Talk:Meagan Good/Archive 1

Image copyright

What is the copyright on that photo? It looks like it belongs to WireImage.com and has not been entered into the public domain nor is released under the GFDL (a requirement for images used in Wikipedia). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we can use that image. —Frecklefoot 21:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about the new one? I didnt get that off of Wireimage. I found it on the Google Image Search. --Annek

The problem isn't WireImage.com, it's that the photo aren't in the public domain or released under the GFDL. Unfortunately, most photos you find on the Interet are going to be copyrighted and, thus, we can't use them. That's why you don't see more photos here in the Wikipedia—its hard to get copyright-free or GFDL-released images. I think photos add a great deal to any article, its just hard to obtain ones that we can legally use.

If you do get one in the public domain or released under the GFDL (or have one you took yourself and are willing to release it under the GFDL), put that information here so there is no uncertainty regarding its status and use. Until we have an image that meets this criteria, we have to keep it off Wikipedia. :-(

Also, please sign your comments. You can do this by using either three tildes ~~~ or four ~~~~ which adds a timestamp. —Frecklefoot 22:17, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by several users

There has been vandalism by several users who were clever enough to keep their edits discreet enough to not attract any attention. However, I picked up on the vandalism that a few other users missed. Each of the following users quietly added a few lines of vandalism hoping no one would notice. They are Vik Vah, 216.220.208, 116, 64.12.117.7, and 141.151.18.82. I reverted their edits, and I apologize to the few, but minor, changes that were made by others legitimately. Feel free to make those edits once again. Furthermore, I ask that an Admin ban these four users, because anyone who contributes vandalism likely won't become a useful member at any time. Stiles 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this here?

This is an encyclopaedia, not a girly magazine. The Real Walrus 11:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please add an image.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 00:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is Meagon Good mixed i herad she was?

city she was raised in

I do not think that Panorama City was the "racist" city she grew up in, sounds more like either Santa Clarita or perhaps Lancaster/ Palmdale in the early 90's perhaps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbxweb (talk • contribs) 09:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Meagan pix

I have a picture i drew of Meagan Good...Can i post it and will i get recognition for it?

Generally a real-life image would be best, at least for the main image. However, as it seems we can't get one of those, I'd love to see yours posted. You'll need to list yourself as the creator in the image info though, and release it into the public domain or allow for fair use or what have you to get credit. Someone might delete it someday, but if it's good, I don't see why we can't keep it once we get a real picture too. Baiter 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

question

does meagon good appear in white chicks or is that another chick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.245.212 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Heritage

There is no mention of her Puerto Rican or Cherokee heritage. She has stated in several interviews that she is of that descent nor does she say that she is more black than Latina or Native American. So why isn't this mentioned??98.206.116.222 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there's no source for that info. If you have a reliable source that states this, include it. Otherwise, don't remove categories because you simply don't agree with them. Every biography can't chronicle every bit of a person's life or heritage. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to gather that type of information especially when the public or hollywood only cares about that person's one heritage or it is simply over looked because the person has not spoken up about on enough accounts. Also few resources take interest in this matter such as Ebony Magazine which does numerous interviews with actors and actresses. They are generally only interested in their African Heritage sad to say. For example they have done many interviews with Jada Pinkett Smith, but never ask about her Cherokee heritage but address her as an African American woman.Mcelite (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

"They are generally only interested in their African Heritage sad to say." That is a very disingenuous statement which pretends not to know the reason ebony magazine and others like them came about in the first place.--07:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well how come it's just assumed that she is African American, but you have to have proof for everything else? What if she was just Native American and Puerto Rican then would it just be written she's an American actress and that's it? That's pretty bogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.116.222 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cousin Skeeter?

