized opposition to blackface at least as early as the 1930s, and I think earlier. I'm not sure whether CORE or the NAACP first started organizing systematic boycotts; does someone have something citable on this? I think Strausbaugh mentions it, but unfortunately it's not in my notes from his book. - Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ted Fox in his book referenced above says (p. 92): "Almost all the black male comics wore burnt-cork 'blackface' makeup and huge white painted-on lips, despite protests from the NAACP and others that this tradition was degrading. But most comedians said they felt naked without it, and they prevailed until the argument reached a climax in the late forties." Mattisse 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Agreed. I'm just trying to find materials to show that the opposition - even the organized opposition - had been going on for decades before it triumphed. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I do not think you are talking about mainstream blacks but an intellectual elite. Knowing something about CORE, I can't believe the issue of blackface was ever on their agenda. As mentioned in Showtime at the Apollo, a book endorsed by black music critics/commentators, the NAACP "pressured" but got nowhere in the face of black resistance until the 1950's. Mattisse 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel Elvis is misrepresented here. He did not "turn" to black music when he wanted to be sexy, or whatever. He grew up (in Tupelo in the Mississippi Delta and in Memphis and learned music from hanging around with black street musicians and singing in black churches. That was the music he knew, so when he started playing (his first recordings for Sun Records) that it what he played. At the time he did not know the implication of the musical style. It was the music he had been hearing all his life. Read the biographies by Peter Guralnick (who also wrote books on the blues and blues musicians) and others. Mattisse 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also clear that Elvis had many white musical influences. The original article vastly oversimplified Elvis for ideological purposes. I agree that this needs to either come out, or be fixed.Verklempt (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He also liked Hank Williams etc. His genius was that he did not demarcate music by race. Although his movements were sexy by white standards at the time, they didn't hold a candle to a black performer like Muddy Waters singing to a black crowd - those Water's performances are hardly ever shown as even today they are still sexually raw. Mattisse 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hank Williams was hardly short on black influences, either. A lot of what came out of Southern whites at this period was part of a crossing of things that originated in black culture into the American mainstream. - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But also white music crossed over into the black mainstream. If you read the history of the music at that time, it was not separated into the categories we think of now. Leadbelly sang Irish and Scots folk songs and other songs of white origin, as did Blind Lemon Jefferson and others black musicians. They drew on hillbilly music which was originally white and folk songs that white emigrants brought with them. There was "public domain" music that everyone drew on. Most old blues singers as well as general "folk musicians" drew from the same body of music. Blacks did not develop from scratch the song structure used in black music. Blacks used Christian church music to develop gospel. Over time, blacks added their own distinctive style to folk music, specifically in the South because on large plantations, black slaves lived in large groups and retained their African musical roots, developing the distinctive blues. In the North, slaves were separated from each other. It was specifically in areas where many musical cultures met (New Orleans, Chicago, Kansas City) where the jazz music emerged, and the Mississippi Delta with its huge plantations where the blues emerged from folk music. Blues men often were travelers. It is very much a mixture, much more complex than the general understanding of today. Mattisse 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite. But the key part of this which is relevant to this article is that Blackface was the first mode through which elements of black culture (albeit often adulterated or even caricatured) entered the mainstream of American culture. And, of course, African American culture was by no means a pure African stream: it had (as you mention) Scots and Irish influences, and certainly enormous influence from 19th century (and earlier) white religious music, and of course many influences went in that direction at a later date as well. But if you listen to even the earliest known black religious music, white elements were dramatically reworked into what almost everyone would agree was a deeply African American form. For more than half a century, blackface was the medium through which black culture entered the mainstream: dance beginning before 1830, banjo-playing from roughly the 1830s onward, folklore at all times but especially post-Civil-War, and Southern black religious music mainly from the 1870s onward. There are several reasons why Elvis counts as (among other things) part of the legacy of blackface; one of them is that without the precedent of blackface, much of what he did would have been completely alien to white American culture. Another (probably the one that makes more people uncomfortable) was that he, like T.D. Rice, et. al., was a white man who was able to popularize a form that was largely pioneered by blacks. Like Elvis, T.D. Rice had real contact with the black culture of his time (mostly on the rivers of what was then the western U.S.). He was certainly not as immersed in black culture as Elvis; in his time, I don't think any white person could have been, especially not one from the North. - Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if you equate any African American elements in the broader culture as a legacy of blackface, even when there is no direct linkage to blackface. This argument is too simplistic for me. It will require some good sourcing, which is not in the article now.Verklempt (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are going to stick to that I guess. It just is a very strange way of looking at it and vastly simplifies the whole interaction. If you are talking about mainstream theater maybe. But from a musical point of view, that is one of the least important influences. I am more interested in the music. I find your selection of references strange. Although I have many books and done a great deal of reading, listening to historical recordings of black music, and talking to black musicians and black musical historians, I do not see a single familiar book in your list. Also, blackface is merely representative of a certain element in black culture which does not seem to be discussed at all. That element is alive and well today as most blacks will agree. I have found they are quite aware of the use of this and admit to conscious use of it. It is no secret. Also, the article does not reflect the view of black music historians, at least none that I know. Many blacks have written extensively about black music and its history. I do not see their names in you reference list nor their point of view represented in the article. And, to be truthful, I have never heard of T.D. Rice. Mattisse 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing you are not American. Blackface was just a small element of a larger issue. The article mentions the use of blackface as an affront to blacks. I do not find this to be a big issue. There was a recent Wikipedia arbitration over IRC, one of the examples being that someone said they would "lynch" another admin. That remark was seen as a none issue on Wikipedia and in the arbitration. In the US, you could not say something like that. You could not threaten to "lynch" someone and not be severely punished. In fact, there are laws about to be passed to outlaw the decorative use of the noose or its display any where. That is very much more of an issue to blacks than blackface, which to the blacks I know, is not an issue at all as they recognize the use of the same element in different form today. It seems that there are not black Americans on Wikipedia. Mattisse 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are guessing wrong. Born in New York, live in Seattle.

