Talk:Timeline of African-American firsts

List formatting

I deleted the long introduction and left one introductory sentence, as is the norm on Wikipedia. The content I deleted may be appropriate for adding to related articles. Spylab 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe two short paragraphs is a "long" intro. See Women in comics for a similar intro. I did try to find Wikipedia list policy by Googling "Wikipedia" and "lists", but found no relevant links. Could you point me to the relevant policy page? Thanks! --Tenebrae 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about any policy page on the matter. I'm judging this on viewing countless list and article pages. The whole point of having list VS article pages is that list pages are just that, lists - usually spun off from an article that provides the context and in-depth information. Many list pages don't have any introductions at all. Women in comics is supposed to be an article, not a list, since the word list is not in the title. As you can see, there is discussion about that issue, and whether it should be merged with something else. Spylab 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have found the policy, at Wikipedia:List guideline, which says: "All articles should include a lead section, and stand-alone lists are no exception." With all due respect, please do not substitute your opinion ("I'm judging this on viewing countless list and article pages. The whole point of having list VS article pages is that list pages are just that, lists.") for Wikipedia policy. I'm returning the brief lead section as written, because it provides the list's necessary context and because it follows Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please copy edit or make factual corrections, but do not pare it down to a less useful state simply based on your own preferences. The most important thing to remember is not to lose sight that the best any of us can do for this article is to expand the firsts that it lists.--Tenebrae 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead section, something I found while reading Wikipedia:The perfect article ... and forget about Googling "Wikipedia" because everything you need is Right Here.) --72.75.105.165 22:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Every claim here needs a source. Without it, the claims should be deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For blue-link persons and entities, the sources appear within their individual Wikipedia articles, as per std Wiki practice. --Tenebrae 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing standard about it. Other lists have been criticized for lack of citations, and plenty of lists now have citations. See List of bow tie wearers. Noroton

DevorahLeah (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)I have a citation for my addition of Crystal Bird Fauset (first African-American woman elected to a state legislature) but I have never figured out how to do the citations correctly, so it's from the Cleveland Call and Post, 17 November 1938, p. 6. Also, I deleted the 1938 assertion that Hal Jackson was on WINX, the first black network announcer-- there was no WINX in 1938 (it didn't go on the air till 1951; and it was not part of any network). Jackson was indeed a pioneer with a long career, but as far as I know (and I'm a media historian), he was not on NBC, CBS or Mutual in 1938-- they were the three networks.

Jackie Robinson

One commonly cited example is that of Jackie Robinson, who in becoming the first African-American Major League Baseball player

What the heck does that mean? Besides the weird wording, this isn't true. There were African American MLB players prior to Robinson, just not for a long time. Moses Fleetwood Walker, for example, played for the Toledo Mudhens, then a National League team, in 1884. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete the Jackie Robinson example if you think it's a bad example; it'd be good to substitute another example to make the reason for this list's significance as explicitly clear as possible.

Jackie Robinson, in books and documentaries and a statute in his honor in Jersey City, is technically as the first Major League Baseball player of the "modern era," a standard term used by sportswriters and historians for technical accuracy. I'm not sure I'm following: Are you saying Jackie Robinson's appearance on a major-league team in 1947 wasn't groundbreaking? --Tenebrae 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all, it was clearly groundbreaking, but we need to make it clear in an encyclopedia that there were others before him, even if it wasn't for several years. I believe that "the modern era" refers to post-1900, but don't quote me on that. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a qualifyer onto the end of that section to clear things up a bit. User:VintageGuitarGuy

There already was a qualifier: the first African American of the modern era. Your sentence ("However, this is not true") didn't belong there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

George Washington Woodbey

Re the uncited claim that in 1902, the tirst African-American member of the Socialist Party of America was George Washington Woodbey: I can find references to him belonging to the party, and to being an important orator for it, but nothing that says he was the first actual member. --Tenebrae 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dehyphenated African American

The Wikipedia article is named "African American," with no hyphen ... I just changed over 120 instances on the main page ... please change it when you find it in other aricles as well. --72.75.105.165 22:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The title should have been hyphenated; it was an oversight that it wasn't. According to the AP Stylebook and Strunk & White, a compound modifier is hyphenated, except for adverbs ending in "ly." Wikipedia policy is to follow those guides for grammar and spelling. --Tenebrae 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you move the article named African American to African-American while you're at it? —72.75.105.165 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because "African American" isn't modifying anything. The phrase "African-American man" uses the term as a compound modifier. No biggie. I do notice that though you signed your post as 72.75.105.165 (talk · contribs), the history here records you as User:Dennette. I don't want to open a can of worms, but using sock puppets really isn't cool. --Tenebrae 04:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! It's context sensitive ... just got overwhelmed by the sheer number in this one article. <Sigh!> Will have to revisit the pages on my watchlist, but not tonight. --72.75.105.165 08:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please DO NOT edit other people's posts. That's a breach of Wikipedia policy. I've restored the information you removed from my post above.

