Talk:Black Birders Week

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitalization on Black[edit]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Wikipedia's style guide expects Black to be lowercase, i.e. "black", unless it is part of a proper noun.

So, for example when used as an adjective, "black scientists" and "black birders" would seem to be preferred, but Black Birders Week is still fine.

For examples of current usage, there are articles like Race and ethnicity in the NBA and African Americans in the United States Congress, where "black" appears predominantly in lowercase. Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a convention on using upper or lowercase based on Wikipedia style guidelines. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal) and the manual of style on identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity). The most conventionally used and culturally appropriate terminology should be used. Using the uppercase Black denotes the history and significance of racial identity for Black Americans[1][2], and would be appropriate for this article since it is a movement centered on highlighting Black scientists and birders (with all the historical context of exclusion and marginalization for Black scientists and birders in those spaces). I believe it should be capitalized.  Marcinus PhD (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Recognizing Race in Language: Why We Capitalize "Black" and "White"". Center for the Study of Social Policy.
  2. ^ Lanham, David. "Not just a typographical change: Why Brookings is capitalizing Black". Brookings Institute.

Separate page on Christian Cooper's Central Park incident[edit]

There's now a separate page titled Central Park birdwatching incident for the May 25th confrontation between Amy Cooper and Christian Cooper.

Press mention of Wikipedia article[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
Earyn McGee in 2020
Earyn McGee in 2020
  • ... that ornithologist Corina Newsome and herpetologist Earyn McGee (pictured) held events as part of the inaugural Black Birders Week, an effort to celebrate black nature enthusiasts? Source: The scientific specialties are cited in the first lines of their respective articles. Participation in events is cited in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the 2020 Series section in Black Birders Week. The aim of the movement is cited in the opening sentence of the same article.

Created by Gthh (talk) (McGee and Newsome) and DarTar (talk) (event). Nominated by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) at 23:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: I’d like to make sure activist Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman is credited and included in the list, not only because she created the event, but also because she was the target of a vicious attempt to erase her name from the list of organizers by an anonymous account who flagged all articles for deletion.—DarTar (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These three articles are new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the articles are neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Three QPQs have been done. @DarTar and Gthh: They are nice articles, but oversourced; you don't need multiple references to cite uncontroversial facts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I cannot in good conscience promote articles like these to the main page when they are filled with excessive citations. I removed the uncontroversial cites from the lead in the first two articles and would appreciate your doing the same in Corina Newsome. In the body of these articles, if a sentence can be verified by one source, please use one source. If two, then two. But not eight or nine. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: I have also removed citations from the lead as you suggested . Gthh (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Gthh. Corina Newsome now looks good but the other 2 articles still have excessive citations. Additionally, the rationale of Black Birders Week is stated in the lead as to increase the visibility of Black birders, who face unique challenges and dangers when engaging in outdoor activities, but none of that is sourced or explained in the article. The only rationale given in the body of the article is According to Opoku-Agyeman, the goal of the initiative is "normalizing the fact that Black people exist in the birding and natural sciences community".. Basically, this article reads like a fluff piece focusing on media coverage, and the hooks as a result are also rather promotional. ALT1 is unsourced and ALT0 has a distinctly PR tone to it (to celebrate black nature enthusiasts). Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gthh: as we are not hearing from DarTar, would you like to run this as a double nomination with just Corina Newsome and Earyn McGee bolded? The nomination is coming up on 2 months old and we would like to finish up already. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three articles now look good to me. Gthh (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gthh: please see my previous post. The article and hooks have not yet been sorted. Yoninah (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: Sorry, I thought I had addressed everything. By hooks did you mean links to Twitter/Instagram? Those have now been removed. I have also added more detail to the article about the event and response. Can you please clarify what you mean by ALT1 and ALT0? Also, can you please let me know if there is anything else to fix? Thanks! Gthh (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gthh: I need to go offline for another 24 hours, so I will check your edits to the article then. The hooks are numbered at the top of this thread, ALT0 and ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gthh and Yoninah: Hey folks, thanks so much for working on this, I haven't been able to contribute much but if there's anything I can do to help get this across the line, please let me know.--DarTar (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gthh and Yoninah: the only statement from ALT1 that requires citations in the target article, as far as I can see, is "an effort to highlight the challenges faced by black nature enthusiasts". This looks the most solid and comprehensive source we could use: [1] If that looks good I will briefly expand the article and use this as a reference, I will also take a pass at the overall tone. --DarTar (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to address the above concerns, the rest of the article looks pretty factual to me and is ready to go as far as I am concerned.--DarTar (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your work. Black Birders Week reads much better now, and both hooks are verified and cited inline. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View template removed[edit]

This page had POV and Peacock templates attached in August 2021, but no discussion about them on this talk page. Following the recommendations in WP:WTRMT about when to remove neutrality templates, I have removed the templates. If other editors have a concern about neutrality, please raise it here. Newystats (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wording of murders of African Americans[edit]

In the section of the article "and the murders of African Americans" I believe that the wording "Killings" would be more suitable, at least legally. While under US courts, both Ahmed Aubrey and George Floyd's murders have been treated as such, the police killing of Breonna Taylor was not considered a murder and the Wikipedia article is titled Killing of Breonna Taylor. Labelling Breonna's death as a homicide would be (at least legally) incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:F80:1A00:D450:B800:78B4:7EE1 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

These templates were added to the article - I don't see any problems with the article as it is. Editors who do see such problems, could you please identify the sections of the article of concern here on the talk page. Newystats (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The sections of concern are, for example, the media coverage which is extensive, citing just a lot of media sources without any in-depth information, raising concerns for a possibly promo-like article. The section of 2021 series is almost empty and 2022 series include some information like "The National Museum of Natural History hosted a panel with Chelsea Connor, Lynette Strickland and Amelia-Juliette Demery with opening remarks by Dara M. Wilson" which seems promotional citing names of scientists without significant information value. Actually, in most sections of the article there are promotional-like issues, like citing numerous people, scientists, hashtags or events, without saying how these are rich and valuable in information context. Close connection issue may be an issue since the article has been created and mostly edited by users with a significant interest on such specific topics (biology, chemistry, nature sciences, etc.) and may raise a Conflict of interest problem. Chiserc (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, I see your reasoning for the advert, but an interest in the topic does not make a close connection or conflict of interest. I've looked through the top 5 contributors to the article, and none of them have a close connection. Most wikipedia editors are interested in the topics they edit. Newystats (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only problematic section I see is the media coverage section. Wikipedia uses media coverage as citations rather than write about it for its own sake. I'd recommend cutting that section, copying the references to the talk page, and removing the advert tag.
created and mostly edited by users with a significant interest on such specific topics (biology, chemistry, nature sciences, etc.) and may raise a Conflict of interest problem No, having an interest in science doesn't give you a COI when it comes to science. It makes you one of the best people to write about science. We want people to write about the areas of their expertise and we want people to follow their interests. If someone were directly connected to BBW then there would be a COI (and even still it's possible that they could edit the article neutrally -- they'd just need to disclose that COI).
"The National Museum of Natural History hosted a panel with Chelsea Connor, Lynette Strickland and Amelia-Juliette Demery with opening remarks by Dara M. Wilson" - one of the most famous museums in the world holds an event explicitly related to the subject of the article, and there's a problem with presenting the most basic information about it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Birders_Week&oldid=1206319338"