The racism involved in blackface is, in general, very different than nooses/KKK threats etc. (although the "coon songs", mainly in the 1890s during "The Nadir", brought the two close together). As I think I've made clear both in the article and on the talk page, most of the writing about blackface being racist is about stereotyping and condescension, not about hatred. Blackface portrayed blacks as inferior and childlike, and sometimes as exotic. Much blackface material was definitely apologist for slavery (lots of images, both pre- and post-emancipation, of happy plantation life, and of slaves loving good masters). Blackface material almost always portrayed northern blacks as ridiculous, as trying to act above their station. It was the racism of "They're alright in their place." That's not the mentality of night riders or of a lynch mob, but it is nonetheless racist. - Jmabel | Talk 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "But from a musical point of view, that is one of the least important influences." Are you saying that non-southern whites had significant opportunity outside of blackface minstrelsy to hear music with substantive black roots prior to the rise of ragtime? Historical recordings of black music all date from a period after that. People's individual memories today all date from a period after that.

"Talking to black musical historians" is too vague to respond to. I've had conversations about the role of blackface in American cultural history with (among others) Greil Marcus and Eric Lott, but that's neither here nor there: I can only cite what they've written, not what I've heard them say. Do you have citable material that contradicts what is in the article? I've been ransacking the (relatively few) books specifically written about blackface to find citable material for this article. I believe I've strengthened it quite a bit. I'm frankly getting bored responding to people arguing the issues entirely from their own ideas and impressions (however well informed), bringing no citations at all to the table, and simply saying that someone else's citations are too weak.

Previously, the objection to the inclusion of Elvis in this context was that the remarks cited about him (which I had not myself added to the article, but considered accurate) didn't come specifically from literature on blackface. So I hit the books and found a reasonably respected writer about blackface, Strausbaugh, explicitly mentioning Elvis in precisely this context. (I believe, by the way, that Lhamon makes pretty much the same point, but I haven't read him in years; he's on the list of what I plan to get to.) I let Sinatra, Travolta, et. al. slide because I don't have comparable citations for them, although I think the point is equally valid. So if someone wants to qualify the statement about Elvis, I intend to hold them (you) to the same high standard I am being held to: it is incumbent upon you (or someone) to come up with an equally explicit citation that what Elvis Presley was doing was significantly unlike blackface. - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "representative of a certain element in black culture"