Regarding context: "Major League Baseball" is the official name of the organization. "Playing baseball on the major-league level" requires a hyph.

Please note I did work with you on the excellent stylistic change you made. --Tenebrae 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First interracial gay kiss on Television

Wouldn't this be Six Feet Under? Yes, it is an HBO show, but it's still television and not film, and should probably count. 209.51.87.93 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

HBO indeed is TV (no matter what the slogan says!). I'd missed the one that predated Will & Grace's. Do you have an airdate? --Tenebrae 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing at least one example of a black man kissing another guy on Oz, circa 1999. Kransky 10:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have the episode, airdate and actors? --Tenebrae 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First interracial kiss was on the orginal Star Trek in the 1960s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.142.130 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This belongs into the list "iterracial firsts", not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.41.38.218 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First to hold public office

The article on Alexander Twilight says that he was the first African-American to hold public office (Vermont legislature). But this article says that distinction belongs to John Mercer Langston, who came along much later than Twilight. This site supports the claim for Twilight. Can anyone shed some light on this? Awbeal 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How little notable do we want to get?

Before it was deleted, the general List of African Americans had numerous mentions of "firsts" I copied the page in order to add some items here. But that list has some less notable achievements, so when I'm not sure, I'm going to list them below and let other editors decide whether they should go on the page's list and be bold and put them there if they want. I don't have an opinion on whether they should be in or out.Noroton

Here goes:

• Frank J. Anderson (born 1938?), first African-American Sheriff of Marion County, Indiana [1]
• Tom Colbert (born 1949), first African-American Oklahoma Supreme Justice
• Barbara Jordan (1936-1996), first African-American woman elected to Texas Senate
• Ellis O. Knox (1900-1975), first African-American to earn doctorate on West Coast (1931), educator, civil rights leader
• Jeanine McIntosh, first African American female in the Coast Guard to earn the U.S. Coast Guard Aviation Designation
• Benjamin Ward (1926-2002), the first African-American New York City Police Commissioner

I think we can all agree this is too random. Most of these things should be on the national level. Events with early dates (for example if this had been in 1838) might be more notable. futurebird 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, but just in case ... Noroton 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the size and significance of NYC, for which we list first Af-Am mayor, and given that we list the NYPD's first Af-Am cops, Benjamin Ward seems like he would go on the page. Thoughts? --Tenebrae 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Jordan was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1994; she's an icon for African American Women and beacon of hope who demonstrates just what vision, struggle, and heart can do. So in her case I feel it's fair to give her a sentence in such a great article.I urge you, don't try to remove her based on an arguement of her insufficient importance. Barbara Jordan was one of the Greats, I can tell you that history will not soon forget her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.133.173 (talk • contribs)

There are many inspirational people like Ms. Jordan, but that's not what the article lists. Unless she were the first African American or African-American woman to win the Presidential Medal of Freedom, she doesn't really fit the list. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we have more strategy? For instance, major cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, DC; New York, Seattle and Los Angeles have all had first African-American mayors, but not all are yet listed here. Cities over 500,000? The cities' sizes and attention give them notability, and the people have been active in national politics and the US League of Mayors, so the men have had bigger than local platforms.--Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Racism found within the article

There are people mentioned as being the "first" to do something in List of African-American firsts, however they are not African-American. For example: Roxie Roker was one half of the first television interracial couple in 1976, but she is from The Bahamas, not an African nation. Does anyone else think that this is mildly racist? --Alex__0888 1:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Come on! It's just a mixup. How anyone could interpret that as being racist is beyond me! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.117.27 (talk • contribs)

The character, which is what the line refers to, was African-American. The line is not saying the actors were a real-life couple -- it's only talking about the fictional couple.--Tenebrae 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do Afro-Carribean Negro peoples not count for the purposes of this article? They came from Africa originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.198.236 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If they're living in the U.S. when they accomplish their first, they would certainly fall within the purview of this article. I'm sure there are African-Americans from Haiti, etc., on the list. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My secratary at CU was a black from the British Virgin Islands, and she hated being called African American because she was neither African nor American. 93.136.112.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Doesn't anyone else but me find the whole concept of this page racist? There is no page of first for anyone with red hair or brown eyes, so why black skin? I thought wikipedia is supposed to be a global enterprise yet this sort of thing still reflects a U.S bias. Just because the 'nation of the free' still has a way to go before people are just people regardless of physical characteristics doesn't mean that we should accept the inherent discrimination in picking these people out as special cases. Yes, there are many notable achievement by people fighting for their freedom but the same is true of any society in flux. Where is the page listing notables in the development of private capitalism in Russia, gay rights firsts etc? This whole page should be removed IMHO. kimdino (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for rename

I have gone through the entire article. Ab initio it states African-Americans are a demographic minority in the United States and the list itself shows a strong leaning towards only US-related milestones. I propose the page be renamed to List of African-American firsts in USA or List of African-American firsts in America or something similar, to better reflect the character of the list. xC | ☎ 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't those titles be redundent insofar as the term African American already implies American? --Beaker342 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It would, you're right. Hadn't thought of that. Another question - is it neccessary to have the words First African-American church/author/newspaper etc. Those words are repeated again and again for every list item, wouldn't that be redundant as well? Just wondering. xC | ☎ 05:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it might be redundant, but I think that can be viewed as a safety feature. A lot of newspaper journalists, students writing papers, etc., use Wikipedia, and if a line says simply, for instance, "First West Point graduate" rather than "First African-American West Point graduate", believe me, there will be published accounts of someone African-American listed as the very first West Point graduate ever. I would err on the side of caution, though I'd certainly go along with the consensus if otherwise.--Tenebrae 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great edits

Kudos to User:Wysinger and [2] for addedin great and needed footnotes in the lead.

