Talk:Timeline of African-American firsts/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Stepin Fetchit

Stepin Fetchit was the first African American to receive a screen credit, and the first African American actor to become a millionaire. If anyone knows the year in which these events occurred, they should be added to the list. 131.142.52.246 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If these can be verified, absolutely. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

iVote

Mark your vote as to whether you believe professional wrestlers should appear on the article. If yes, please bold the text (below) and if you wish, include specifics as to your criteria for why professional wrestlers and how many potential "firsts" could ultimately appear on the article. If no, simply bold the text and add any supported reasoning if you desire. In both instances, be sure you sign. I will refrain from voting for a bit as to avoid influencing the vote. Voting shall remain open for 5 days, unless concerns are raised that 5 days is not long enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepppep (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Vote
Yes / No - signed (vote below this text)
  • Strong no As fully explained in the above discussion, pro wrestling is scripted entertainment which assigns "accomplishments" to fictional characters played by actors. The firsts in pro wrestling are no different than firsts that occur within a TV show, movie or stage production. See Professional wrestling. If the list includes pro wrestling people, then it should include George Jefferson, the fictional TV character that was played by actor Sherman Hemsley on the TV show The Jeffersons, for First African-America Dry Cleaner of the Year in the U.S. And J. J. Evans, the TV character on Good Times portrayed by actor Jimmie Walker, for First AA National Young Artist Award winner. And Apollo Creed from the Rocky movies. And many more. They're all firsts within a fictional production. And even if a wrestler uses his/her real name (which most do not), it still wouldn't matter at all because all the "accomplishments" are still within a scripted, fictional production. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 01:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong no The only exception would be for cultural reasons - such as first AA to star in a prime time series. That is a fairly weak argument and would only apply to the first wrestler, if at all. Mcusa (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. That makes total sense. Because listing the first AA to star in a prime-time series is a real-life accomplishment of an actor, not the accomplishment of a fictional character being portrayed by an actor. And I also agree with your point that a listing for First AA Professional Wrestler would be fine because, again, that's an accomplishment of an actor/performer in a specific entertainment genre (professional wrestling), not an "accomplishment" of a fictional character within a scripted production. By the way I did some quick research and noticed that Bobo Brazil, the character portrayed by Houston Harris, has been called "the Jackie Robinson of professional wrestling." I don't believe he was actually the first AA in the industry, but I think he was the first prominent AA. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
First, we don't decide things on Wikipedia by voting. Second, if you're going to do a Request for Comment, please go to that bluelink and do it the proper way. This is meaningless otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Tenebrae, it's no surprise at all that you oppose Zep's excellent, appropriate and good faith efforts. First, you should educate yourself on WP:!VOTE. While using the term "vote" is definitely not preferred, it is also not prohibitied. Zep is conducting a poll, which is totally acceptable. And voting, as I'm sure Zep knows, is simply submitting a recommendation. Zep's purpose is to encourage feeback and to build consensus. And I'm also sure that Zep fully realizes that we don't count votes; we attempt to reach consensus. Second, Request for Comment does not apply here. This is a standard talk page discussion about improving the article, not an issue that requires outside dispute resolution. So, contrary to your baseless and unproductive statement that this is "meaningless," what is actually meaningless are your comments. You apparently need to be reminded again that you do not own this article. If you'd like to submit a Yes or No, or comment, on the issue at hand you are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, perhaps you want to explain your glaring avoidance of the issue of professional wrestling firsts being included on the list. In any case, we will continue with this process of trying to improve the article. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the section title to "!Vote" to clarify that this is not a vote-counting process, but rather a means to help determine consensus as part of the ongoing discussion. For clarification, see WP:!VOTE, WP:VOTE and !vote. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Those policies say "polling is not a substitute for discussion" and that "Straw polls regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious … a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." So I think you're making my point for me: This is meaningless. Call for an WP:RfC if you're serious and want to get input from a variety of Wikipedians. I, certainly, would very much welcome that and I believe most people who have edited this article through the years would also. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Tenebrae, what a surprise that you are again fighting the productive efforts of other editors who are trying to improve this article, something that you have proven you don't care about. And, yet again, you are completely speaking out of context and self-servingly with regard to polling. People can read the guidelines for themselves and see what your intentions are. Have you gone into the thousands of other articles that have polled to lecture them, too? And thanks for telling us that polling is not a substitute for discussion, as if we didn't know. Have you noticed all the discussion above? Why are you so afraid to address the issue of professional wrestlers being on this list? Stop acting like you're the final word on everything in this article and that all edits need to go through you for approval. You're not and they don't. If "this is meaningless," as you keep saying, then why do you keep coming here to post your useless comments? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll thank you to stop questioning my personal motivations and stick to the substance at hand. I've proposed you do an actual, constructive thing — a Request for Comment — instead of taking a straw poll, which is meaningless. I truly cannot imagine how anyone could denigrate someone who's proposing something actually constructive, instead of an empty exercise. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The "substance at hand" is whether professional wrestlers should be on the list, something that you have continued to completely ignore. It's very simple, you say yes or no. Have you done that? <silence> Have you given any feedback as to why professional wrestlers qualify for the list? <silence again> So, your motivations are abundantly clear. This is now the third time you've called Zep's poll "meaningless," which is childish and pathetic. Yet you keep coming back to post your pointless comments. Haha. What's your personal motivation with that? Do you think no one got your point the first two times? Interesting how you are the only editor fighting this process and contributing nothing productive to the discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Having this iVote is actually being far more than courteous. Fictional entertainment characters and their fictional accomplishments should be removed without any discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 01:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I know article's don't have content based upon popularity or majority rule. I was simply wanting to work towards consensus. The item that seems most talked about is whether professional wrestlers should be included or not. I don't see much in the way of support for them but I do see much written about support against. I was simply wanting to see if there was any other method others' viewpoints could be solicited. Notice that it doesn't state straw polls/votes are outlawed. If editors here can handle one, then it could be a very good tool. Strong reasons need to be posted for those who are "for" pro wrestlers being included. Zepppep (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. If no one can present any strong reasons why professional wrestling characters should be listed, then they need to be removed. And here's a good example of how successful polling works. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. For the vote I posted, please see "Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. I think someone reading posts from me will see that I was acting in good faith. From WP's Consensus page, it is stated: Consensus is not unchangeable, and matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before. On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal. The argument of "that's what has been done in the past" may not be applicable to keep this article the way it currently exists. Those involved in creating the article in the past and "building consensus" does not determine what the article looks like in the future. I believe it would be beneficial to this article to define a strict definition for inclusion; on a lesser note, it is important for those who wish professional wrestlers to remain in the article to state their reasons. Zepppep (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not removing stable content without a consensus to do so. Personally, I'm not wild about including pro wrestlers, but I'm flexible enough to see the point of those who included them. However, if they were to try to include "First AA pro wrestler to win a bout in Los Angeles" or "first AA pro wrestler to win an award for Best Smile," the same arguments would apply as against including first AA Olympic gold medal-winners in every single sport.