Certainly. To quote a sentence that I wrote in the article, "Unlike white audiences, black audiences presumably always recognized blackface performance as caricature, and took pleasure in seeing their own culture observed and reflected, much as they would half a century later in the performances of Moms Mabley." If you can expand on that from citable sources, I won't object. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, another quotation from Strausbaugh (2006, p. 33) on Elvis that defends his appropriation of black material; I'd actually quoted part of this above: "Imitation plays a large role in how American culture is formed. Black people who complain that Elvis or Eminem 'stole' their music seem to be ignunt [sic: in the context, a clear reference to Shirley Q. Liquor] about how American popular culture is produced, disseminated, consumed and replicated. … Americans are cultural magpies, and borrowing from one another is a big part of the creolizing that makes Americans and American culture unique." If someone can work out a good way to work it in, fine. I don't yet see an obvious way to do it, though it probably fits in with the "Love and theft" thing I'm still trying to work out how to write. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I just cannot relate to the article at all. But that is o.k. Whatever audience you are writing it for probably likes it. Perhaps I am just an uninformed American and do not know what I am talking about. However, I do not see black American musical historians listed in your references or bibliography. But that is o.k. Really. Write your article as you want and I will stay out of it. Mattisse 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing my best in the last three weeks to rise to Verklempt's demand to cite only material that is explicitly about blackface. I have said that I think it is not a criterion that can completely be met, but I am doing my best to stay within that body of material, because as far as I can tell he is ready to argue with the appropriateness of absolutely any material I cite from outside that realm. If you can show me a book by a black musical historian who has written on that topic as such (rather than just mentioning blackface in passing) I would be thrilled to have such a book. And if you have other materials by black musical historians that you think should be cited here, please indicate what they are. A vague reference to "black American musical historians" doesn't do much for the article. I've read several such; I can't remember any of them having much to say about blackface, other than to use the term as a put-down. - Jmabel | Talk 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is little about blackface from main stream authors because it is not that important as an isolated phenomena. Black writers and other writers of black history analyze the larger issue as blackface holds little interest in insolation - rather like talking of hubcaps in the guise of an article about automobiles. Blacks have been extremely astute about entertainment values from the very earliest days. Black performers are well aware of the continued use of blackface in more general forms. You don't mention that blackface was used by blacks, perhaps even more that whites, and black comedians were the group resistant to giving it up. I cannot understand this emphasis on whites. It is like you are expropriating an important part of the black experience, making it seem that they had no role in it and were passive bystanders. Please credit blacks with the enormous power they did have, even if it was indirect and not recognized at the time. Read some books on the slave societies before the Reconstructions in American and learn about the ingenuity that blacks were able to exercise even then. What I find missing from this article is the black point of view, bthe savvy way blacks manipulated this image in entertainment (and still do today if you watch any of the many, many black TV programs), and the fact that blackface was only a small part of a larger element. Maybe this is because you may concentrating on white popular theater. I also find it strange that I have hundreds of books on black music and black culture in American and the only book that even mentions "blackface" is Ted Fox's book on the Apollos Theater. This article is not about reality but perhaps academic sociologists views? I looked up the books you cite and they are relatively obscure and some of them out of date. I have not heard of any of them. The absence of main stream black authors is glaring. Mattisse 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I started this article, Open the Door, Richard, I did not explicitly point out the African-American stereotypes that were the backbone of the song and which blacks enjoyed and reinforced. There is a tremendous ambiguity in black culture, partly because blacks are not a "uniform" group, that 25% of blacks were freemen, even during slavery, part of a vital, educated and entrepreneurial middle class. Also, most of the so-called African-Americans today in American do not have a slave background, and approximately 40% immigrated to this country after the 1950's and the civil rights era. This article appears to be a about a white preoccupation which I associated with European thinking. Mattisse 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Matisse: several points.

1. You write "You don't mention that blackface was used by blacks". I have to assume that you read the article, so this mystifies me. One of the largest sections is called Blacks in blackface. If you think important material is missing from this section, I'm sure it could be expanded. If you managed to miss the section entirely, I don't really know what to say.
2. Please remember that Deeceevoice, the person who largely wrote this article - and who has more or less walked out on it after frustration in dealing with Verklempt and a few others - was black. And (pace your wrong guess about me) American.
3. I think (and this is just an "I think", I have nothing citable on this) that many black authors' reticence in writing about blackface stems from the black bourgeois dislike of blackface, which culminated in CORE's and the NAACP's largely successful campaigns to eliminate the practice. Most writing by blacks about blackface that I've ever seen was just a reflection of that sweeping condemnation. It was in periodicals; it was over thirty years ago; it is going to be a bitch to find those materials in order to cite them, but I hope to do so. I agree that (at least prior to the Civil Rights era) this black middle-class rejection of blackface did not match the attitudes of most black Americans, and the article says as much: "These black performers became stars within the broad African-American community, but were largely ignored or condemned by the black bourgeoisie."
4. I agree that blackface was more important in theater than it was in music. It was even more important in dance. It would be great to find something citable that says as much, because unfortunately the fact that you and I agree on this is not enough to add it to the article.
5. While I'm sure the percentages you state are roughly correct, most antebellum black freemen were certainly either freed slaves or the descendants of slaves, and many (I suspect it's most) post-1950 black immigrants were also the descendants of (Latin American) slaves.

- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The coon song tradition is very important in American music, well into the 1950s. One of my objections to the OR in this article has been in regards to the conflation of blackface -- which is nothing more than a theatrical style of make-up -- with minstrelsy and coon songs, which are related but distinct phenomena.Verklempt (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here. These traditions were going on at many different levels. Maybe it is the title that sets the tone that this is going to be a piece on stereotypes instead of a fascinating look at the interweaving of many influences in which blacks and whites participated. Words that are offensive now may not have been then. Mattisse 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right that I did not read the whole article. I lost patience with it (my bad}. It is just that I detected a certain tone to the article (I don't know if condescendingly is the word) and bailed out. I agree that there is a certain class of blacks (coming from that class that was never enslaved and who tend to be academic and highly educated, as you say, black bourgeois) who have very different opinions than performers, musicians and such, who tend to have a slave background somewhere and have risen from the streets. These are the ones I know. I find this group is way more tolerant of elements that the black middle class may not be, because they use these elements, even today in hip-hop etc. because the mojo is still working. Look as some athletes like Shaq O'Neill and Emmett Smith. They are fully aware. Also, blacks lost a great deal by integration, and I'm not denying that it should have happened. But the era of political correctness entered in and I consider NAACP, especially, as representative of that. Hip-hop is greatly a screw you attitude toward this. As I am sure you know, blacks had a very vibrant musical scene independent of whites for centuries and basically unknown until it was "discovered" early in the last century.