It's quite a good list-article, isn't it?--Tenebrae 15:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Obama Not The First Primary/Caucus Winner

Barack Obama isn't the first African-American to win a primary or caucus. Jesse Jackson won five in 1984. Obama is the first to win the Iowa caucus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.60.203 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Will & Grace

TV.com, Yahoo.tv [3], TwizTV.com [4] and TVRage.com (unlinkable from Wikipedia) all list Steve Gabriel. Only IMDb lists James Sandoval. The NBC site doesn't seem to list individual episode credits in its episode guide. Does anyone have a DVD to check? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

it too, am inclined to believe grabriel is the correct writer. (yahoo gabriel) apparently sandoval is a primarily a producer, actor, etc, but i could not find any credits as writer....except imdb. (Baseline StudioSystems) (yahoo sandoval) (dvd box) --emerson7 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

List of European-American firsts

Is there one? If there is, I'm assuming it would be named "List of white firsts", because "African American" always has a counterpart of "white". I don't think there is one, but correct me if I'm wrong. Redsox7897 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_White-American_firsts —Preceding unsigned comment added by WrightisRight05 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction needs resolved re: 1st Af-Am female pilot

There is contradictory reportage from two sources making competing claims. Since this involves not just this article but also the article Vernice Armour, which makes a major point of this claim, I've removed this entry from this article until the competing claims can be sorted out on this talk page and any related pages can be adjusted. I'll put a note at Talk:Vernice Armour as well, suggesting that discussion be centered here.

The Wiki article Vernice Armour cites the Jet magazine article "Vernice Armour, 1st black female combat pilot, serves in Persian Gulf as family copes - National Report", April 14, 2003, by Nicole Walker. It says, "After flight school, Armour took an assignment at Camp Pendleton Naval Air Station near San Diego, CA, and honed her skills piloting the famed Super Cobra. In March 2002, she was recognized as the Department of Defense's lone African-American female combat pilot."

The editor changing the claim to that of Captain Christina Hopper (who has no Wikipedia article) cites the webzine Talking Proud!, which has much less of a publishing history than Jet and may not or may not use professional journalists, but is a niche publication specializing in the subject. The article "'Thumper' Hopper, F-16 fighter jock, Iraqi war vet, instructor pilot", non-bylined, published February 26, 2005, says, "Her squadron deployed in December 2002 to Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait as part of the 332rd Air Expeditionary Wing supporting Operations Southern watch and Iraqi Freedom, making her the first Air Force African-American female fighter pilot to fight in a war."

I'm wondering whether Armour was the first female Af-Am combat pilot, and Hopper the first female Af-Am combat pilot deployed in a war zone?

Could fellow editors come in and help research/comment on this? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying...

I restored the entry for Capt. Armour. The Jet article unambiguously calls her "the Department of Defense's lone African-American female combat pilot". The Talking Proud! article (a source of questionable reliability) refers to her in more qualified terms as "the first Air Force African-American female fighter pilot to fight in a war" (emphasis added). Since Capt. Armour was a Marine Corps, helicopter pilot, there doesn't seem to be a real conflict here, just a mis-reading of the two statements by the editor who made the original revision. Since Capt. Armour's actual date of deployment to Iraq wasn't mentioned (or I missed it), we can't say for sure which was the first deployed; if you consider Capt. Hopper's "first" to be significant, we could add both, but it's sure to confuse at least one reader per week. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Education and academia

Given the heroic efforts for education in the 19th and 20th century, I think there should be more effort to locate first educators, college presidents, etc. This leans toward politicians and sports figures, also military. The example of men who became presidents of historically black colleges inspired generations. More than one of the founders of the sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha earned master's degrees at Columbia University in the early 20th century. (I'll be looking, too.)--Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberia called an African-American nation?

Isn't this rather colonial? Weren't there Africans living there when African-Americans went there?--Parkwells (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

First, it's a pleasure to have someone like you with such academic-research skills join the editors here! Second, you make a good point, and it's worth noting that an African nation and a African-American nation are two distinct things, with the difference being cultural and not just semantic. African-American culture, like Appalachian culture, for example, is considered indigenous to the United States and did not previously exist — so Liberia at its founding was a unique entity. That makes it historically notable, and certainly a first. Was its founding colonialist or imperialist? By today's standards, probably so. But it's an objective and unique historical first nonetheless. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I do understand about Liberia; it just struck me oddly. And thanks for your encouragement. Already this has been so interesting, as I was coming across people not thought about in a while, and learning more all the time. Many years of achievement on this list. It's good to see the progress.--Parkwells (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Word that, amigo. Some nice work there you're doing! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Mayors?