If stable content is removed without consensus and without an RfC, that will be a serious action that will result in admin intervention and all of us going into dispute resolution. You make your case for removal, and if there's consensus it's removed. We do not remove stable material unilaterally if there is any contention about its removal, as there is here.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And I see there's an RfC now. Put it in its own section: Adding it belatedly to where a "straw poll" discussion has begun is misleading at the least and dishonest at the most.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Good citing, Zep. Regarding the wrestling inclusions, Tenebrae claims the issue was previously discussed and that he understood the "point" of those who advocated for their inclusion. But I see over <50> talk page discussions and not one of them is about the wrestling issue. And Tenebrae has yet to tell us what those advocation "point" was. So, we still have heard not even a single reason why people in wrestling should qualify for the list. Yet overwhelming evidence has been presented as to why they should not be included. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
First of all Tenebrae, here you are again acting as if you think you are the almighty ruler of this article, when in fact you are not. Actually, all the wrestling people will be removed unless there are strong reasons presented as to why they should not be removed. And so far, not even one good reason has been presented. Not one. Why is that? And when you allude to "stable content," one must ask, who's definition of stable are you using? Imaginary accomplishments are the opposite of stable. And you claim you are "flexible enough to see the point of those who included them," yet completely fail to tell us what that "point" is. So what is it? <silence> And let's get something straight, since you apparently have little understanding of pro wrestling, or are purposely refusing to acknowledge what you know to be true. Wrestlers do not "win" bouts or championships or anything else. Entertainment producers write a script where an actor "wins" one of those things. It is not real. It's all an entertainment fantasy world. Do you seriously not get that? Or are you just being belligerent? George Jefferson did not really win AA Dry Cleaner of the Year on the TV show, The Jeffersons. Jefferson is a make-believe character who won a make-believe honor. Hulk Hogan did not really "win" any championship titles in the WWE. It was the actor Terry Bollea who was told by the writers and producers that his character, Hogan, would play the role of a champion. If wrestlers are on the list, then every AA first by a TV, movie, stage or other fictional character will qualify for the list. So, once again, we'll tell you that even having this discussion is being far more than courteous. All the wrestling people should never have been on the list in the first place. They should've been removed without discussion. All good faith editors know they're pretend accomplishments by pretend characters. And, most importantly, there has yet to be even one legitimate reason presented as to why they should qualify. You proved a long time ago that you are here simply to fight for your own ego's sake because you have presented zero evidence to support your position. So nothing you say means anything because it all fails to address the issue. The clock is ticking. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Tenebrae, please clarify: to whom are you speaking to when you state "you make your case for removal, and if there's consensus it's removed." I believe reasons have been stated at least a few times previous to your post. On a different note, I'd like to know your reasons for not being wild about having pro wrestlers included. Thanks. Zepppep (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This hasn't been run as a proper RfC, as I explained before. I think an admin, once apprised that the RfC box was added after-the-fact to a straw poll, would see through the deception. That's not the way to build consensus. If we're doing an RfC, we start the RfC in a new section. That's the way it's done ... honestly and clearly. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're aware, but I didn't add the iVote tag or any of the special boxed stuff. I have been involved in numerous "votes/straw polls" what have you on WikiProject talk pages. While I realize this is not the same, I thought going about some way of gathering opinions in hopes of understanding what the consensus was -- if there was one -- was the right way to go about it. Any admin, or folks like yourself, would see I'm not trying to deceive or pull the wool over anyone's eyes. If not, I'm ready to face the fire and would be very comfortable explaining my actions to any and all who may inquire. Additionally, as mentioned (below), I put an invitation for comment on roughly 6-8 WikiProject Talk pages. On another note, am I right in my understanding you're not wild about including pro wrestlers? Would you care to elaborate (that is, why are you not wild (as asked above)? Would you also provide me more insights into your mention of "stable content" (I think the IP user asked as well)? When is content defined as "stable" and why are you agreeing to keep something in the article if it's something you, and current users involved with this talk page, do not see in line with the gist of the article? On another note, I don't see clear consensus (note I'm not saying 100% agreement) re: either Barksdale or Douglas, yet I see two editors reverting changes to the article and referencing "see consensus on talk page." I guess I'm just trying to find that "consensus" on the talk page, because to me, I don't see it and the revert reason thus seems suspect. Zepppep (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Your games continue, Tenebarae. All you do is complain about the process, fight every recommendation, and completely ignore the issues. The RfC was only added because you begged for it, even though it's totally unnecessary since the issue is over adding pretend accomplishments. We can remove the RfC or not. It means nothing because no one, including yourself, has presented even a single reason for including wrestling people. If you wanted an RfC your way, why didn't you do it yourself? Haha. The funniest thing about this whole discussion is that there is not one editor supporting you in this wrestling issue. But then again, it's hard to support someone who has presented zero reasons for his position. So we now have three strong positions against inclusion and none for inclusion. And so we move on. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I've gotten sucked in, but most editors of this article, certainly the longtime editors, are ignoring this since it's such clearly going against Wikipedia comment and consensus-building policy that an admin would simply tell us to do it right. As Malik said, if you want to make contentious, non-consensus edits to a stable article, you can. They will likely be reverted and this will almost certainly end up in formal dispute resolution.

See Tenebrae, that's the point. Other editors have no reasons to support including wrestlers. Yet you come here and continue to babble on without stating any meaningful reasons, for or against. All you say is well, they've always been there so just leave them. Haha. Nice logic. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If people aren't coming here to "vote" on this straw dog of a straw poll, there's no consensus. I'm sure we can alert the editors who added the pro wrestling edits if you want to, shall we say, take it to the mat. I don't care for the pro wrestling inclusion myself, but I recognize the consensus of the editors who let them be. There's a larger issue involved than your or my personal preferences.

Well, at least we're getting somewhere. He finally admits after dozens of unproductive posts that "I don't care for the pro wrestling inclusion myself." Why the hell didn't you just say that from the beginning? And explain why you feel that way? Why all the games? Great proof of your disingenous and distuptive participation all along. And what "consensus of the editors" are you referring to? Show us the proof? Why do you want fake accomplishements on a serious list? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you make these non-consensus changes, please be prepared for admin intervention and formal dispute resolution. I have advocated for a proper RfC this entire time, and any admin looking at this will ask you why you didn't do one, and do it properly.
Do things the proper way, and I'll be glad to join the process. I might even argue against pro wrestling's inclusion; as I've said, I'm not wild about. But unless we're doing this the right and proper way, and that means alerting those who have edited this article in the past and deserve a say, I can see we're headed down a long and tiresome road. Hopefully, I'll see you at an RfC. If not, I'll see you dispute resolution. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You sound like you're getting very worried now. Because you know all the bogus wrestling listings will never stand. If you want to regain any credibility you may have had, admit that they shouldn't be on there. And explain why, for all to hear. But stop all the nonsense about "good points" and "consenus." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"You sound like you're getting very worried now"? Oh, for goodness sakes. I am keeping my composure in the face of your childish taunts, but I will say this: It sounds like I'm talking to a 16-year-old. If you are, in fact, an adult, please grow up and talk like one. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria (broad)

Currently, the article's inclusion test is the following: "first achievements by African Americans in various fields historically establish a foothold, providing a precedent for more widespread cultural change. The shorthand phrase for this is 'breaking the color barrier.'"

I have attempted to put together the following so it is better understood to the reader what this list in fact represents, and the degree of importance of accomplishments individuals have indeed made (some might argue, continue to make). I have also done this because looking at the list and talk page, confusion exists in regards to membership of this list. I stated recently the current inclusion criterion/criteria was not well defined, IMO, and offer the following:

African-Americans who have provided notable and historic firsts to American culture at-large and and played a crucial role in the struggle for freedom, racial advancement, and equality of their race are historically significant. The first known individual to have contributed such services plays a vital role in the accomplishments of their people as well as the resulting integration stemming from their efforts. These contributions advanced their people as a whole and more broadly, American society. By their accomplishments, the individual has furnished other African-Americans and Americans at-large with opportunities for professional development, intellectual stimulation, and educational advancement, as well as artistic, literary, and spiritual expression. Some accomplishments may even have brought national or regional changes to existing laws or led to significant legislative action, changes in policies or widespread discussion as the result of their accomplishments. Inclusion is not based upon any one individual's notoriety—either the person themselves or the accomplishments he or she may have made—but rather the accomplishment played an integral role in the advancement of black peoples in the United States. Zepppep (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You've taken time and effort to craft something positive. This particular draft may not ne the most workable since it's written in a non-neutral, WP:SOAPBOX way that does not represent encyclopedic WP:TONE, whereas the current lead is concise, well-cited and of neutral tone. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. It is not advocating, propagandizing, or recruiting. It is not an opinion piece, scandal mongering, self-promoting or advertising. It does not use colloquialisms, legalese, slang or jargon. It is not written from a first- or second-person perspective. Please cite your specific gripes in regards to how you feel the above violates the two policies which you referenced. On another note, what do you suggest? Also, I utilized existing encyclopedias for inspiration. I would've thought their peer-reviewed qualifications might be good enough for ol' WP. As of right now, the lead is ill-defined. The lead does not introduce the article well. The lead uses on example to attempt to make its point (that is, the use of Robinson's integration in MLB) almost to the point of making a declaration of the "most important first." In case you or any other reader is wondering, in addition to the above points, there continues to be confusion as to what can and cannot be included in the list. When readers look to add something, there should not be as high rate of reverting as is currently taking place. If the lead is strong and the description of what is included and why, I do believe there will be less instances of confusion from other readers. Zepppep (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision 2: African-Americans who have provided notable and historic firsts to American culture at-large and and played an important role in the struggle for freedom, racial advancement, and equality of their race are historically significant. The first known individual to have contributed such services is said to have "broken the color barrier." Professional development, intellectual stimulation, and educational advancement, as well as artistic, literary, and athletic firsts are a majority of the fields represented. Some accomplishments may even have brought national or regional changes to existing laws or led to significant legislative action, changes in policies or widespread discussion as the result of their accomplishments. Inclusion is not based upon any one individual's notoriety—either the person themselves or the accomplishments he or she may have made—but rather the accomplishment played an integral role in the advancement of black peoples in the United States. Lastly, your opinion is appreciated but it is just one opinion -- it does not determine the future of this article. I think we are both experienced enough to know that but I hope your above comments were not implying such. Zepppep (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note I am not for entirely replacing the current lead with the above. I am suggesting, as others here have also, the current lead is weak. I am not declaring it awful and calling for total replacement -- quite the contrary. Secondly, the current lead is indeed well sourced but I would say there is nothing contentious there and nothing that would need a source except for perhaps the number of years the Negro leagues had been in existence. Zepppep (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I do understand, though, conversely, I believe you're too close to your own writing to objectively judge the WP:SOAPBOXy tone. Note I'm not referring to the content — just the tone.
I'd like to see other editors work on it. I would offer to, but I think our IP friend would have pushback on that.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
While I can't speak for the IP user, I can speak for myself: I would welcome your ideas (that is, your version/revision). I look forward to reading it. Please don't let any possible pushback you may or may not get be reason from stopping you. Zepppep (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You did ask for specifics. Here's one: The sentence reading, "Inclusion is not based upon any one individual's notoriety—either the person themselves or the accomplishments he or she may have made—but rather the accomplishment played an integral role in the advancement of black peoples in the United States." I'm not criticizing for its own sake, but looking at it through the eyes of a professional journalist and editor who usually gets paid for this kind of critique. I beseech you not to take it personally. I find this sentence as a whole to be florid and overwritten — what is sometimes called "purpose prose" ‐ that redundantly restates the topic sentence's phrase "notable and historic firsts". The parenthetical phrase with "he or she may have made" is grammatically tortured.
And as I look at the topic sentence now, "the struggle for freedom, racial advancement, and equality of their race" echoes the melodramatic structure of "truth, justice and the American way." Also, "their race" implies otherness; that doesn't well serve an African-American reading this, so "the race" would be more neutral. Not sure what "at-large" adds; the sentence reads the same without it. I could go on, and I was trying to be gentle earlier, but in my professional opinion this is bad writing. I wouldn't turn that in to a college professor, and certainly not to a newspaper or magazine. I appreciate the fact we're not all professional writers. I'm surprised at the lack of objectivity about one's own work. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I take no offense. I had for a few days wanted to see if anyone could get something concrete, and after a few days of a lot of off-the-cuff back and forth (not between me so much but others), I felt the train was moving everywhere but on the track. Arguably the only valuable item I've seen posted to this talk page in recent days was the IP user's bullet point list. I replied to it but seems others thought it was too detailed to comment (I've always wondered why people are afraid of long passages if it's to-the-point, with little to no attempts at even dissecting one of the bullet points, but I digress). The proposal I offered was wordy -- agreed. It's grammar was imprecise and imperfect. "Their race" was referring to "AA" stated previously in the sentence, but I can see how it does not sound inclusive and find that a very good "catch" by you. No need to be gentle with the criticism boy-oh, or girl-oh, come at it with full gusto! With the first sentence you critiqued, I was essentially trying to say inclusion is not by means of a popularity contest; the list will contain names perhaps one has never come across but that does not mean what they did was any less historic than what someone in the pop culture realm may have achieved (it's one of the chief reasons I am not a big fan of utilizing one individual's accomplishment in the lead as the example, as I believe it puts undue weight on one listing (this comes from someone who has helped edit the Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Baseball color line, Effa Manley, Branch Rickey, etc. articles)). If you see me as a "serious and sincere individual" it is because I like to think I am one. I would also like to add that shortly after I posted the first version, I went to about 6-8 different WikiProject pages in hopes of gaining a few opinions. Nearly 12 hours has passed and I'm not sure if there are any new eyes, but hope is not lost. Please put your writing strengths to good use. I think we're both more in line with one another than you might think. (Also, please note I have responded to your other thread (above)) and am hoping for a response on that item, as well). Zepppep (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we are, too. I'm afraid I'm expending a great deal of time and energy on an anon IP who doesn't appear to want to follow consensus-building protocol, so I might remain off the page for a few hours or a day, unless said IP starts throwing uncivil comments, declarations and accusations again. I'm sure you can see how frustrating it is when people don't want to follow the established steps that admins are just going to tell him to take anyway. Ah, well. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Zep. Your comment went in before I wrote my critique. I hope you've taken it in the spirit in which it's meant, and I genuinely believe you would; you seem a serious and sincere individual.
I could take a crack at it, though honestly, I think I would just add a sentence or two at most to what we already have. I'd like to get other, hopefully long-time, editors' thoughts on this before I take it upon myself to expand the lead. There's no WP:DEADLINE, and I'm a great believer in consensus. --18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Tenebrae, your input continues to be meaningless because all you do is simply oppose everything that's presented, refuse to address any of the questions and concerns presented, and offer zero alternatives. Not to mention your laughable defense of having wrestling people on the list without presenting even a single reason why. So unless you want to contribute to the effort to improve and legitimize this article and, in particular, settle this wrestling issue, then go away. Zep, that's a great draft and we can certainly make any necessary tweaks so that it meets WP's guidelines and this article's intended purpose. Great job. Your participation and leadership is very much appreciated. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's agree to disagree --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
One must wonder why Tenebrae is so afraid to explain why wrestling people should qualify for inclusion? He will not even give one reason. Someone using the term "agree to disagree" is only acceptable if the person had presented a reasonable, good faith case for their position. Tenebrae has presented absoultely nothing. The clock is still ticking. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
First, there's no clock, and second, I did give my reasons, even though you evidently glossed over them. And I would suggest before you go into the edit war you seem to be threatening that you take your issues to dispute resolution. My experience is that admins really don't like edit-warring, and the first thing they ask is why the person advocating for a disputed change did not follow mediation and resolution protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You gave reasons why wrestling people should be included? Really? Where? Zep, did you see any reasons presented? And I do not see any threat of an edit war. What I see is an in-depth, good faith discussion by editors, not including yourself, where many valid reasons have been presented opposing inclusion of wrestlers, but none presented favoring inclusion. None. The clock is ticking. Discussions don't last forever when consensus is already being established. Stop your games Tenebrae and state the reasons you think wrestling people should be on the list. Or don't. Your choice. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is exasperating. My comments are in the two-paragraph post above at 17:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC). --Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Stop the games, Tenebrae. State your reasons for why wrestling people should be included. Or go away. You are disrupting a good faith discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I told you exactly where my comments were. And you have shown no good faith whatsoever in this discussion. You're bucking protocol and only want to do things your way. We have a process for this. You're ignoring it, essentially stamping your feet and yelling, "I won't! I won't! I won't do it the way Wikipedia says to!"
Incidentally, you're not running this discussion or setting the rules — Wikipedia policies and guidelines do that — and you certainly don't have the right to say, "Do this my way or go away." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Zep, even though this guy is obviously being purposely disruptive by trying to send us on a wild goose chase for his comments, instead of just stating his reasons, I found the comment he referred to. It says, "We're not removing stable content without a consensus to do so. Personally, I'm not wild about including pro wrestlers, but I'm flexible enough to see the point of those who included them. However, if they were to try to include "First AA pro wrestler to win a bout in Los Angeles" or "first AA pro wrestler to win an award for Best Smile," the same arguments would apply as against including first AA Olympic gold medal-winners in every single sport. If stable content is removed without consensus and without an RfC, that will be a serious action that will result in admin intervention and all of us going into dispute resolution. You make your case for removal, and if there's consensus it's removed. We do not remove stable material unilaterally if there is any contention about its removal, as there is here." So there it is. I do not see even one reason for advocating inclusion of wrestling people. Do you, Zep? All I see is a guy who says he sees "the point" of others who want wrestlers included, without stating what that point is. I also see a guy who gives some bogus examples of entries that would obviously not qualify for inclusion, which supports our position. It is interesting, however, that he sticks in there that he is "not wild about including pro wrestlers", but purposesly refuses to elaborate on that statement even though he knows full well that it will benefit the discussion. So, as always, we still have zero reasons from Tenebrae as to why wrestlers should be included. Zero. And he claims others have given reasons for including wrestlers, yet there's not a single mention of wrestling in the prior 50 or so talk page discussions. Tenebrae's games just continue. And btw, telling other editors just to go find your comments instead of just restating them when asked is called bad faith, pure and simple. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the exact-minute timestamp of where my comments were; using the "find" command would have taken you there instantly. Calling that disruptive is factually inaccurate, and I'm going to ask you to stop or I will ask an admin to speak with you. I assume you know there's a policy at WP:DISRUPT — read it, and you'll see my comments in no way whatsoever fit that — and so claiming over and over that someone is violating a Wikipedia policy is a serious offense. I'm getting rather tired of it. If you can't comment without slinging untrue accusations — well, that is a definition of bad faith.