I was an adult, growing up in the North and on the West Coast and never knew blacks up close, as personal friends and allowed into black family life until I moved to an area of the country where blacks are as much a part of my life as whites. I was floored once I got to know the black subculture which exists to this day under our noses, largely unknown and invisible to whites, and has a very different ethos than whites (the media etc.) assume. Having relatives and friends in Seattle and in Oregon, it always strikes me forcibly when I am there, that there are no blacks. And the blacks you do see may as well be whites. Even the hard-core bums along the Mendocino coast are white. I will make an effort to read the whole article. I was unaware of whatever struggles are going on between editors. I will try to have more tolerance.

I do think that vaudeville was a thing unto itself, theater and not music. There is a large Jewish influence in the history of black music and I don't know, but would suspect, that influence entered into vaudeville and theater before black music in general. All I am saying is that it is complicated with many influences interwoven, not easily put into categories. There has always been a contradictory relationships between blacks and whites. I do think that history has largely gotten it wrong by presenting one view as "the view". Mattisse 22:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does the claim come from that the black bourgeoisie weren't descended from slaves? Certainly runs counter to what I know of my friends who come from that background. - Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Early on there was a black entrepreneurial class, as well as blacks who owned slaves. I have been hunting around for the books to quote. My books are in such disarray. Mattisse 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends what time period and location we're talking about. Prior to 1900 or so, most of the black bourgeoisie were descended from free people of color, only some of whom were descended from slaves. As time passed, more and more slave descendants entered the upper classes. There is an extensive literature, but it seems off-topic to get into here. A good place to start if you're interested is "Aristocrats of Color: The Black Elite, 1880-1920," by Willard B. Gatewood.Verklempt (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your description. It is one of the common misperceptions that there were not successful, educated free blacks. In fact, when you look at successful black academics and intellectuals today, often they do not come from a family with slavery in the background. All my reference books are dispersed! Mattisse 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, another book (not the best for this issue) is Slaves without Masters:The Free Negro in the Antebellum South by Ira Berlin, which, despite its title, does talk some about pre civil Civil War free blacks. I know there are other books; I just can't dig them up right now. Mattisse(Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The free blacks in the antebellum U.S. were, themselves, nearly all descendants of slaves. It isn't like there was a lot of voluntary immigration from Africa. - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. Have a look at Paul Heinegg's work. Also see Ira Berlin's recent work on Atlantic Creoles.Verklempt (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...an increasingly creole slave population became more and more distanced from its ancestral roots. The timing of the transformation from an African to a creole slave population varied by colony and depended in part on differing patterns of slave importation. In the North and in the upper South, the shift was well under way during the second quarter of the eighteenth century and was largely completed during the third quarter, when importation of Africans effectively came to an end.^[17]

Mattisse(Talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And the point is? I didn't say they were all descendants of families who were all still slaves in 1860, I said they were the descendants of slaves. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But that is not quite correct. Prior to Emancipation, the majority of the FPC bourgeoisie were not descended from slaves, or had a very small percentage of slave ancestry. This changed only very gradually over many decades following Emancipation.Verklempt (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a first draft of a new section under the heading of "Authentic or counterfeit." I think it strengthens the article even as it stands, but I'm sure it could be greatly improved. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work.Verklempt (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to be in a confrontational atmosphere, I will mention rather than edit: Moms Mabley was recently added as a "see also". She is already mentioned in the article, so I believe that by Wikipedia standards she should not be in a "see also". Similarly Amos 'n' Andy (not a recent addition to the "see also", but the same issue applies. - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So when Elvis wants to appear sexy he put on a blackface, a style of theatrical makeup. This article makes no sense and confuses concepts. I am really tempted to put a POV tag on it. If the article is about blackface, a style of theatrical makeup, then stick to that. Mattisse 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The claim is not that what he did was blackface, it is that it was a legacy of blackface. Strausbaugh says this, and I believe so does Lhamon. (FWIW, I've heard several other pretty respected writers say much the same, but I don't think they've written it.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting and misunderstanding blackface. Further, I have Nick Tosches' first book and he is hardly a serious musical critic. This article is original research. You start off saying you are talking about blackface makeup and then you generalize it to everything under the sun. Why do you not have any mainstream references? Why do you not reference any of the many black music critics? The reason, I suspect, is that you will not find any of them making such claims. It is pure OR. Mattisse 03:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Tosches is cited for only two things in the article: the date of a particular play, and that Bob Wills and Jimmie Rodgers performed in blackface. I wouldn't think that either was a controversial statement. - Jmabel | Talk 07:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Jimmy Rogers? Mattisse 23:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodgers. "The Singing Brakeman". - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you should put that information in the biography of Jimmie Rodgers (country singer), as it is not there. The blackface category should be removed if his use of blackface in not included in his biography with reference. Mattisse(Talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that article, have not (as far as I recall) worked on that article, and am not responsible for the accuracy of every article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources, for reasons that should be obvious.