Maybe you're right to delete some mayors, but Washington, DC, and cities where African Americans had gone in the Great Migration seemed important to me - also a hugely white majority city like Seattle. DC had not long been a majority black city. Otherwise you could establish a population limit of over one million, say, and take out all that don't qualify. Maybe only LA, Chicago and NY would stay in; would have to check Cleveland's population then.--Parkwells (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the three largest cities, as you suggest, and adding a "See also" to the page that would take us to "List of first African-American mayors." That would open the door to everything from small towns down South on up, providing an eventually comprehensive and helpful specialty list without making this page excessively long or too minutely parsed. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Earlier today I removed Walter Washington, the first African-American mayor of Washington DC, because he was DC's first elected mayor of any color. Before 1975, when he was elected, DC's leader was appointed by the President, and he was not a mayor. See List of mayors of Washington, D.C. for the boring details.

Because of the unique situation in DC, I don't think it's appropriate to include Walter Washington's 1975 election as an "African-American first". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(2) In general: There are a few very significant "first Black" mayors elected in the early 1970s: Hatcher in Gary, Stokes in Cleveland, and Gibson in Newark. After that, I would include only a small number of major cities such as Atlanta, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, possibly Detroit (roughly 1 million people), and maybe some others I'm not thinking of at the moment. Beyond that, I personally wouldn't include any others. Just my two cents. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of first African-American mayors would do it. Good idea, because there are interesting stories, for instance, Clarence Lightner was elected mayor in 1973 of Raleigh, NC, the first African-American to be elected in a majority-white southern city. Adding such facts enlarges the picture.--Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We'd have to give some objective reason why Hatcher, Stokes and Gibson are significant. One thing in favor of using population as a cutoff is that's completely objective. If there are quantifiable, special historical reasons for particular individuals, though, I don't think population should be a bar; we just need to watch out for POV subjectivity. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1967, Hatcher and Stokes were elected the first Black mayors of major American cities. Here's a New York Times article that refers to them as "the Jackie Robinsons of contemporary black politics". Here's an excerpt from Eyes on the Prize (the civil rights documentary) about them. At the time, their elections were considered monumental achievements. (Click on the "Press" tab at Eyes on the Prize to see some contemporary news accounts.)

I thought Gibson was elected about the same time, but his bio says it was 1970. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are good sources, and I'll take a look and encourage other editors to do so as well. Thank you for providing the links and the context! I, for one, need to learn more; Cleveland seems understandable, but I'm at a loss to understand why Gary, Indiana, is considered a "major American city." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. My wife is from Gary so I've been there many times, and I wonder the same thing. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would need to find some data, but calling Gary a major city probably referred both to population and to its near past as a major industrial city and powerful economy at one point. It was a place where industrial workers joined the middle class. I think providing some historic context is a good idea; many of the first African-American mayors arose in northern cities which were destinations in the Great Migration and were significant in the urbanization of African Americans, as well as becoming quite different places due to increased diversity from both the GM and European immigrations. I think they were all majority-white cities then, so part of the excitement was about generating wider support. These were really firsts in the context of the list and both mayors elected in 1967 should be included on the main page, I think. --Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is (and I still have to view those links — taking brief break form work at the moment) how do we convey this in a brief logline? Saying "First Af-Am mayor of a small industrial city symbolic of the Great Migration" doesn't work.

Playing Devil's Advocate here: Maybe we're looking at this too comprehensively. We can't list every first of everything, obviously. Maybe we need to see this as a handy, quick-search list of quantifiable firsts, and leave the nuanced stuff to articles about the Great Migration, etc., while including Gary (and every other town for which information is available) on the list of first Af-Am mayors (which I'd really like to see us create, though with the Memorial Day weekend and my own deadlines — yep; workin' over the weekend — may be difficult for me to do myself. Do we like the idea, first off?) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Losing track of the indents) - Yes, I definitely say yes to the mayors' list; it seems to get us out of the difficulties of including too many on this list - although I'd say keep the very first two elected in 1967 (both from white majority northern cities), then also have first AA mayors of NY, Chicago and LA, because those cities are so big.--Parkwells (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you may have also have solved the problem of how to include Gary, Ind. -- "First Af-Am mayor of a white-majority U.S. city." That's quantifiable per the census, and Gary may not be a major city (subjective term though that is) but it is a city. That said, though, who was elected first? Hatcher in Gary or Stokes in Cleveland? By the nature of this list, we only include the first, not the first and the second.