So you led us on a wild goose chase to find content that does not even exist. Nice. So care to explain to us where in those comments you state a position for inclusion of wrestling people? This game you're playing with us is getting very boring. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And if you don't understand what I mean about seeing other people's points of view — well, I don't guess you would, would you? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See, that's the problem Tenebrae. You haven't stated a "point of view." We are still waiting for your reasons for supporting inclusion of wrestlers. Do you want to just admit (finally) that you don't have any? Stop disrupting this discussion and purposely creating irrelevant distractions. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Uh, guys... allow me to step in here. It's getting pretty heated between you two. IP user, I think Tenebrae will respond to the questions I posed in my 19:30 7 August post. I am tempted to make comments about behaviors displayed here but the proper place for that would be the user's talk page (or mine) and not here. We (as in all of us) should be focused on content here. I haven't check talk page history or edit history to the article to see how many times "professional wrestling" has been referenced. I have looked over this talk page, however, and from what I can see, I don't see any users advocating for its inclusion. So that leads me to wonder, if the three of us speaking here are not crazy about its inclusion, why can we not go about removing those listings from the article? If another editor thinks it should be included, they can look to the edit summary and come to the talk page if they'd like to has it out, correct? I don't know...correct me if I'm wrong. I know an article should not represent the "flavor of the month" sentiment, but I'm scratching my head as to what the hold up is. IP user, I have made 2 versions of what I think could be added to the lead. Tenebrae has made a wonderful critique of it. Although I may not necessarily agree with the WP:Tone policy being referenced by the user initially, I would agree that some of the writing appeared sophomoric (any editor that is willing to label an example of their own writing as that is probably not too close to make an impartial critique, but I digress), but I'd really like to get you to take a stab at it. Or who knows, maybe you two can work on some of that together? Earlier today I was involved in a WikiProject discussion where one editor stated "the article shouldn't change because it's been well maintained" while the other stated "the reason why it hasn't already been changed is because this article has a low importance rating and we're just now getting to it." I guess this makes me think of "stable content." If something has been stable, it might be because there is an unwritten consensus about its inclusion, what WP likes to call "common sense"; or, it could just be because no one has gotten around to asking "umm, why is that there?" Zepppep (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, Zep. There's been absolutely zero prior talk page discussion about wrestling. And it's not just three editors now saying the wrestling listings are not worthy, it's actually four: you, me, Mcusa and, yes, Tenebrae. He has now (finally) said - three times - that he's "not wild" about their inclusion either. Yet for some inexplicable reason, he refuses to state why he's not wild about them or what the "point" of editors advocating inclusion was. So we have unanimous agreement that the wrestling listings shouldn't be there. So Zep, why are we dragging out the obvious? As far as your lead, I think what you've written so far is great. However, I think we really need to first focus on the issue this thread is about: wrestling. Let's settle that first, then we can move on to other issues. This wrestling issue is a no-brainer. Had others presented any good reasons as to why wrestling should be included, I would have been very happy to listen and keep an open mind. But we've heard none and I don't expect we ever will. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to create an article for "List of African-American profressional wrestling firsts" or "List of African-American fictional character firsts," I'll fully support that. Then, all the wrestling people will have a place to go. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a reply to my 19:30 7 August post (in thread above). I don't see any mentions of "professional wrestling" on this talk page other than what you, IP user, have raised several days ago, so if multiple people have chimed in stating those feats don't belong in this article, I would like to get a response to the previous post. Zepppep (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the best thing that can be done to help this article is draft a specific definition for inclusion. While the lead may display a NPOV and conciseness, it's conciseness is also to the detriment of the article. Ambiguity leads to reverts, but on what basis? Readers are confused as to what is and is not the purpose of the article. Editors should be able to point to a well-defined list of criteria for reference, not their own biases (yes, we all have them). "Consensus" is hard to understand and determine at times -- and it also changes. It is not static. A reader should not have to come to the talk page on a consistent basis to see whether or not what they'd like to add to the article is "allowed," "stable," "notable," etc. or not. They should be able to find 95% of their answers in the lead of the article. Zepppep (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Zep. There needs to be clearly-defined criteria for firsts that qualify or do not qualify for the list. Decisions can no longer continue to be made by just one or a few editors who inject their own opinions and biases as to what's worthy or not worthy, or declare or imply that there's a consensus that doesn't actually exist. Everything you just said is right on the money. All this talk of "that's not the purpose of the list" or "that's not allowed" or "that's not notable" or "that's stable content" or "that's not important enough" etc. must be eliminated. Either the criteria defines what's acceptable and what isn't, or a legitimate consenus does. And regarding the the issue of professional wrestling firsts, I would be shocked to hear anyone give a legitimate reason as to why fictional accomplishments like these should qualify for the list. So far, no one has. There is a separate discussion below about it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning

I'm feeling my oats this evening. The next time any of you says anything remotely like a personal attack against another editor, I will block them from editing for a week remove the entire comment, and ban people from this article and talk page if it continues.. This page is for discussions about improving the article. Do not use it for anything else. Stop doing things that end up wasting other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Edited to be more reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please specify the editors to whom you are speaking to. Zepppep (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Zep, you have done nothing inappropriate. Ever. Thanks for your great work in leading the improvement process. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
To clarify: "Everyone" is not a description of who has been making personal attacks in the past; "everyone" is a description of who needs to keep this warning in mind going forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning

I'm feeling my oats this evening. The next time any of you says anything remotely like a personal attack against another editor, I will block them from editing for a week remove the entire comment, and ban people from this article and talk page if it continues.. This page is for discussions about improving the article. Do not use it for anything else. Stop doing things that end up wasting other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Edited to be more reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please specify the editors to whom you are speaking to. Zepppep (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Zep, you have done nothing inappropriate. Ever. Thanks for your great work in leading the improvement process. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
To clarify: "Everyone" is not a description of who has been making personal attacks in the past; "everyone" is a description of who needs to keep this warning in mind going forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

REFIMPROVE tag

You probably missed the point. This tag is about the improvement of existing references.The article had extensive use of footnotes but it fails to concern all the african-american firsts, the footnotes are difficult to verify since some of these are not freely and easily available online.please consider providing more accessible and easy-to-get references.The tag is meant to encourage editors for more authentic listings.Thank You.--Skashifakram (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Great points. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Skashifakram 's rationale, that ONLY online sources can be used, goes against core Wikipedia guidelines at WP:CITE. Absolutely and unquestionably, books and other printed matter can be cited. Wikiped The guidelines suggest that books carry an ISBN number, and these do. For this reason, Im removing the tab. To insist that only online sources can be used is outrageous. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree. There is nothing policy-wise that states only online sources may be used. I don't know what Skashifakram means when the user states "more authentic listings." I also don't know what the user regards as "freely and easily available online." Zepppep (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of you didn't read me properly, I said there are many african-american firsts who are unsourced, I merely wished to improve them. Now, even if we agree with WP:SITE, books and journals which are not freely available, are difficult to verify since we can hardly know whether the reference statement given by editor supported by the book or journal.For online editors, is it not very easy to check online sources, rather than buying books to verify every claim. My intention is not to discourage editors to listing offline sources, since that will be tantamount to curbing freedom on editor's part, but I want to encourage people for more easily and freely available online sorces which will be very easy to verify for every online editors.Now since REFIMPROVE seems to me the most suited tag, I used it.Thank you for your patience.--Skashifakram (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
By my reading, Skashifakram is not saying that "only" onlines sources are allowed. My understanding is that he is merely alluding to improving the sourcing. But he can elaborate. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(Be careful of use of "you.") I read it as "the tag is about the improvement of existing sources." Of course reliable sources, available online, would be great. And I'm glad to see it clarified by the user how they're in agreement books (offline specifically) are indeed in-line with WP's policies. But the number of offline sources an article may cite differs from issues an article may have with utilizing unreliable sources or lacking sources. I haven't seen a REFIMPROVE tag used in hopes of getting an article to have more online sources than offline; I have seen it used when the article lacks citations or when the citations provided may have verifiability concerns. Of course, anything contentious concerning BLP should be removed until a source can prove its claim. Check Links and ID numbers to see how ISBNs are key for citing offline books, and how directly quoting from the source can be posted to the article's talk page should there be questions regarding material from an offline book. "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." Books need not be purchased in order to verify a source. Zepppep (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly so, Zep. ISBNs, etc. verify books' existence, and libraries can do inter-library loans. Books and other print sources are readily available. Using Refimprove "to encourage people [to use] more easily and freely available online so[u]rces" means discouraging the use of books and magazines, and that seems a gross violation of the spirit and intent of Wikipedia, let alone the Refimprove tag. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Like all other Wikipedia editors, I will continue to use whatever quality sources, online or otherwise, are most accessible to me. I don't think there's any policy or guideline that recommends the use of online sources over other sources, because to do so would be a grave error—the vast majority of the world's books, newspapers, and magazines are not available online.
With respect to improving references in general, WP:STANDALONE#Citing sources says that stand-alone lists such as this one should include sources for all items. That's a relatively recent, and still controversial, change. We may decide we want to follow that style guideline, in which case we would need to copy references from subjects' articles to this list. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Please try to see the major problem here in spite of differences in opinions, most of the african-american firsts are not well-sourced.We can't make a CITATION NEEDED tag for every individual concerned, rather it's better to go for REFIMPROVE tag.--Skashifakram (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand, and I think that's easily remedied. The entries in the list should have sources at their individual articles that support the claims of being "firsts", so it's just a matter of copying the sources from one article to another. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No, their biographical articles also are not clear regarding the claim of them being first african-americans and in some case controversial--Skashifakram (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding free, online content, users may want to check out section 1.8 of perennial proposals. Zepppep (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And even more to the point, the policy at WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Since my comments were removed by a user, as opposed to transferred, I am again creating this subsection. Tenebrae explained his recent removal of a listing as follows: "I removed "first African-American Muslim in the NYPD" because this is an article about African-American firsts, not Muslim firsts. I'm sure we can see how we wouldn't fill the list with "first African-American Muslim in baseball," "first African-American Muslim Secretary of State," "first African-American Protestant governor" or "First African-American Jew in the NYPD".