Rodgers got his start as a professional performer doing blackface in the mid-1920s. If that's missing from his Wikipedia article, someone did a shoddy job. Search for "Jimmie Rodgers" + blackface in Google books and you will easily find dozens of mentions of this in reliable sources. Or actually go pick up any decent biography of Rodgers (there have been several) or even things as basic as the Rough Guide to Country Music or Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll. As I said, this shouldn't be controversial.

By the way, above you say "You start off saying you are talking about blackface makeup". No. I've been clear from the outset that I don't think that makeup should be the focus of the article. You are the one who has made edits taking it in that (trivial) direction. I have said (more than once) that the article should be about a performance tradition that is characterized by the use of blackface makeup. The (moderately sized) literature on blackface is not a series of books on cosmetics: it is about a performance tradition. That is how this term is normally used, and it is what the article should be about. This is part of why I thought Deeceevoice's "affect the countenance" was a much better phrase than those that have replaced it. It is about impersonation of a type, not about the makeup that is used to achieve it.

And to pre-empt the inevitable (and several times discussed) "Why, then is it a different article from minstrel show"? Answer: blackface had already come into its own by 1830 and lasted as a major performance category for over a century. The minstrel show started (closely affiliated with blackface) in 1843 (some sources say 1842, it's a question of who is credited as the first), a decade or so later it has taken on a distinctive 3-act form, lasts as an important form only into the 1890s (after which it survives only marginally to the mainstream culture, although it survives in rural areas and feeds into country music) and, after the mid-1870s, increasingly parts ways with blackface, to the point where there were 1880s minstrel shows involving no blackface at all (but keeping the same three acts). The topics overlap, especially from 1843 to about 1880, but they are not interchangeable. Even in that period, they are not interchangeable: T.D. Rice, one of the biggest stars in blackface, almost never participated in a minstrel show until he was in the late stages of his career, and presumably needed the work.

I've suggested before that perhaps this article should be renamed "blackface minstrelsy", but often as not people just call it "blackface", and the other title increases rather than decreases the possible confusion with minstrel show. - Jmabel | Talk 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Matisse removes (among other things):

The song ["Jump Jim Crow"] had a syncopated rhythm and purportedly recreated the dancing of a crippled black stable hand, Jim Cuff, or "Jim Crow", whom Rice had seen in Cincinnati, Ohio:

I didn't write the passage, and I think "Cincinatti, Ohio" is questionable (I believe Rice was not consistent in how he told the story) but other than that, I've seen roughly this in everything on Rice I've ever read. The edit summary "if you say backface [sic] = style or styles of music this is OR" gives little clue why it was removed. If you want some citations for this: Strausbaugh 2006 p. 57-58 (which places the story in Louisville); Lott 1993, p. 56, which says Cincinatti and which quotes a version of the story at length from an 1867 article in Atlantic Monthly. The same passage from Atlantic can be found online through Google Boooks in: Wendy Jean Katz, Regionalism and Reform: Art and Class Formation in Antebellum Cincinnati (2002), Ohio State University Press, ISBN 0814209068, p. 183, which re-quotes it from Lott. - Jmabel | Talk 08:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of fighting with someone who:

• Makes the bizarre claim that the American black bourgeoisie weren't descended from slaves
• Asserts that academics writing specifically on the article's topic (Lott, and especially Toll; I think Strausbaugh is also a perfectly good source, though I'll admit it's not an academic book) are not good sources
• Takes me (and the article) to task for the supposed "omission" of a topic (blacks in blackface) that makes up pretty much the longest section of the article.
• Says "It is your article... Write your article as you want and I will stay out of it," and then, after saying that, makes a bunch of contentious edits.

I was willing to try to work with Verklempt, despite some strong disagreements, but this is on a different level.

So I'm giving up on my effort to get this back up to FA status. I am unwilling to work in this atmosphere. I will probably make some future edits to the article, and I may participate again in the talk page, but I am no longer making this a priority. If FA status is going to be retained, someone else needs to "drive".

I stand strongly by my edits of the last few weeks and by my contention that an article on blackface should not mainly be about makeup but that "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 last phrase is Strausbaugh's). But I have better things to do than to fight about it. - Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we should even have a separate article on "ethnic make-up" (or whatever the proper term is).--Pharos (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article states: "Mickey, of course, was already black, but the advertising poster for the film shows Mickey with exaggerated, orange lips; bushy, white sidewhiskers; and his now trademark white gloves." The reference given is an image of the poster in question ([2]) in which, it seems to me, the gloves Mickey is wearing are yellow-green, not white. Thoughts? Powers ^T 03:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just the opening of this article alone convies racial mythology that black face has something to do with racism.