While I'm here (procrastinating! aargh!), could we get a discussion up about first to speak before the American Historical Society? Du Bois was probably the first Af-Am to speak to a lot of groups. If we're not going to list every one, what objective standard can we use to include the AHA and not, say, the Kiwanis or the National Geographic Society or Daughters of the American Revolution, etc.? The first to speak before a world body like the U.N. I would argue is objective -- there are only two or three such world bodies like that, e.g., the U.N. and the World Court -- but how are we to decide what plain old group is to be included and which not? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Stokes and Hatcher were elected the same year, I say include them both. I think the NY Times article mentioned Stokes first, probably because Cleveland was bigger (and African Americans were only about 35% of the population) but not to mention Hatcher the same year seems wrong. It was a watershed year, because there were two black men elected the same year in major cities.

In terms of Du Bois, he trained as an academic and the American Historical Association was the professional association in his field, with membership then limited (I think) to practitioners. It was much more established than the newer field of sociology, which he also wrote about in his career. The so-called Dunning School at Columbia Univ. became very influential in American history about this time, and was telling the southern white view of Reconstruction (that it was filled with corruption and inept blacks, who mostly didn't have an active role). Du Bois' address of the AHA conference meant a panel of the association had accepted a paper from him and found it worthy of discussing at a national conference, not just that he was invited to lecture. The issues in history were important and what he wrote his masterwork Black Reconstruction in response to. So maybe we can limit it to professional associations.--Parkwells (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

After spending too much time on lists, I'm ready to call it a day - 1967 was when both Stokes and Hatcher were elected, so they were first the same year, like the two African-American women honored the same year on Time's cover. But if people vote for the mayor of Gary just to go to the second list, I don't care any more. It had 100,000 plus in 2000, so even if it had twice that in 1967, it was a medium city (but the largest in IN that's not a county seat.) The first mayor of any city was the year before, 1966 in Springfield, OH, but he was appointed by the city commission. So 1967 is still the important first year for elected mayors and we know more than ever elections are important.--Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as Du Bois and the AHA, I still think it was important, because of the people he could come in contact with and who would hear him, but won't press it. I think he's more important than comic books, but that's me. And yes, it's probably too hard to define which speech where. Books and offices are easier.--Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Breaking up the sections

Would anybody object if I broke up the centuries into subsections with decades? Having a single TOC entry (and editing section) for the 20th century is a little unwieldy. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea for the 19th and 20th centuries; not so sure about earlier. What does everyone think?

BTW, nice catch on City of NY. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on just breaking up the 19th and 20th centuries into decade subsections.--Parkwells (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki style issue

When African modifies the noun American, in "first African American elected president", the term is not hyphenated. When it is a compound adjective, as in "first African-American general", it is. I was trying to change entries in the list to reflect that, but got caught in an edit conflict. We should do it right on this list.--Parkwells (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly right about compound modifiers, and while I couldn't find a specific Wiki style guide on the issue, I do see that the article titles Italian American and Japanese American have no hyphs. Seems non-standard to me (like the apostrophe-s The New York Times until recently put in numerical decades, e.g., " It was the 1980's.") but we have to be consistent. So, you are correct, sir! Nice catch! ... and thanks for the discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

New TOC

Oooooh...! Niiiiiice! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure about the new decades headers, though. Having 1910 above 1910 doesn't look right. I'm thinking 1910s, 1920s, etc., are clearer and a shade more accurate. What say we? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New TOC looks great. As far as the decades headers, look again. Not happy with this, either, as some have some irregularities. I tried 1910s, 1920s, etc. first, but that looked strange, too - somehow that "s" sticking out above the other numbers. Try it out yourselves, and decide which you prefer.--Parkwells (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about it, but I prefer the decades (1920s, etc.), although it gets a little awkward with the first decade of the century: 1900s? Any thoughts? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be 1900s. Will change it tomorrow.--Parkwells (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TOC and headers look great, Malik. Thanks; must have worked on it too long yesterday for anything to look good.--Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

List of first African-American mayors

Has been started and can include every one. I've moved some years - mayors need to be identified by the year in which elected, not the year of being sworn in, unless not by election (as in NY this year)--Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I'll go visit!--Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is excellent but why is Douglas Wilder (first African-American governor of Virginia) listed under 1990? He was elected in November 1989 and took office in January 1990. Shouldn't it be "year in which elected, not the year of being sworn in" on this page like it is on the "African-American mayors" page? Also hope to see a certain other change made to the 2008 entry later today. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)mtminchi08

Other lists

There should be other lists like this. 76.126.15.78 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

first African-American presidential candidate?