She was definately in more than two episodes of that show, I remember watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.205.244.24 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Heritage? (Really)

Why is it when a beautiful black woman comes on the scene some people find it necessary to justify their beauty by using such terms
as " she is part native etc"?? Insinuating that black is not beautiful on its own. Thinly veiled racism, anywho, she is BLACK
because we all know what black looks like, and black can and is exotic on its own. Also Puerto Rico is a country not a
"race" (none exist btw)and a large percentage of the population have the original bloodline coursing through their veins.
That's right African.--08:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it Puerto Rican and Cherokee are mention first and not Barbadian and African American (both are black btw)? I say this
because both the letters A and B comes before P and C. This is important, especially seeing the fact that 1.her phenotype is black
and 2. stating otherwise is being dishonest and gives greater weight to and implies that, she has closer bloodlines to
these groups than is the case. In Meagan Good own words "My mother's mother is Jewish and African, My mother's father
was Cherokee Indian and something else. My dad's mother's Puerto Rican and black, and his
father was from Barbados."-[References provided by her wikipedia page]

So according to Meagan herself, her father is at least 3 qtrs black and very likely more than that. And once again Puerto Rico is a
country not a race. So if taking stock of this young lady's genealogy is so important, then it should be done chronologically
and correctly--07:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's quite igonrant to believe that Puerto Rican isn't a race...it's a Hispanic race. The Puerto Rican people have their own culture and customs plus descedents of the Taino tribe that largely inhabitated Puerto Rico before the Spaniards screwed everything up. Second Meagan Good obviously had pride in her heritage and that should be commended because not that many people whom are African American and another race fully acknowledge the other race.Mcelite (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant,maybe, but not stupid. "Hispanic race" to say Hispanic is to implicate Spain, you do know that right? Since Wikipedia
frowns upon personal attacks I will instead suggest to you to educate yourself on race and what constitutes race.
You can start by veiwing Puerto Rico's page or better yet, the Race page. Godvia (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Godvia, look at the source that is cited in the article. Note that it is Meagan Good herself who mention's her maternal grandmother's background as "Jewish and African" (in that order), her maternal grandfather as "Cherokee Indian", and her paternal grandmother as "Puerto Rican and black" (in that order). So the "some people" that you refer to as trying to "justify" something is Miss Good herself. Are you saying that she is guilty of "veiled racism"? Ward3001 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No Ward she is not guilty of veiled racism, but whomever created her wiki profile might be. And Yes Ward we already know. Why
are you giving me back a quote I gave already ? What do you mean "in that order?" Because she said puerto rican before Black or
Cherokee before Black is suppose to literally mean...what? I won't get into the complicated talk of genetics which is
frankly not needed but to put simply. The young lady is black or "African- American" with a black name (Meagan Monique Good)and
black parents. There is no good excuse for attributing what she OBVIOUSLY is, second or third. Now if I were a person
who had never heard of or saw Ms. Good's face. I would assume ,and rightfully so, she looked completely different from
her actual appearance. Judging this from the emphasis on Cherokee and Puerto Rican as first stated. I also don't get the
Puerto Rican link? Again I'm I missing something? Where is the link for other black actresses? And let it be known I have
nothing against puerto rico or puerto ricans.Godvia (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. If Miss Good names an ethnicity other than African first, she's not guilty of "veiled racism". It's only when others do it that makes it racism. And I repeated what Miss Good said because it's obvious you don't understand that she sees herself like most people who can read her words see here: a mixture of ethnicities. This is a pointless discussion with a POV-pushing editor on a soapbox. Let's see if you have the openness and honesty suggested below by Pinkadelica; let's see if you set up an RfC to get more opinions. Or will you just spew your POV here with one or two editors where you can talk big and pretend that most people agree with you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You read what you what to read. You have no idea what "African" even is so just be quiet.You people are hilarious you claim to be fair and neutral all the while calling me a racist all in one. I said what I had to say I have no intentions of opening anything. And what point are you making ward than regurgitating everything I said? Asking a question with a question. I'm I to assume the rumors are correct about wikipedia? Questionable quality and the zealot editors that troll them? Well I said what I had to, you and the other 2 can keep your "pretend facts" it doesn't matter. My POV like Mcelite's "Hispanice race?" LOL sure guy sure.Godvia (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone calling you racist anywhere on this page. You're the one calling people racist. And I'm waiting for you to post that RfC for others to comment on your accusations of racism. I'm waiting to see if you're willing to have more than one or two editors see what you have to say. I'm waiting to see if you're willing to defend your point of view to the Wikipedia community as a whole, or whether you just want to dish out accusations about everyone else while lurking here with only a couple of people reading what you have to say. I'm waiting for that RfC ... but I'm not holding my breath. Ward3001 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment? All it takes is to put African American or Black first. I 'm not going to partake in a bureaucratic
wrangling for the obvious. Since you are itching so badly for a rfc Ward why don't you go ahead and make one? You have my blessings.
What I really want to know is why in that particular order? Does she look Cherokee? NO. Does she look Puerto
rican? NO? Hmm well there are black Puerto Ricans, but once again the operative word is BLACK! So why is it the first description of
Meagan Good is Cherokee and Puerto Rican? There are only 1 of 2 reasons that I can think of to why those attributes would be
stated first. 1.It is being chronicled in an alphabetical order(IT IS NOT) and /or 2. It is assigning weight or preference to the
person's specific appearance and specific background. Does Puerto rican and Cherokee reflect Meagan Goods appearance or
background? She has the big lips, the absent nose bridge, and the skin texture and colour of blacks. But she
is beautiful, so those relatives from way back when (2 generations ago to be exact)with the 1 quarter here and there must of had
something to do with it. And obviously whomever wrote this article thinks so, which is reinforced by the Puerto Rican actresses
link. Her father is 1/4 quarter Puerto Rican so that makes her Puerto Rican lol. If you want to highlight the minority of the
makeup of her ancestry, fine go right ahead. But why in that particular order? "Oh because Meagan said so." Not a good enough
answer, seeing that she is a BLACK woman and should be stated as such both alphabetically and in weighted preference. Sounds to me
like its you with the agenda pushing. I've seen this many times before, I've said my piece and that's that. You and your posse can keep
your "facts" I'm through.Godvia (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "itching" for an RfC. I'm perfectly content that the article is well-written, balanced, and accurate. I just wondered whether you had the courage to expose your accusations of racism to the entire Wikipedia community. And you have answered that question loud and clear. Ward3001 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not as clever as you try to pass off yourself to be, judging from your "Answering a question with a question." Nobody
acknowledges racism and you of all people fully know that. No courage is needed for no rfc is warranted. I asked a question,
made a suggestion and they were stealthily undermined. The Puerto Rican agenda speaks for itself LOUD and CLEAR. Godvia (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You did more than make "a suggestion". You accused others of "veiled racism". Read your own words above. And of course you don't think an RfC is necessary. You want to confine your rant to a couple of editors who frequent this page. You don't want to expose it to a broad range of Wikipedia editors. Ward3001 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Personal attack removed