In one of his books, I believe it was "Gracie: A Love Story" George Burns claims that the so called racial heritage of black fact is a load of crap, and this was just a part of vaudiville, and as he was actually there I would think he would know. Just F.Y.I. 216.201.48.26 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead may overstate the case smewhat, but there is little doubt that minstrelsy was intertwined with racism. Have a look at the lyrics for some of the coon songs at the turn of the 20th century.Verklempt (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

George Burns was a brilliant comedian and seasoned vaudevillian, but that does not make him an expert on minstrel shows which predate vaudeville by many decade, and his opinions about blackface in his memoirs do not a verifiable reference make. There are many books on the topic, I've read a few, and they are unanimous as to the connection between blackface and racism. Robert Greer (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides an entire section Blackface#Blackface in Japan, there is also much about ganguro in section Blackface#Legacy. This is way too much. I suggest paring this down here, and merging most of this to ganguro. - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bobf has followed up on this. It's more reasonable now, though it may still be a bit much. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that after I left off work on this article because I felt that Matisse was creating a hostile atmosphere, Matisse almost immediately stopped working on the article. So I am back. I would like to resume work here.

I have a suggestion, though it may be controversial, so I'm airing it here before I edit. Right now the article begins "Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States used to take on the appearance of an archetype of American racism—that of the darky or coon..." This is true enough, but as I've said before, this is not - and should not be - an article about makeup. I think it should begin with something more like "Blackface, in the narrow sense, is a style of theatrical makeup... Blackface in the broader sense is the theatrical practice of impersonation (including by black performers) of these archetypes and stereotypes. Many writers use the term to refer to similarly stereotyped performances even when they do not involve blackface makeup."

I think this article should cover both senses of the word, and the emphasis should be on the broad sense. As my statement that many writers use the term in this manner: quite a few of the authors already cited in the article do so, and I believe I will have no difficulty finding other authors who do so. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Just add a sentence specifying the second meaning after the first sentence.Verklempt (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now taken my shot at the lead. I'd be interested if people have further suggestions: it's not as smooth as I think it might be.

I'm going to discuss changes on the talk page rather than simply "be bold," because last time around this became so contentious.

In the history section, the passage that begins "Other authors establish that white minstrel shows predated those of black..." was added since I was last working on this article. It is, at the very least, way out of chronological order: it is placed before even the material about "Jump Jim Crow", and "Jump Jim Crow" itself predates minstrel shows by over a decade. Furthermore, "Other authors establish that white minstrel shows predated those of black" is simultaneously understated and tendentious, a hard combination to achieve. White minstrel shows date from 1842-'43. While there might have been an occasional black minstrel show before the Civil War, black minstrel shows are mostly a post-war phenomenon: nearly a generation later. So this is like saying "other authors establish that Elvis Presley predated the Sex Pistols." On the other hand, the wording here discounts the fact that some of the earliest white performers of blackface material were drawing on material of black origin (especially their dances). Lhamon discusses that in great detail. Yet further, the boxed quotation is from a 20th century performer, and therfore says absolutely nothing about blackface in the period otherwise discussed in this section.

In short: if someone can find a way to use that material elsewhere in the article, great. If no one else does something in the next two days or so, I'll work the quotation into the section on blacks in blackface, and lose the rest of the passage. - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Having heard from no one, I'll proceed along the lines I suggested. - Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. There seems to be a lot of redundancy between "Legacy", "Modern-day manifestations", and other sections. I've tried to fold some of it into "Modern-day", but more probably needs to be done here. The article also ignores Dale Cockrell's look at precursors to blackface in his Demons of Disorder. He makes a strong case that blackface was at least partially derived from mumming plays and other blackened-face traditions brought to America from the Old World. I can try to at least take some notes on this sometime in the next few days; can't make too many promises about writing it up, though, as I've got my hands full with Master Juba. — Dulcem (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's interesting that Dulcem has brought up Dale Cockrell's work and the relationship between the European folk/mumming tradition and the early development of blackface (in the US). The point-blank rejection of this thread by other editors has always made me uneasy about the demotion of the European tradition to 'Other contexts'. Still, I've never had the time to push research into the thesis, but I'll look forward to see what Dulcem or other editors uncover. Bob (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Matisse has chosen to return to the article. To avoid a resumption of previous conflict, I'll lay off it again for a couple of weeks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Legacy section is now adequately cited. Verklempt, you were one of the main people who objected to an earlier state of this section as POV. Do you feel that it still has POV issues? If so, can you be concrete about these? - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I am removing the tag. - Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In the section, it mentions blackfaces. They are called ganguros. Otherwise, I have no idea what blackfaces are.68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I recognised this when I did a partial tidy of the entry, but I'm not knowledgable about ganguro, simply tidied grammatically and wikified. I've taken the process further prompted by your note above and removed the cleanup notice. If you still think it needs futher work I'll very happily put the notice back. Bob (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now established (citably) that the big-lipped Sanrio darky character was called Bibinba. I believe (based on this Geocities page) that name is 野人 (see ja:野人), the same as the Chinese Yeren, a wild man or man-monkey. But I'm very shaky on anything about Asian languages. Is there someone who would be on more solid ground here? - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. The Japanese pronunciation of 野人 is yajin, and it literally means "wild person". The Japanese Wikipedia article treats it as some kind of Chinese cryptozoid, though a Japanese friend I asked said that she had heard of it as a sort of mythical creature more than any kind of real critter. As for the connection with the Bibinba character, I'm not so sure that Geocities page should be trusted. Bibinba is the Japanese pronunciation for bibimbap, a Korean dish, and has nothing to do with wild men or darky iconography as far as I can tell. It's possible that the Bibinba character was intended to represent the Chinese wild man, but I'd need more than a Geocities page to accept such a connection. — Dulcem (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To follow up: Bibinba (ビビンバ) on the Japanese Wikipedia does in fact give an article on the Korean dish by default. It disambiguates to the Sanrio character here, where the character is referred to as a 黒人, literally, "black person". — Dulcem (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And finally, this page is images of some Bibinba merchandise. — Dulcem (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Someone who knows Japanese probably has an article worth doing... - Jmabel | Talk 23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've finished rereading Dale Cockrell's Demons of Disorder. My notes are at Talk:Blackface/Cockrell. He makes the argument that folk theatrical traditions such as mumming and morris dancing impacted early blackface or at least the audience's perceptions of it. He also has much to say on the music of early blackface. The information will hopefully be helpful in expanding or correcting material here and at minstrel show. Please let me know if clarifications or fact checking is needed on any of my notes. — Dulcem (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone editing this page come across a book called Santa Claus: Last of the Wild Men by Phyllis Siefker? It contains a great deal of information that would be of interest to the article, in a fairly condensed and very readable form. It's not an academic work, but her evidence is on the whole fairly solid.