I thought it was Clennon King in 1960, but now I came across some info indicating it was George Edwin Taylor of the National Liberty Party in 1904; regardless he needs an article. And then I came across mention of Blanche Kelso Bruce, which elsewhere (not in the WP article) says was nominated for, but did not become a candidate for, President. Hmm. See e.g. "Black Blood in the White House" and "Pioneers in Presidential Race." Some editors here may also wish to help with Category:African American United States presidential candidates - in adding people, or maybe turning it into a list so that distinctions can be made between nominees and candidates and so on as well as providing other details. Шизомби (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this page[5] seems to indicate that in 1848 Frederick Douglass received 1 of 104 votes at the convention of the Liberty Party (United States) for President. That might make him both the first AA VP and P candidate. I don't know if it is the same as the National Liberty Party or if they were related in any way. Шизомби (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Again returning to the above syr.edu page, one of the presidential candidates who ultimately received the vice presidential nomination was C.C. Foote. Foote is identified in The Provincial Freeman: A New Source for the History of the Negro in Canada and the United States by Alexander L. Murray The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Apr., 1959), pp. 123-135 as "a white preacher from Detroit." However, in Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass, and the Politics of Representative Identity By Robert S. Levine 259 n.46 he is identified as a "black minister." If AA, he would be the first prior to Douglass. Шизомби (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

First Female General Officer

I'm hoping that I'm in the right area. I would like to have added to this list Hazel W. Johson. In 1979, she was the first African-American woman to earn General Officer rank in the U.S. military. She was the sixteenth commander of the Army Nurse Corps from 01 Sep 1979--31 Aug 1983. This can be verified from the following website: [6] Bigt2448 (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

List of African-American medical firsts

Like List of first African-American mayors, which encompasses all the specific towns and cities that followed the historical first-ever Af-Am mayors, perhaps a similar "List of Af-Am medical firsts" could cover all the dozens and dozens of medical-specialty firsts that would otherwise create a bit of clutter in this list of more general historical firsts. I'm thinking specifically of the the many, many, many neurology firsts that have now been removed twice.

This proposed list would be the better, more focused, and more easily utilized place to list all the many firsts in the dozens of such specific medical specialties. Otherwise, we'll have first male and female ear, eye, nose and throat, ob-gyn, liver specialist, kidney specialist, blood specialist, pancreatic-cancer specialist, neurologist, pharmacologist, toxicologist, knee surgeon, lung surgeon, etc. etc. etc., plus the first to win awards in their field, present papers in their field, head major departments in their field, etc. etc. etc.

It's all too much for this list, just as the plethora of mayors would have been. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"First African-American to Quarterback a HBCU to victory in the Tangerine Bowl"? "First African-American NCAA Division I college softball player to join the elite 1,000 career strikeouts club?"

Really? These are historic, Civil Rights-level firsts? Let's get a discussion going here before we dilute this page with a plethora of sports footnotes. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. According to the lede:

African-Americans' initial achievements 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."

This list isn't intended to be a list of the first African American accomplishment in every endeavor, but those of particular importance. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This list is supposed to be about important African-American accomplishments in history. To state that an interracial gay kiss on television is important but that becoming a neurosurgeon is not is just one example of the ignorance displayed by those seeking to diminish the medical pioneers included here. A big reason many African-American children choose not to go into medicine (or other distinguished specialties) is that they see no role models. This list is a prime way to combat this problem. Yet, the actions of a vocal minority (because the majority of people who appreciated the neurosurgery and other medical pioneers listed here treated them with the respect they deserve, rather than belittling them) have unfortunately robbed many of the opportunity to learn about these extraordinary people. The fact that I linked this page to that of Barack Obama means that there have already been many more visitors than there would otherwise be -- all the more reason why these historic firsts should not be belittled. If people weren't aware of these pioneers, then they should take the opportunity to read and learn about them, rather than ignorantly stating "I wasn't aware of these people, therefore they aren't notable" -- that is the kind of arrogance that helps no one. ----- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotcallerballerballer (talk • contribs) 03:07, October 6, 2008

I don't think anybody is denigrating the achievements of neurosurgeons and other medical specialists. The suggestion is that the first Black physician is a milestone that should be included on a general list. The first Black ENT or neurosurgeon should be in a list of "first Black doctors in their respective specialties", just as we hit a point where the number of "first Black mayors" warranted a list of their own. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who aids and/or abetts in removing the aforementioned accomplishments is contributing (either intentionally or unintentionally) to the denigration of these pioneers. If someone feels strongly enough that these feats warrant a separate page, then it is their obligation to take the time and effort to create that page before deleting these pioneers from this page. That is the point I have been making this entire time. If entertaining feats don't warrant a separate page, then it is reasonable that medical feats shouldn't either. However, if someone feels differently, it is their obligation to create a separate page rather than lazily deleting medical pioneers from the main page. There isn't a single medical feat posted on this page that fails to meet the criteria of "breaking the color barrier". ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotcallerballerballer (talk • contribs) 02:35, October 7, 2008

Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus is against including such finely parsed medical specialties. If you cannot respect consensus, or even sign your posts, a Wikipedia administrator will be asked to intervene and to lock this page. Please read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia for an understanding of the Wikipedia collaborative process.

If you believe these medical-specialty firsts are notable -- and they are, within the parameters of specialty firsts -- then it's actually your own responsibility to create such a page and defend its notability.

In terms of notability, "Entertaining feats" (sic -- I think you meant "entertainment") is an inaccurate characterization for particular mass-media firsts. The first interracial kiss on television, for example, is inarguably a sociocultural milestone in that it was a groundbreaking representation seen by millions and became part of a wider national discussion in magazines and newspapers in turn read by millions. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you think that the first interracial gay kiss on television (not the same as first interracial kiss) was a "sociocultural milestone", it is your responsibility to cite references to support this opinion, just as I have cited multiple references to support the pioneers I have added. I would be more than happy to have an admin judge the quality of your claims versus mine.