No, you get it straight. I quote your words: "Thinly veiled racism". Nothing about "might be thinly veiled racism". Your words speak for themselves. Ward3001 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah 'thinly veiled racism' surely creates a coherent sentence and is definitely within context.Why don't you do yourself a favor
and stop grandstanding slickster and quit your nonsense .And then take a gander further down and view all that
your bloodshot eyes may have conveniently OMITTED."No Ward she is not guilty of veiled racism, but whomever created her wiki
profile might be."Godvia (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is truly a racial slight, I encourage Godvia to open a request for comment or post a notice on the BLP noticeboard. I think the few of us that watch and maintain this article (that would be Ward3001, Mcelite and myself) have no problem with anyone reviewing our actions. In my experience, most racist don't seek out articles on African American actress and then try to downplay their blackness, but I suppose there's a first time for everything. As an aside, I've taken the liberty of properly formatting Godiva's comment once again because they were not indented properly. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"In my experience, most racist don't seek out articles on African American actress and then try to downplay their blackness, but
I suppose there's a first time for everything."-- What is that suppose to mean? I am not familiar with Wikipedia resources and such, but I would think it won't need to go so far. Revising the article placing what she looks like first would suffice, simply enough to me. Thank you on the re-formatting of my post, I still familiarizing myself with the interface, and it is
godVIA.Godvia (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says. If someone was going to go to the trouble of being racist, I highly doubt they would seek out an actress who has, so far, been the supporting player in a few movies to reek havoc on the 'pedia in a subtle way. There are definitely more higher profile biographies to insert supposed veiled racist content in, however, it is possible, but I don't feel that is the case here. I've seen outright racism on Wikipedia and if you're around long enough, you'll see the length some people go to to get their skewed ideas across and this is not one of those situations.