Of course the practise of face-blackening became overtly racist in the States (and elsewhere), but this wasn't necessarily its origin.

Siefker charts in some detail the long-standing wild-man traditions of Europe, many performed in black-face, and predating the American minstrel tradition by centuries. Black Pete, for instance, comes out of that ancient continuum. She even chronicles some intriguing carnival traditions in Trinidad that were mistaken as a white racist pantomime enacting the subjugation of slaves, but actually originated from African tradition.

There's some stuff in there that could turn this article on its head, and whether or not you agree with it, you should probably know about it.

I've also been reading other works on various issues around European pagan survivals and folklore, and it might surprise you to hear that Cinderella with her blackened face is firmly tied into this ancient shamanic motif; the Cinderella fairy tale is spread across the whole of Eurasia from Scotland to Spain to Bangladesh to Siberia, and indicates a cultural diffusion going back at least 3000 years! (See Carlo Ginzburg, Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath).

All rather a surprise, I know. I might start trying to make some tentative edits sometime soon when I have my books in front of me. Fuzzypeg★ 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Blackface/Cockrell for more about early blackface. I think you're possibly missing an important distinction, that between blackened face traditions and blackface. The former is what Siefker seems to be describing, and the latter is the American theatrical convention that this article talks about. Cockrell describes at great length how the former influenced the latter, but I think it's a mistake to conflate the two traditions. Cockrell also shows that, as you suggest, racism was not the only (or even primary) motivation for the development of blackface in the US, but it's too much of a stretch to remove racism from the picture completely. — Dulcem (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that looks spot on. Siefker gives quite a bit more information about Belsnickling, Mumming and other callithumpian-like traditions in the US, I believe (from memory) well predating the racist minstrel shows. As I mention above, the racist tone that blackened faces took on later is undeniable, but the origins of the phenomenon may be entirely unrelated to race, or could perhaps (surprise and a half) originate in racial tensions surrounding the Crusades! (this goes back to a theory that "Morris" derives from "Moorish", but then again, there's counter-evidence to that too)

Regarding 'blackened face traditions' vs. 'blackface'; the latter term may be standard for the US theatrical tradition, but I'm not at all convinced they had the monopoly on the term, which is still commonly used amongst Mummers and Morris-men. Anyway, it just means 'blackened face', doesn't it? I don't understand what the 'important distinction' is, other than that the US blackface developed into an explicitly racist depiction of negros.

All very interesting, though. I'll try to get some info to you as soon as I can so we can expand this fascinating area. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the important distinction is that blackface (as defined by this article) is an American aspect of the larger category of blackened-face traditions. In other words, you seem to be arguing that blackface is an overarching term that applies to mumming, belsnickling, and racist blackface, but I'm arguing that blackface (as defined by this article) is on the same tier as mumming, belsnickling, and morris dancing — they are all examples of blackened-face traditions. If there is danger of ambiguity, we should create a blackface (disambiguation) page to describe this. But I would wager that at least 90% of references to "blackface" in English literature refer to the American aspect of it rather than to other blackened-face traditions like morris dancing or mumming. — Dulcem (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't know of an article that covers the wider blackened face traditions, but I'm not intending to broaden the scope of this article to cover all of that. I'm just intending to make some corrections to the discussion of origins. Fuzzypeg★ 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "fox" :
  • {{cite book |last= Fox |first= Ted |title= Showtime at the Apollo |publisher= Da Capo |year= 1983 |isbn= 0-647-01612-2 |page =pp. 5, 92–92}}
  • {{cite book |last= Fox |first= Ted |title= Showtime at the Apollo |publisher= Da Capo |year= 1983 |isbn= 0-647-01612-2 |page = 4}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this sentence really necessary, _{"Blackface's groundbreaking appropriation,[2][3][4] exploitation, and assimilation[2] 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.[3][5][6]"}