I already have read the five pillars of consensus -- the opinion of your loud minority, which seeks to subjugate the majority of people who have seen this page and chosen not to change it, does not constitute a consensus. This is especially true since you provide no evidence (beyond your own opinion) to support your view.

I have already defended the notability of each of the pioneers I have listed (and will now proceed to relist). Therefore, it is your responsiblity to prove that I am wrong in that statement by citing references, not simply your own opinions. I would be happy to discuss this with any admin who has questions about these pioneers.

Wilkipedia works by evidence as well as consensus -- please respect both by providing evidence (not simply your own opinions). Thank you. -- [[::User:Shotcallerballerballer|Shotcallerballerballer]] ([[::User talk:Shotcallerballerballer|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Shotcallerballerballer|contribs]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotcallerballerballer (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the consensus of editors opposed to the relatively obscure and not nationally, culturally noteworthy edits of Shotcallerballerballer and SKOMAGSUG.--69.22.254.108 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, many of their edits appear to be in, I'm sure, good faith, but dubiously sourced -- see my notations in the edit summaries for URLs and details. Please see also Reliable Sources policy. --69.22.254.108 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding today's edits: The entry re first to win multiple chess championships is vague in that it doesn't cite any specific championship. Also, the citation it gives goes to an error page. The Aspis Prize citation refers to Karanja's wiki page. Wikipedia does not allow wikis, including itself, to be used as reference sources, so I think what the editor meant wasn't a wiki page for Karanja but the Wiki (i.e. Wikipedia) page for Karanja, meaning citations there. That's fine. However, aside from one minor newspaper mentioning it, the Aspis Prize gets virtually no Google hits, and the foundation that has granted it, Chess-in-the-Schools, doesn't even mention it on its page. The U.S. Chess Federation doesn't recognize it. It's one of dozens if not hundreds of minor chess awards, and non-notable.

Finally, the line "First African-American to win a national chess championship" gives a citation that say Street won the U.S. Amateur Championship, but which doesn't say he was the first Af-Am to do so, or that the U.S. Amateur Championship was the first national championship won by an Af-Am. Could we find a WP:RS citation that specifically confirms these things? --69.22.254.108 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CC of "Consensus at List of African-American firsts" at User talk:Shotcallerballerballer

Please read WP:Consensus, Wikipedia's policy concerning consensus.

Wikipedia works by consensus. Individual editors don't have to agree with the consensus, but they have to abide by it. Please stop reverting other editors at List of African-American firsts simply because you don't like the consensus. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]. Please stop your edit warring and reversions against consensus. There have been multiple warnings and much discussion over this. If it happens again, we have no choice but to request admin intervention for a block. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These firsts are all positive...isn't that biased???

Why isn't Tookie Williams recognized as the first African American founder of a mainly African American gang, the Crips? Why isn't the year the African American prision population percentage exceeded the African American national population percentage noted? Where is there a mention of the first African American race riot? Not all firsts are positive, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not inspirational reading. 65.6.3.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

These are race-baiting comments, and the examples you give are odd. Criminal gangs are not formal organizations, and are ill-defined. How many people does it take to make a gang? A hundred? Ten? Three? There were likely criminal gangs with African-Americans a hundred years ago or more. Your next example would list not a person achieving a first, but a year. This is a list of individual achievements, not years of statistical milestones. As for race riot, again, how do you define race riot? Is a slave uprising a race riot? How many people does it take before something is considered a "riot"?

Despite all this fuzzy thinking, you do make a point that this list should well include, if traceable and verifiable, the first Af-Am convicted of first-degree murder, or the first to be court-martialed, or impeached, etc. Such events are quantifiable, objective and defined. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

African American criminal firsts should not be included. Such incidents are factual but outside the purview of this list, which is "achievements [that] historically establish a foothold [....] for more widespread cultural change." Criminality is a prejudice long associated with African Americans and thus are not achievements "breaking the color barrier." Locationx3 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"outside the purview of this list, which is 'achievements [that] historically establish a foothold .... for more widespread cultural change.'" That starting proposition is POV, then. "First" should, IMO must, include all firsts. The first African-American gangster (Was that Bumpy Johnson? IDK.) surely produced "cultural change".

"Criminality is a prejudice long associated with African Americans" It's an artifact of the data collection. Is it biased? Yes. Ignoring it is, too, especially since the page is expressly centered on black firsts. Why not whites? Women? Blue-eyed people? Black women? Blue-eyed gay women? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Billy Preston on Saturday Night Live... worth mentioning?