No one here called you a racist, but you seemed to be implying that those of us aren't finding fault with what you perceive to be a racial slight are. Calling people "zealot editors" and the like isn't helpful and is completely unwarranted. We comment on content, not the contributor. We also assume good faith around here and at the present, you're not assuming good faith on any of our parts. To put an end to this back and forth, I have changed the article content to reflect exactly how Good herself worded her heritage in the interview. It is a direct quote and, evidently, not in any particular order. To be perfectly blunt, I'm not going to dissect a comment made by an actress about her heritage in an attempt to make sure every person who stumbles upon this article isn't offended because we didn't list her heritage alphabetically or in some other kind of order. In an effort to get more eyes on the situation, I have asked a few more editors to comment in an informal RfC. If that's not good enough, I have no problem with opening up an official RfC or, if need be, we can take this to dispute resolution. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it sounded like you were calling me racist. My apologies Pinkadelica.Godvia (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the other editors that Pinkadelica invited to comment. I don't think there was a major problem with the original sentence, especially as it talks about ancestry rather than racial origin. Wikipedia is not intended to be a genealogical site, so perhaps too much importance is placed on describing a person's ancestry/racial heritage - whatever you want to call it, not specifically in this article but in biographical articles in general. In this case, using a direct quote from Meagan Good seems like a good compromise, and even if the quote was given in seemingly random order, when people talk about themselves they usually weigh what they are saying against their own criteria - so the quote is given with Meagan Good's emphasis, and doesn't convey anything that Meagan Good would not want to convey. I don't know that we could be fairer than that. Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The things that jump out to me in this discussion is Godvia's suggestion that "Revising the article placing what she looks like first would suffice". So we decide how? Skin color determines ethnic make-up? Since when? A person whose background is 1/4 Black, 1/4 Caucasian, 1/4 Polynesian and 1/4 Cherokee would be black first because her skin is dark? Who decides? The editor who sees her as dark-complected or the editor who sees her as light-complected? There is no proscribed manner in which a person's ethnic make-up is displayed. If it has been stated by the subject, then in most cases, editors would relate it that way. If it were a major issue, not by Wikipedia editors but by the article subject or press controversy, then it might be addressed in that fashion. This entire discussion is sparked by the point of view of one reader, which goes on to charge it as "Thinly veiled racism", and claiming that "Nobody acknowledges racism". Racism is most certainly acknowledged when it exists on articles, and in this situation, it lies only in the eye of the beholder, because what? Black isn't mentioned first? If a subject's ethnic makeup is complicated enough that they bother to mention, then perhaps, as Pinkadelica mentioned, she sees herself as having a mixture of ethnicities, all of which are equally important to her. What are editors supposed to do, request a genetic profile so we'll get it in the order you think is accurate? This is much to-do over nothing. And before you accuse others of racial bias, you might make effort to ascertain to whom you are speaking. You can't see our faces, you have no clue of our ethnic heritage. And by the way, since when are the names Meagan and Monique "black names?" Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Personal attack and off-topic comment removed

"this young lady was four shades lighter and possessed 1/8th African heritage and 'looked' Nordic. Would a link for African American actresses be up there? Would Black be mention first even if she had said it first???": Yes and yes. It's done in other articles. Ward3001 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  While your at it send yourself a block warning for falsely accusing me of calling members racist which is an unequivocal
 personal attack on your part and reveals you to be what? A liar? I'm Asking.Godvia (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 