That explanation seems in violation of WP:NPOV considering numerous religious firsts are in the article and have not been removed. If it's an article about AA firsts, not AA religious firsts, then why are there so many religious firsts in the article? After all, readers have only the listings to go off of, since the article lacks inclusion criteria. Here is just a sampling of religious firsts:
  • First African-American Baptist congregation
  • First African Episcopal Church established
  • First African Methodist Episcopal Church established
  • First African-American woman rabbi
Zepppep (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC
(The above was completely removed from the talk page. Please do not remove others' comments. Zepppep (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC))
It's not "First African-American woman rabbi in the NYPD." Does that clarify? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, much clearer (assuming you're talking about Muslims and not "Muslins"). Zepppep (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, having like items in the same thread will make it easier for other editors to locate the relevant section on this page, should future editors need to refer to this page. Doing so helps keep the layout clear. Zepppep (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Still doesn't mean you move other people's posts. You ask them politely if they would do so.
Also, the snarky jibe about an obvious typo is not constructive. I don't know what possible positive reason one might have for doing that. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen admins move them to a new thread. Experienced editors know to ASG. The note re: spelling wasn't meant to be a jibe. It was meant to keep the editor who posted the listing to the article from feeling disrespected, if (s)he should ever feel like they were being attacked. Nothing more, nothing less. Zepppep (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's agree to disagree on whether one should move other editors' comment. And I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean when you say that pointing out my typo "Muslin" has anything to do with "keep[ing] the editor who posted the listing to the article from feeling disrespected." I genuinely cannot make sense of how taking a swipe at my typing keeps some third editor from feeling disrespected or anything else. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen editors respond in not-so-kind ways when multiple typos have been made to religious terms, gender, sex, etc. I've even seen some become enraged when a single typo was made; some are charged (generally for poor reasons, but sometimes valid). I was merely pointing out I believed your typos were in fact nothing but typos and I ASG, hoping others who might read the page would also realize they were simply typos from you. Hence "nothing more, nothing less."
I'm not looking to make mountains of mole hills here...I was also not intending to portray the particular editor who made the edit to the article as one who might respond in such a way, but others reading through this talk page might. An apology was extended to you (none sent my way after my comments were removed) which I believe only helps solidify my (what I would hope would be clear) ASG actions. (I recently had comments moved on a FAC review page -- editors who write and review such level of articles tend to be quite experienced and are familiar with "protocol." I had no issue with my comments being moved.} I do know, however, when two editors happen to submit an edit within a short period of time an edit conflict will appear and the server will only allow one version to be submitted at a time. There is nothing in talk page guidelines (as previously mentioned) which states it is "against the rules" for an editor to move talk page comments. Again, editors would look at the spirit—the intention. You have a preference; how was I supposed to know it before I committed the "offense?" I have stated more than once my intentions were at organization of this talk page, and also that there is nothing within the guidelines which would preclude me and am only willing to accept your preference because I'm generally a nice person. In an actual article, moving text without changing its meaning is categorized as a minor edit. However, seeing as you have stated you don't like anyone moving your comments about without a polite request, and I have told you "OK, I understand your preference"). I am not holding your feet to the fire for removing my comments (a clear violation) and stating you didn't realize it so please put this to rest (or not apologizing) because when I look at other editors, I use rose-colored glasses. Zepppep (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, it's OK. I know we both want the article to be as good as possible, and written communication doesn't contain the verbal and visual cues that help make meaning clear, leading to misunderstandings. We've been working productively overall, we'll probably get an admin opinion on pro wrestling soon, and then we can work on the Sports section. It's all good. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: Should Gabby Douglas be added to African-American firsts?

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 3#Talk:List of African-American firsts#Rfc: Should Gabby Douglas be added to African-American firsts?, Tijfo098 (talk · contribs) noted that "Consensus was mostly against the inclusion, but the discussion does not require formal closure. The proponent(s) have moved on." I am formally closing the discussion so users know that the status quo is not to include Gabby Douglas on the list. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Gabby Douglas be added to this list for achieving the women's all-around gold medal in gymnastics? Mcusa (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First individual all around was rejected as too trivial. This seems counter to news reports of this event - http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/gymnast-gabby-douglas-soars-to-womens-all-around-gold/2012/08/02/gJQA7w6iSX_story.html which emphasize the historical impact. Additionally, a web search of the most prestigious events in the Olympics will usually yield the 100M dash and the women's all around. Mcusa (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the list, you will see that we include things like "First medal", "First gold medal", "First gold medal at the Winter Games". We don't list first medalists in individual sports. I'll leave it for other editors to chime in instead of reverting you again, but please don't be surprised if it's removed again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would argue that this is an elite event worthy of inclusion rather than just another medal, but let's get some other opinions. Mcusa (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Malik Shabazz. Listing individual Olympic-event firsts really isn't within the purview of this article. Listing major "umbrella" firsts such as "First medal", "First gold medal" and "First gold medal at the Winter Games", which I think we'd all agree are inarguably historic, is the point of the list. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree as well. First participation in the olympics is significant, first winner of a gold is significant, first winner in each event isn't. Ryan Vesey 17:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