This sentence sounds similar to a peacock word to me. While the phrasing may or may not be true, the sentence promotes itself as a fact about what happened with African-American culture, (particularly referencing several different sources for the words "appropriation, exploitation, and assimilation," in what appears to be an attempt to back up the argument,) and therefore removes some of the choice which the reader would be allowed to decide on their own. To it top off, blackface has mothing to do with the dissemination of African-American culture. Portraying racist stereotypes has nothing to do with the exploitation of a culture, i.e. if I were to tell a racist joke about a Chinese person I wouldn't be exploiting their culture, I would simply be portraying a stereotype, which one could even counter is a reflection of one's own, however horrible, cultural ideals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cthulhu12 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is important. Almost all books written about blackface in the last several decades treat it in precisely this context. Were it not for this, it would be more of a curiosity and an antiquarian topic. It is exactly this that makes it significant in present-day terms. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In the entire article, there is only one sentence actually discussing performers did to put on "blackface".

"White blackface performers in the past used burnt cork and later greasepaint or shoe polish to blacken their skin and exaggerate their lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tailcoats, or ragged clothes to complete the transformation. Later, black artists also performed in blackface."

I think this is insufficient. There should be at least 1 section discussing what was used over time, various techniques, costume variations, etc.Laplie (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Has someone got a good source on this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

i'm too lazy to type anything meaningful right now. NuVanDibe (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RECENT. Nothing in Tropic Thunder merits mention here, as that film is no more notable than hundreds of other films with blackface that could be mentioned. — Dulcem (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is notable because it is so recent. Were the hundreds of other films you're thinking of made in the last few decades or all of them long ago? Kansaikiwi (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent and it somehow didn't generate any contraversy; Robert Downey Jr. was even nominated for a Oscar!205.193.97.2 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it not make a difference that Downey Jr. was playing a white actor who was playing a character in blackface? He wasn't perpetuating a stereotype; he was playing an actor who was perpetuating a stereotype. Were we asked to laugh at the blackface character, or the white actor? We certainly were not encouraged to believe that Downey Jr's character was an accurate portrayal of an African American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.1.52 (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone should really address the controversy of the ganguro subculture as a form of blackface. I have never seen an actual ganguro (or 'mamba' as they are now called) claim to be emulating black people. They claim the dark skin (in addition to things like blond hair and bright outrageous clothing) came about in emulation of the California beach bunny look, and in rebellion towards Japanese expectations of feminine appearance and behavior. There are girls who emulate hip-hop and RnB style, but they are not ganguro. They are called B-GAL. Froghat (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the article, mostly more or less reversions. People seem to keep wanting to edit without actually bothering to read any sources on the topic. With all due respect, this is a substantive enough article that unsourced changes are probably not, in general, a great idea.

One thing I left alone, though I don't think it really belongs in the article in its present form: John Howard Griffin and Black Like Me. Griffin was not doing a stereotyped, exaggerated Negro character. He was doing such a naturalistic impersonation that he "passed". It seems to me that if it belongs in the article, it belongs precisely in a context of citing a discussion of the differences as well as the similarities to blackface of what he did. I could make a case (but I'm not citable!) that his book was more in the tradition of blackface (of the most sympathetic kind) than was his actual physical impersonation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice several requests for citation in the section on the Cape Coon Carnival (Kaapse Klopse). Our article on the topic is also very under-cited. I don't have time right now to work on this, but I'm pretty sure that the most comprehensive available reference would be Denis-Constant Martin, Coon carnival : New Year in Cape Town : past to present, Cape Town : David Philip Publishers, 1999, ISBN 0864864485. Looks like it is in quite a few university libraries, though none anywhere near me. Some of it appears to be available for a Google Books preview. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has site error problems need to be addressed Jon Ascton (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning recent "whiteface" performances from Black actors, such as Lenny Henry (he did a cool Steve martin impression) (79.190.69.142 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)) Yes - funny how thats ok. (Not that I mind it. Eddie Murphy did it well, but people need to lighten up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.23.9 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning the Shakespearean role of Othello, the Moor of Venice. British EQUITY now refuses to condone white actors blacking up for the role.(79.190.69.142 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

You should know that wearing black paint by actors isn't consider as racist in some european countries if the act dont have any negative hints about Africans. There are a lot of movies where some actors are disguised as Africans or "exotic foreigners" and no one has to aim to offend anybody. Mind that not every country take part in colonialism and the tradition of blackface and its meaning is absolutly unknown!

Hi there. Right now there's a rather new discussion on the blackface issue going on in Germany. Günther Wallraff, an investigative journalist, prending beeing black showed how deeply and openly racist thinking occurs in Germany. Critics however have problems with the method and accuse Wallraff himself of hardening the cliché - and refer to blackfacing.

Could anyone include that in this article? Here's a link with more information: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,656569,00.html http://blogs.sueddeutsche.de/feuilletonist/tag/rassismus/

thx. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossejonathan (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)