• Personal attack removed

"Yes and yes. It's done in other articles." I AM STILL WAITING FOR THESE ARTICLES .Godvia (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, Carol Channing and G. K. Butterfield. For both articles, I had to battle with POV-pushers who wanted to remove "black" and "African American" because they didn't look black. But I suppose you'll find something "racist" in that. Now, this is the end of the discussion between you and me on this matter. I'm not wasting my time (and others' time who have to wade through this ridiculous discussion). You can either follow policies about WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TONE or not. It's your choice. But I'm done with you unless you try to stir something else up. Ward3001 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Whooa hold ya horses there buddy jumping to conclusions aren't we, you got no argument from me on Channing. Surprise you even mention her.
I don't know about the guy and of course he had to come from 'North Carolina' of someone nobody ever heard of. I could easily criticize your picks but I won't .All in all I retract my calling ya a dork and whatever else,all in good humor on my part. I still stand affirmed on my stance on Meagan good ,however, you don't know you what the hell you talking about, period. Had I known you could make minor edits without going through the discussion page ,I dunno probably would have thought of it, even though I'm not keen on touching anything on Wikipedia.You won't get any trouble from me Mr.policeman I 'll go back to just being a viewer(actually that never changed),unless of course, another prominent beautiful black chick comes along again with .0004% junk genes. Then its ON, but till then Peace and Happy BlockingsGodvia (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous discussion?I only kept posting because you and others kept responding back to me DEMANDING an rfc inquisition.
So if anybody is to blame no..Credit for the banter its y'all, with you in particular, WARD. End of discussion. Happy Blockings.
Godvia (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow so are you actually suggesting that African American trumps all other races?? Sounds like you have some serious issues. I've defended several articles where the ethnicity of the person has been purposely removed or considered unimportant. It's sad but if a person has color in their skin and doesn't have a spanish accent you're called black before they consider Native American which is statistically a common mix African American and Native American. All families vary so to automatically assume that the person is more black is completely wrong and biased. You need to rethink how you classify people.Mcelite (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wow so are you actually suggesting that African American trumps all other races??" YES. Everything started in Africa so black is
the default human "race." 100% genetic diversity exist only in Africa and blacks no where else. Everywhere else is
basically "Gene Deficient." And Ms. Good definitely does not appear gene deficient. Sounds to me like some are more concern with
how people should wiggle their way out from being "classified" as black lol . Godvia (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Many of the references on this page lead to either deleted or unaccessable webpages. I've added new references, reworked and expanded the Biography section a little bit. Hope no one minds. :^) WikiGuy86 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Heritage redux

Ward3001 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has added a number of improper heritage categories, contrary to official policy.

1. We don't categorize fractional ethnicities:

   Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. [emphasis added]

   She has self-identified as mixed heritage: 1/8 Jewish, 3/8 Black, 1/8 Puerto Rican, 1/8 Cherokee, and others unknown. The "one-drop rule" and "grandfather clause" are forbidden here.
2. We rarely categorize an ethnic occupation:

   The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

   She has self-identified as "Christian" – she is not a Jewish musician. French heritage was never mentioned. Likewise, there is no reference showing that she is exclusively known for playing Native American roles or music (or any at all).
3. We rarely categorize based on where a person is born.

   The place of birth is rarely notable.

   There's no reference that she's ever resided in Louisiana.
4. Finally, one of the California locations is more current than the other.

   Articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• A question for William Allen Simpson to which I request specific answers, with links to Wikipedia polcies to support his claims: If she has any Native American ancestry, why are the categories "Americans of Cherokee descent" and "Americans of Native American descent" not appropriate? Please, note the word "descent" as opposed to "Cherokee Americans" or "Native Americans". And please, none of your personal opinions about "one drop rule" or "grandfathering". Please cite/link specific Wikipedia policies . Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Already has links to the policy, and recapitulates it in detail. Nor are they "personal opinions". You have repeatedly been requested to stop adding these spurious categories. (And please don't spam my talk.)
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no links to policy forbidding including her in a category that includes the word "descent". If you can't provide those, then you are unwilling to discuss and have provided no rationale for your edits. And please give me the diffs in which I have "repeatedly been requested to stop adding these spurious categories"; otherwise it is a false allegation and policy violation. And what you have referred to as "spamming" your talk page was simply a courtesy message to let you know there was discussion here. I will no longer message your talk page, but if you fail to respond here in a timely manner and continue to remove categories without adequate explanation, I will file a WP:ANI report. I also will file a complaint if you make additional accusations about me without providing diffs to back them up. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) does not wish to receive messages on his talk page about discussion here, and since he has made edits since my second request immediately above, if he does not respond here within 24 hours, I will assume he has no response and I will restore the appropriately sourced category about Meagan Good's Native American descent at that time, unless others express additional objections here. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While not commenting on whether these categories should stay or not, I will say that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is a policy specifically on category names. By definition, this policy can only dictate what names we give categories, not who or what we place in them. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is completely legitamate to use any of the categories that she is descended of, there is no reason why these categories shouldn't be used. It is not against policy to use these categories.Mcelite (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AHW. That's all the more reason WAS's link to a policy does not apply in particular to "Americans of Native American Descent". And also thanks to Mcelite, which reinforces my belief that the policy cited by WAS is irrelevant. It appears that WAS has a history of conflicts over category inclusion, and his failure to respond here when challenged to give specific, relevant policy is quite revealing. I encourage other editors to find other pages in which he has removed similar categories without appropriate justification by policy. Ward3001 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)