By this logic, this page needs some clean up. There are several duplicate firsts, where the second first is the same accomplishment but more prestigious. For example, education is the biggest problem. There are several entries which show the first graduate of a specific institution such as Harvard or the military academies. I have removed Dan Barksdale as the first Olympic basketball winner. Mcusa (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course Gabby Douglas should be on the list. It's not even a close call. Winning Olympic gold in the individual all-around event is THE highest acheivement in the sport of gymnastics. And the gymnastics individual all-around is among the most presitgious events in the Summer Olympics. If Gabby isn't on this list, you can remove many of the firsts that are currently on the list, which clearly aren't as important as Douglas's. Browse the list and you will see many that aren't as deserving as Douglas's first. And for anyone claiming that Olympic individual event gold medal wins are not worthy of inclusion on this list, then why are individual positions in the U.S. government included? Why not just include only the first African-American cabinet member and only the first African-American to head a government department, instead of the first African-American to in each cabinet position and department? For example, why have First African-American United States Trade Representative, First African-American woman Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, First African-American United States Attorney General, First African-American bank examiner for the United States Department of the Treasury, First African-American United States Solicitor General and First African-American appointed as a United States Assistant Secretary of State (and many more)? Why list each one if you're not going to list all the first African-Americans to win gold medals in their Olympic sports? And the fact that this list would include professional wrestling people, but not the first Olympic Gold medalists in each sport is absolutely ludicrous. Speaking of which... Why are all the professional wrestling firsts even on the list?? It makes the list look like a joke. Those are not even real accomplishments. All those people are actors, which is a fact, not an opinion. Their "accomplishments" are all given, not earned like all the others on the list. It is undisputed that professional wrestling is "fake"; It is scripted entertainment with pre-determined results. And the top priority of each actor/wrestler is to avoid actually injuring their "opponents." I should also note that it's totally hypocrtical to say that individual Olympic sports don't deserve to be on this list, yet individual (fake) wrestling titles do. All the wrestling people on the list should be removed immediately because the list loses a lot of credibility with them on it. Only real, meaningful, earned firsts should be on the list. Please, remove all the wrestling people. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
One additional comment: Indiscriminantly saying that being the first to win gold in individual Olympic events is not worthy of inclusion on this list is very snobbish IMHO. Being the first A-A to win Olympic gold in an event is a huge, international accomplishment. And it certainly is more important than a number of the firsts currently on the list. Are you actually going to say that the first A-A Disney Princess is more important and more worthy than the first Olympic gymnastics champion? With all due respect, give me a break. Why in heaven's name does this list need to be limited? There's no good reason for it. If the particular first is truly important, it should be on the list. Period. And by the way, the indivdual-around in Olympic gymnastics is more than a regular individual event because it combines the skills of all the other individual events to determine the best athlete in the sport. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz... When you say, "We don't list first medalists in individual sports," who is the "we" you are referring to? Sorry, but Wikipedia articles do not have owners or bosses. Their content is determined by the entire community of editors. And even if you claim that "we" don't do something, that doesn't mean it's right. And it doesn't mean it can't be changed. And @Tenebrae... "the point of the list" is whatever the community of editors determine is the point of the list, not what select editors prefer it to be. I'd love to see you guys trying to explain to Gabby Douglas and her family why she's not worthy of being on this list. Think about it. ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I usually agree with Malik, but seeing as how we have two items currently in the list related to the WWE, of all things, I'm inclined to support the inclusion of Gabrielle Douglas. Also, contrary to what Malik stated, we do indeed have individual Olympic achievements in the article right now -- Don Barksdale is credited as the "First African American on an Olympic basketball team and first African-American Olympic gold medal basketball winner". Change "basketball" to "women's artistic gymnastics" and that reflects Douglas' achievement exactly. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Evan, good eye. I didn't even catch the Barksdale entries. And something else very interesting... someone tried removing Barksdale today, even though it's been on the list for four years. But another editor reverted it. And as far as the bogus WWE listings, there are not two of them on the list; there are actually FIVE. Plus, there are another five wrestling people on the list. This includes the First African-American to win the WWE Diva's Championship. Haha, really?? And this is supposed to be a serious list? So 10 wrestling actors with pretend titles and accomplishments are on the list, yet we're debating putting the first A-A Olympics gymnastics champion on there. Right. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Don Barksdale: Gold medal aside, being the first AA on an American Olympic basketball team in 1948 is sure far more notable than any such achievement today. The Civil Rights Movement hadn't even started yet.TMCk (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also hypocritical is the fact that instead of just having the first A-A to win an Academy Award, the list has First African American to win an Academy Award, First African American to win and Academy Award in a non-acting category, and First African-American to win an Academy Award for an Adapted screenplay. So why is it acceptable to have listings for various Academy Award categories, but not acceptable to have listings for various categories (sports) at the Olympics? You can't just make up the rules as you go along, particularly when those rules are contradicted by the existing listings. And all wrestling people need to be removed from the list since they are not real. Including wrestlers (and other wrestling people) on the list is no different than adding actors who play title-holding characters in a movie or TV show. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that the list as is couldn't use some major clean-up. Not adding more undue entries is at least a start in the right direction.TMCk (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
After reading this talk page and a lot of the article, this list is weak because the criteria for inclusion is ill-defined. Once the reason for inclusion has been established for the list, the questions folks are posting today (should we list the first winner for each Olympic event or not?), and yesterday (should first black mayor of a city be listed, or just major cities, what is a major city, etc.) will have been answered, and thus, perhaps only on the most rare of occasions would significant debate be required to determine whether an individual should be listed or not. Zepppep (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry TMCk, but I beg to differ. Claiming that "Nobody is saying that the list as is couldn't use some major clean-up," is totally missing the real point. It's very easy to say nothing. The important point is that no one is acknowledging that the list should be cleaned up. Based on my review of all the talk page discussions and the edit history of this article, it appears that Tenebrae, along with Malik Shabazz, acts as if he owns this article and that his word is final regarding which firsts can and cannot be included. But of course articles do not have owners, editors-in-chief or CEOs. They're all a community effort. I'm still waiting to hear a response about all the contradictions regarding what they claim are the qualifications for a "first" inclusion, as well as why professional wrestling personalities are included on the list, even though they are simply actors whose firsts ("championship titles" and other "accomplishments") are simply pre-scripted roles that producers assign them to portray, not to mention the fact that wrestling "matches" are choreographed. IMHO, advocating for wrestling people to be on this list is far more egregious than advocating against Gabby Douglas being on it, even though Douglas's first is clearly more notable than many currently-listed firsts. While I appreciate the enthusiasm and good faith intentions of the most active editors here, they need to seriously think about their contradictions and reassess this article's purpose and credibility. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Good comment by Zep. Clear, fair, logical and consistent guidelines need to be established, by consensus, so that there's little room for debate as to which firsts qualify for inclusion and which do not. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find that short, to-the-point comments get better responses than TL;DR walls of text. That said, I don't own the page and have never acted like I do. I merely summarized the rules that have applied in the past with respect to inclusion and exclusion.
With respect to wrestlers, I agree that there are too many. I'll also note that it's not my place to judge what is and isn't a real sport. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The list should not be a statement to show which sport, activity, gov't office, etc. is more important than another, with a listing more important than something that may not make the list. Again, we need to develop guidelines, as well-defined as possible, so we don't get bogged down in whether professional wrestling is more important than the Olympics -- they could both be important, but let's set up the criteria before we assign an importance to any individual's accomplishment (or lack thereof). Currently the only requirement for being listed is "first African American in various fields historically establish a foothold, providing a precedent for more widespread cultural change." The definition of "first" should not be hard to determine, as the mm/dd/yyyy should be clear. "African American", or African-American, should also not be difficult. If we are to stick to the current criteria, we should determine what is meant by "various fields." Or if it so pleases, we should develop a a different, more-precise definition of what this article is and what it is not. Zepppep (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Malik, but users can type whatever length comments they prefer. It's interesting how your short comment completely failed to adequately address any of the substanitive issues presented. If reading a paragraph or two of text is too long for you, there's not much we can do for you. And determining whether professional wrestling is a sport does not involve any sort of judgement at all. It is a fact that it's scripted entertainment. Do you really not understand this? Do you not know that all the championship "titles" and other "accomplishments" in pro wrestling are not real; that they're part of a script? I suggest you read Professional wrestling, which explains in the lead that "The matches have predetermined outcomes in order to heighten entertainment value, and all combative maneuvers are worked in order to lessen the chance of actual injury. These facts were once kept highly secretive but are now a widely accepted open secret." In terms of the "championship titles," the article makes clear that "Behind the scenes, the bookers in a company will place the title on the most accomplished performer, or those the bookers believe will generate fan interest in terms of event attendance and television viewership." In other words, it's all fake. Now if you have some legitimate points to counter any of the problems that I, and others have raised, we'd love to hear them. Because ignoring legitimate issues, points and suggestions is certainly not a way to help improve this article. Finally, you mentioned "the rules that have applied in the past with respect to inclusion and exclusion." Where can we read these rules and who created them? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the most important criteria for inclusion is whether it is recognized as a notable or historic first by other sources. For example, a Google search of "Gabby Douglas" and "First African-American" yields 3,356 news articles noting this.Mcusa (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources I've read mention the AA-first only in passing along with some other simple facts. They don't give this single fact much due weight and so should we.TMCk (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about TMCk? It is an undisputed, widely-reported fact that Douglas is the first African-American to win the all-around gymnastics gold. It was featured on the TV coverage of the Olympics, is fully sourced in the Douglas article, and was reported by thousands of media outlets (TV and print). So it's curious why you are attempting to downplay this important accomplishment. Of course it's going to generally be mentioned "in passing"; there's not much to say beyond the impressive fact that she's the first to do it. What do you want them to do, write a book? And you don't think it's been given "due weight"? Here are just a few random sources, out of the thousands out there, that reported the accomplishment. What do the headlines or leads say? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Douglas's first has received much more coverage than many of the firsts currently on the list ever got; I'll bet more than at least half of them. In fact, many of the firsts on the list got almost no coverage. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"many of the firsts on the list got almost no coverage" is a remarkable and outrageous statement: African-Americans were being treated like second-class citizens, so of course their achievements were't necessarily covered by the mainstream press, which was generally unaware of many of virtually all of these firsts before Jackie Robinson at the very least. And simply because there's a lot of coverage now in a 24/7 media-saturated world means nothing: If that's the yardstick, Snooki is more notable than Gandhi. Meaningless.
And before we go further, 76.189.114.163 is a new user as of August 4 July 31, an essentially a single-purpose account whose overwhelming majority of edits has been to the same pages as Mcusa (who had only three edits, in 2011, before August 3). The IP's first edit to this article, at 05:47, 4 August 2012‎ , seems done to avoid WP:3RR on the part of Mcusa. It seems clear these are WP:SOCKPUPPET or meat-puppet accounts, and having both of them argue the same point is invalid and not kosher. We don't use two identities to make it look as if there are two people arguing the point, and we don't recruit our friends to come join us in arguing our point. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they're sockpuppets. The IP has a long-running series of requests at User talk:Zepppep#Gabby Douglas, asking Zepppep to make edits while that article was semi-protected. If they were puppets, that wouldn't have been necessary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that. Mcusa wasn't auto-confirmed yet at the time the article was semi-protected. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Intersting how you two, who think you own this article, will not address any of the key issues brought up, yet you take the time to falsely accuse me of being someone else. Haha, pretty pathetic. First, if I was someone else, I would be editing the Douglas article instead of asking someone else to do it for me. In fact, I'm the one who got an admin to protect that article because of continual disruptive editing. Second, accusing someone of being someone else can get you banned from editing if you don't file a report. So I would suggest you do that if you actually believe I'm that other guy. And btw, I discovered in the edit history of this article that the other guy is actually the one who tried to remove Barksdale from this article, and I'm obviously the last person in the world who would want Barksdale removed. So stop your nonsense because you feel threatened by legitimate problems being discussed here. Is this what you do... when someone disagrees with you, you attack them? Nice. If you continue to falsely accuse me of being someone else without filing a report, I will report you and have you banned form editing for awhile. Trust me, if an admin checks on me and the other guy, you will be laughed at. But go for it if you're feeling lucky. Now, why don't you focus on the discussion at hand and address some of the issues with this article instead of hiding from them. Tenebrae, you can continue trying to deny the fact that Douglas's accomplishment is substantial if you want, but you just lose credibility when you say so. I've presented facts and evidence. All you do is talk and ignore. And when I said many of the firsts on the list got almost no coverage, I was replying to the person who said it hasn't gotten any significant coverage. Interesting how you are going out of your way to denegrate Douglas's accomplishment. I wonder why. Tenebrae, let me tell you something. You are not going to bully anyone on here because you think you control this article. You don't. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw, the way I found out about this discussion is because the other guy, mcusa, left a comment on the Gabby Douglas talk page. I had been working on that article. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And you yourself might not want to throw aroiund accusations of WP:OWN when a look at the edit history will show that not just Malik and I but Fat&Happy and a host of others have all contributed constructively to this article — whereas you are simply a single-purpose account uninterested in trying to improve this altruistic free encyclopedia but simply trying to shoehorn in an apparent fan favorite of yours: Your history shows you doing nothing for Wikipedia except adding to Gabby Douglas, so if anyone here has an agenda, it's only you.
And for a "new" user you seem to have remarkable familiarity with Wikiepdia terminology, although not with the policy of WP:CIVIL. In any case, a meat puppet wouldn't show up in an IP search, and I continue to maintain that the timing of your sudden appearance is suspect.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Did I say I was new to editing here? Don't think so. I believe that is you assuming that. If you think I'm someone else, report it. Otherwise, knock it off or else you're going to get yourself banned for awhile. I have no other accounts. What seems apparent is that you feel threatened by people questioning your role in this article and presenting you with valid concerns and questions. Your history in all the talk page discussions and the editing history makes clear what you've been doing here. So when you get challenged, instead of focusing on the issues to help this article, you make baseless allegations. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"Single-purpose account"? Apparently, you don't like facts, do you? Anyone can look at my edit history and see that your claim is false. And I'm not sure why you think mocking me by implying I'm some big Gabby Douglas fan is appropriate. I hardly knew anything about her before the Olympics. But what she did was great, I respect what she's done, and I chose to help with that article and then here when that guy commented about it on the Douglas talk page. And if I was such a huge fan of hers and I was that other user, why haven't I edited the Douglas article? <silence> Are you ever going to address that issues that this discussion was created to address? Or are you just going to continue avoiding that and instead continue making your baseless and hostile claims? You're starting to prove me correct that you don't care about improving this article; that all you want is to control its content. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
RE: "Did I say I was new to editing here?" is a disingenuous comment since your first edit under this anon IP address was July 31. If you have a habit of editing under multiple IP addresses — rather than registering and creating a history and a talk-page history through which other members of the community can see what your long-term behavior has been like — then that says something about the kind of editor you are. It's a way of not revealing whether you've been blocked or banned for incivility and disruptive editing in the past.
I'd like Mcusa to weigh in on this discussion, given the similarities of your edits and attitudes.
Your allegations of my being "threatened" are too baseless and uncivil to deserve a response.
I and other editors responded to the content of the initial Gabby Douglas edit, saying that parsing "firsts" so minutely as to include them for every single Olympic sport is obviously beyond the purview of this article, just as giving every first mayor of every town or city in the US is obviously beyond the purview of this article. No one except you and Mcusa are arguing in favor of such WP:INDISCRIMINATE inclusion. That lack of consensus might have indicated something to you about the proposed content, but it did not, and you continued arguing and making insinuations about the motives of any editor who disagrees with you. So: We've addressed the content issue. Continuing to do so is redundant. And most responsible Wikipedia editors don't do lengthy diatribes insulting others. It's hard not to respond to insinuations and accusations, but we try to avoid it.
But let me say this: My record on this article clearly shows I care about improving it; look at all the highly specific and well-researched footnotes I've added for, say, the first African-American commercial pilots. Then try to tell me with a straight face that I don't care about improving this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Tenebrae, you wouldn't know the truth if it dropped on your head. You can't even get your facts straight. You continually make baseless claims with zero proof to back it up. Now you're spouting this crap that I advocated to have "every single Olympic sport" and "every first mayor of every town or city in the US" (just like Mcasa). Really?? Where did I say either of those things?? Show us the damn proof? You can't, because it doesn't exist. Anyone can read #5 and #8 that I wrote on the Suggestions list below and see that both of your claims are bull. What do #5 and #8 say? #5 says that I only want Olympic events that give an "overall" gold for the sport, which is a limited number of sports. There's no overall gold in swimming, for example. And #8 says I only think major cities with a minimum set population should be included. So enough of your crap lies already. And what a surprise, we're STILL waiting for you to address why all those fake pro wrestling firsts are on the list. I guess you'll just continue your habit of ignoring legitimate questions and concerns. But you know what, it doesn't matter. Because contrary to what you think, this is not your article. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Just more babble from you. Doth protest too much. And how interesting that you pretend everyone agrees with you. But fortunately, everyone else can read and see that there are FOUR people who disagree with you: me, Mcasa, Evanh2008 and Zepp. Nice try, though. You can deny it all you want, but the record speaks for itself. Anyone reading all the talk page discussions and reviewing your edit history here can clearly see that you think you are the boss of this article. Perhaps you're still Wikiaddicted and need to be banned from editing again like you were previously. [12][13]. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I realize users may take issue with one another from time to time. We are invited to utilize each others talk page for a list of grievances. For this article's talk page, however, there have been specific items raised and propositions stated and we should again aim to utilize as much space on this talk page as possible for discussion pertaining to and about the article itself (that is, content). Namely, 1) what are the defining criteria to appear on the list, and 2) specifics in regards to different fields. Let's work to build consensus on the biggest tasks and for other items (such as a specific athlete, wrestler, mayor, etc.) discussion can resume at a later date -- or at the very least, a different thread. {Let's first plot the garden space and come up with a definition of what is allowed to be planted into the garden; we can then discuss specific "vegetables" or "fruits" or "grains" that become available from the nursery from time to time, but at the appropriate time and not to the detriment of the garden space itself or the 95% of what was planted with work from all of us (nd those who preceded us and may not be following this discussion.)) Zepppep (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've said my piece but I will just note this quote from CBS News:

"But last night, her mother was there as she vaulted into Olympic history. Douglas is the first African American and only the fourth American woman to win the all around individual gymnastics gold medal. Mary Lou Retton was the first.

"She has inspired a whole generation of young African Americans to say, 'You know what I can do this too,'" Retton said. "I mean, I get goosebumps when I say it. 'I can do and be just like Gabby Douglas and do what she did, the world is at my doorstep.'"

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57486697/olympic-champion-gabby-douglas-a-hometown-hero-to-aspiring-gymnasts/ Mcusa (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I see Douglas has been added by some editors in the recent past, the latest by Fat&Happy, with the edits reverted with the summary of "per consensus on the talk page." If you look at the above comments, I'd say the consensus split, at best, with some (such as me) not even having weighed in yet. If edits are going to be reverted on the basis that consensus was reached "and you look at the details on the talk page," I think actual consensus needs to be met. Zepppep (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you clarify the above post and maybe supply a couple of diffs? It seems to be saying I added Douglas, which I didn't, and that one or more of the Douglas additions had been reverted with the "per consensus" message, which I don't find. Thx. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm taking it to be newsworthy, deserving of an add at women's gymnastics, Olympic Games, or the event(s) she won, but not sufficiently significant for this page. As said above, "first medal" or "first gold" would do it; I'm not even entirely convinced "first in a Winter/Summer Olympics" meets the test.
On sports, shouldn't Wendell Scott be mentioned for being first ever black driver in NASCAR, too? Or am I wrong, & there was somebody in the '40s? (My memory is tickling...)
BTW, on Barksdale, 1st to make the team is a separate issue, since that's an Olympic first in its own right. If Douglas was first black woman on the women's gymnastic team, she'd go in. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure... Are you saying the first African American to make the team for each Olympic team sport should be included (presumably regardless of whether they medaled or not)? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and the problem with Wendell Scott might be that according to his article the date he became the first licensed NASCAR driver is obscured by a lack of good records, unless we can come up with an agreement to include circa dates, maybe at the beginning or end of the closest decade. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Fat&Happy. Typo. I know you didn't add Douglas. 74.177.194.188 added Douglas at 05:47 on 4 August, reverted by The Magnificent Clean-keeper per "was discussed and rejected". Mcusa removed Barksdale per "only first Olympic medalist allowed" at 16:57 on 4 August, reverted by Fat&Happy at 18:21 on 4 August per "rv pouty disruptive removal of 4-year-old stable consensus content without discussion" and finally, 68.174.104.40 added Douglas at 10:43 on 7 August, reverted by Fat&Happy at 15:58 on 7 August per "rev not ground-breaking as explained at talk page, latest of a long line of gold medal winners." Zepppep (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I know my eyes have been bothering me a bit, but I was pretty sure they weren't that bad. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you believe consensus has been reached? Zepppep (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
In the current discussion(s) – not even close. Which means the status quo ante is maintained until a new consensus to change is reached. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
♠"Are you saying the first African American to make the team for each Olympic team sport should be included" Every? I'm not sure. First ever, certainly. I take it Barksdale wasn't... And as I think of it, I should have recalled this guy. :(
♠On Scott, I get it. I'm just wondering if I had misunderstood & there was a confirmed case of a guy in the '40s, 'cause I'm getting a tickle saying there was. As for sourcing on Scott, would the NASCAR site do it? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We currently show John Taylor as being part of the gold-medal-winning medley relay team in 1908, five years before even "that guy" was born.
  • His article says Scott has often been erroneously described as starting in the 1940s. That may be what you were thinking of. I skimmed the NASCAR site; it looks like they consider him as having appeared out of nowhere in 1961. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please start a new section if you want to discuss people other than Gabby Douglas. This thread is about the Douglas issue only. Thanks. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Fat&Happy, as Zep pointed out, you reverted an editor who added Douglas today and your edit reason was "rev not ground-breaking as explained at talk page, latest of a long line of gold medal winners." By saying "explained at talk page", it implied that there was consensus on the issue, which is untrue. At this point, 4 have said no to adding her and 4 have said yes, including the editor you reverted today. Zep has not said either way. I am not opposed to not including her IF there is a separate list devoted to Olympics firsts, but editors should not be reverted and told there's consensus if there actually isn't consensus. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
All I implied directly follows from what I said: This issue was/is being discussed on the talk page. What you incorrectly inferred is your responsibility, not mine. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
"As explained" means a ruling or determination was made i.e. consensus. You didn't say "is" and you didn't say "discussed". And you also reverted yet another editor, calling his edit "pouty disruptive removal of 4-year-old stable consensus content," which again is totally misleading, if not outright false. First, that guy was not being pouty or disruptive at all, AND he explained why he did the edit here on the talk page, which made it clear he was trying to be friendly and helpful. Second, where's this "stable consensus" you referred to? Other editors are stating there should be no listings for gold in individual sports; that only first golds in each Olympics (Summer and Winter) should be added, yet Barksdale has a listing for first gold in basketball. Huge contradiction. So why should Barksdale be on the list, but Douglas shouldn't? Either Barksdale should be removed or Douglas should be added. But it can't be both ways, which is exactly what you're advocating... yes to Barksdale, no to Douglas. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Given a 1908 date, & previous mention, let me add a "delete" to Douglas. As an Olympic first, yes (& isn't there a page for those now?). As African-American, no.
Re Scott, it may be erroneous attribution, but I saw it on a WP page in ref the Indy 500, IIRC. Just what page, IDK...& searching every driver page on every race report... 8o I'll default to leaving it alone, with a standing request somebody add it if it's proven true & sourced. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What does 1908 have to do with Gabby Douglas? No, there is not a list of AA Olympic firsts. If there was, I'd be fine with having Douglas on that list only. And why does Don Barksdale qualify for the list as "First African-American Olympic gold medal basketball winner", yet some edtiors are saying that Gabby Douglas should not qualify as the first AA gold medal winner in overall gymnastics? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess there are 2 questions: 1. Does Gabby belong on this list as currently constituted? 2. Does Gabby belong on a list of very notable African-American achievements?

I think the answer to 1 is "yes". The current list contains some very minor achievements (which I think, in general, are fine - there is nothing inherently wrong with a broad list). The answer to 2 depends on how exclusive the list is. But if we restrict ourselves to whether Gabby to THIS LIST, then I think the answer is overwhelming "yes". We could always add her and then delete the entry if consensus was that the list was to be more exclusive.

I thought that the general point of wikipedia is that we were supposed to reflect opinion and not create opinion - I am new to wikipedia so I may need some guidance here. I have stated above (which no one has directly commented on) that this was widely reported in the news media as an historic first. So by the logic of wikipedia, does that not make it an historic first for this list? If major news outlets were reporting on the first AA to win the Tiddlywinks championship, we might all agree that this was insignificant but shouldn't we still list it based on the "notability" of the event? If society has determined that Gabby was notable, it is not our job to be the cop and deem it insignificant. Mcusa (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mcusa asked me politely and in good faith to address this point again. Yes, many news outlets may refer to this person's or that person's first as historic, but historic in what context? If this were a list solely of Olympic achievements, her inclusion would be warranted. In a list of national historic firsts in which the first Af-Am Olympic competitor and first gold medalist is already included, no. There's a policy that states, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". So, yes, we are the cop in that respect, but no, we're not deeming her accomplishment insignificant by any stretch of the imagination — we're simply saying it doesn't fit in this context. The first Af-Am elected to state government in Montana is certainly a historic first within a certain context, but, likewise, not within this context of major, national historic firsts. I hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The indiscriminate tag has nothing to do with this issue. Please see "NOTABILITY" While this deals with whether a subject can have an article, I would argue that it should be the same standard for inclusion in a list. Mcusa (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


As has been stated repeatedly, this list clearly and obviously does not include the first Af-Am winner of every Olympic sport. That's not even a discussion.
As to the first Af-Am on an Olympic basketball team: I would say that unless he was the first Af-Am on any Olympic team (as opposed to individual) sport, then no, he does not belong. If he were the first on a team sport, making it by definition the first integrated team with an Af-Am, then yes, that would be as historically significant as the first integrated US Army unit. But for basketball itself? No. No more than the first Af-Am gymnastics, skeet-shooting, javelin throw, skiing, swimming, dressage, bobsled, ping pong, hurdles, bicycling, etc. etc. etc. person. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Tenebrae, you say "That's not even a discussion" (your opinion) about having the first gold in every Olympic sport, but in fact it has been a very big discussion because of the Barksdale listing, which totally contradicts not having Douglas on the list. So, finally, we're getting somewhere on the Barksdale issue. Interesting that it's been asked about countless times by multiple editors, yet this is the first time you have chosen to respond to it. Barksdale is currently on the list for "First African American on an Olympic basketball team" and "First African-American Olympic gold medal basketball winner"? If the first on a basketball team is included, then the first on a swimming team, gymnastics team, water polo team, ski team, skeet shooting team, hockey team, etc., must be included. And if we have the first gold for basketball, then the first gold for every other sport must be included. Either they all should make the list, or none of them should. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Douglas has been added for the second time in three days by two different users. Zepppep (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And three times in the past eight days by three different users. I would have been the fourth, but I chose to discuss it here. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Refusing RfC response
I have been randomly selected as the editor to provide RfC for this page. However, I have withdrawn my name from consideration for this particular RfC.Zepppep (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_African-American_firsts/Archive_2&oldid=1170659813"