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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
... the all-black television play The Green Pastures(pictured) was criticized in Alabama for having "bowed to the inverted prejudice which insists that Negroes shall never be portrayed as Negroes"? Source: Here: "The characters have been divested of their Negro traits and manners ... the producers had bowed to the inverted prejudice that Negroes shall never be portrayed as Negroes.""
Overall: The article is fine. I am not comfortable with seeing the N-word in the hook, even though (if I understand correctly) the hook is being used to expose an old historical complaint, about a play which did not portray stereotyped people on TV. Again if I understand the source correctly, the writer is saying that they didn't enjoy the TV version of the play because in their culture stereotyping was considered cute, and they missed seeing something cute when the stereotyping was cut out. So, that writer was just thinking about their own type of enjoyment, and not about that fact that stereotyping for entertainment is a form of exploitation which can lead to racial abuse. I guess that the two main problems in the hook are that the hook doesn't make clear that the writer is wrong to talk like this, and that probably most of us don't want to see the N-word. However, there are other reviews, and some of them say nice things. Can we find an acceptable review to use in a hook? Maybe praise of William Warfield's acting?Storye book (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
There are, of course, positive reviews of the program, but a hook simply reciting praise for the production is not IMO nearly as striking, interesting, or "hooky" as the review criticizing the production for failing to abide by then-common racial stereotyping in portrayal of African-American characters. I think it entirely appropriate, and indeed important, to use the word "Negroes" in the hook to convey accurately the prevailing attitudes in Southern culture in the 1950s. It has often and accurately been said that we must truthfully confront our history of racial injustice before we can repair its legacy. Cbl62 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"Nigger" is the racist slur. "Negro" is somewhat outdated in today's vernacular, but during the 1950s to at least 1970s, "Negro" was the polite term used for persons of color, such as the United Negro College Fund, or the old Negro league baseball. The last decade or two, we've gone through a whole whirlwind of terminology for any group of human beings. As far as racism, nobody used "Nigger" more flagrantly that black comedians, such as Redd Fox calling other black people "niggers" - in that era, it was OK for black people to call each other that, as long as white people never used it. The above is a 1950s quote, and Wikipedia does not censor. And given that the above quote comes from a review of an all-black production, I don't see it as racist. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Tentative suggestion: maybe adding the date will give the quote that historic context? "...the 1957 all-black television play..."? Schazjmd(talk) 19:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict): You are right in your intentions, but the hook is not clear enough about it. Analysis: the sentence says that an unknown critic of unknown race or attitude told the people who put up the play that they should not not not not stereotype the characters in the play. The first "not" is "criticised". The second and third "not"s are "inverted prejudice". The fourth "not" is "never". "Stereotype" is "portrayed as". It took me a while to carefully work that out. A hook should work instantly. In that instant, anyone could pick up the wrong number of negatives and take the hook the wrong way. That sort of construction is fine in context within the article, but not fine as a hook, and I would say not fine in the present fraught public situation where I believe we must be clear about what we say. Your intention is honourable, but this hook just teases the reader. Storye book (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with Schazjmd's suggestion clarifying the time period and thus propose the following:
* alt 1 ... the 1957 all-black television play The Green Pastures(pictured) was criticized in Alabama for having "bowed to the inverted prejudice which insists that Negroes shall never be portrayed as Negroes"?
Or alternately to clarify the identity of the critic
* alt2 ... that The Green Pastures(pictured) was critiqued in the white Southern press of 1957 for having "bowed to the inverted prejudice which insists that Negroes shall never be portrayed as Negroes"? Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Cbl62. I am happy with ALT2 because the date and ID of the critic helps the reader to quickly work out that the quotation is racist. That is important, because outside the US, the expression "inverted prejudice" is likely to be new to a lot of people. I remember the antisemitism of my grandparents' generation, going back to the 19th century when they were born. I remember the general racism (but not including antisemitism following WWII) of my parents' generation. I remember the Civil Rights movement arriving in the UK in the 60s, affecting the educated youth, but I'm afraid not so much the less-educated youth in that decade. We have the expression "inverted snobbery" referring to class, but I don't remember ever hearing "inverted prejudice" or people needing to act that way - although maybe "inverted prejudice" was a concept invented by US anti-liberals? I am explaining this to demonstrate why some people outside the US have to make an effort to work out what that phrase could mean, and why ALT2 is is acceptable to me, and ALTs 0 and 1 are not. As for the above explanation of what the N-word is in the US, I think that probably both words are treated as N-words in the UK because both words are associated with colonialism and slavery here. Storye book (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
ALT2 has 182 characters incl. spaces and without "pictured", so it is within the length limit. Storye book (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The article is fine. 
Thank you, Cbl62. I am happy with ALT2 because the date and ID of the critic helps the reader to quickly work out that the quotation is racist. That is important, because outside the US, the expression "inverted prejudice" is likely to be new to a lot of people. I remember the antisemitism of my grandparents' generation, going back to the 19th century when they were born. I remember the general racism (but not including antisemitism following WWII) of my parents' generation. I remember the Civil Rights movement arriving in the UK in the 60s, affecting the educated youth, but I'm afraid not so much the less-educated youth in that decade. We have the expression "inverted snobbery" referring to class, but I don't remember ever hearing "inverted prejudice" or people needing to act that way - although maybe "inverted prejudice" was a concept invented by US anti-liberals? I am explaining this to demonstrate why some people outside the US have to make an effort to work out what that phrase could mean, and why ALT2 is is acceptable to me, and ALTs 0 and 1 are not. As for the above explanation of what the N-word is in the US, I think that probably both words are treated as N-words in the UK because both words are associated with colonialism and slavery here. Storye book (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)