On October 11, 1975, African-American singer-songwriter Billy Preston was one of two musical guests (the other being Janis Ian) who appeared and performed on the very first episode of Saturday Night Live. He was also - chronologically speaking - the very first musical performer. So what do you think, ladies and gentlemen: should this be added to the list? Playsockfilms (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

First Af-Am musician on SNL? That's parsing it pretty minutely. First Af-Am musician on television ever is much more of an historically significant, groundbreaking first. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor firsts

Just as an editor created List of first African-American mayors, a few reinserted state-level firsts keep popping up in this list that's supposed to be of major, historic, national- and international-level firsts. This list is not meant to encompass, say, the first male and female governor, lt. gov, member of the state senate, speaker of the state senate, member of the state assembly, speaker of the state assembly, state supreme court judge and state supreme court head justice. That's just eight categories, times two (male and female) times 50 states (or more if you add territories), and that's 800 names. Even if only a quarter of those are currently applicable, that's 200 names.

This list is not meant to be a catch-all — that dilutes and diminishes it. So, I have taken the state-level firsts and created the page List of African-American US state firsts. If someone wants to do the same for the first male and female in every single medical specialty, as some are trying to do, then please do that rather than add another hundred lines in defiance of consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

John Mercer Langston, 19th c. politician

I see that his election to public office in 1854 followed by many years election of a man in New England, who gets the first. But this is the politician's name: he was born in VA, lived in Oberlin, OH; and was the brother of Charles H. Langston, grandfather to the poet Langston Hughes. (JM Langston in 1888 was the first black elected from VA to Congress.) Sources: Leon F. Litwack and August Meier, eds., Black Leaders of the Nineteenth Century, University of Illinois, 1991.--Parkwells (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (Made corrections) ---Parkwells (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First African American

What about the first African American -- ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.140.217 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetitions

Is it really necessary to have "First African American..." at the beginning of each line? Seems a bit silly to have it repeated 287 times through the article, as if the readers wouldn't already get it from the article title. Laurent (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of variations on the phrase, with the kinds of qualifiers, limiters, etc., that affect any lists of firsts. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kimberly McClelland not a "national champion".

Kimberly McClelland wasn't a national champion. She wasn't even an outright winner - she was one member of a five-way tie for first place in a class section which excluded higher ranked (i.e. better) players as clarified here and here. She was a middle of the pack player at the scholastic level, not even close to the best players on the national level, not a national champion and was deemed to not be notable.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I had previously editied the page to reflect in the notes that there is some doubt to the fact that Barack Obama is the first african american president of the united states. There are reputable sources that state that there is a possibility that Warren G. Harding was of partial african american ancestry and thereby might possibly be considered the first african american presdident under some definitions. I had added a reputable source along with a footnote stating the previous. What merits constitute its removal? I have seen no explanation that would constitute grounds for the noninclusion of this fact on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You did not add a 'reputable source', what you added was the musings of an assistant professor about a spurious attack book that was widely regarded as complete nonsense. The NYT is not the source of an article about this, an Assistant Professor(Beverly Gage) is, from an essay in the magazine portion of the outlet. And all she does is cite the racist attack book and use 'supposedly' and 'rumors', along with innuendos and speculation. I can't see how anyone could take any of that as even a tiny bit factual. Wikipedia editor Stude62 provides a long explanation why this does not belong on Wikipedia, and then again here. Hardings ancestry is listed here, and there is nothing there about any African American ancestors. This addition is nothing but innuendos and accusations to this portion of Harding's life. This not only doesn't belong in anything that has to do with the Barack Obama article, it doesn't belong in the Warren G. Harding article(except for mentioning that it was a racial attack made by Harding's opponents), and surely doesn't belong in the List of African American firsts as this same editor inserted here months ago and was told that is does not belong here. I think an encyclopedia would be willing to treat the accusations as a tidbit found somewhere inside it's vast articles, but not treated as something proven and definitely NOT something that alters proven facts in other articles. In other words, adding as an accusation in the Harding article is ok, but adding it in the Harding article to cast doubt on Harding's ancestry is NOT. You are trying to take a route that is not in the best interests of the facts. To claim that Harding's ancestry is not clear is not true. All the facts that Harding have given about his ancestry are there, and the Harding scholars have long discredited the claims about his AA ancestry. To try and treat these attacks as 'proof' or in anyway a reliable source is pure folly. Even if they were true, which they almost certainly are not, there is no way one could argue that Harding was the first AA President. The 'one drop rule' was a racist KKK way of deriving a person's 'unpure' heritage, if a person's great-great grandmother was of AA blood, that wouldn't make someone an African-American if that person did not identify as an African-American. And it definitely would not make that person the first African-American elected to anything. This does not belong here. DD2K (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it not factual that some scholars think that there is enough evidence to question whether or not barack obama might not be the first african american president by some definitions? There was no discussion or consensus when i had previously tried to add the information to the article, just your opinion on why it should not be there. Many of the points you make can be considered original research.XavierGreen (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Parsing a bit too minutely

The first African-American on a integrated pro basketball team, or on an integrated college or high-school team, would be a milestone. But the reference for David DeJernett does not credit him with any of those milestones. Instead, a site devoted to one particular team says claims only that he was "the first black athlete in United States history to star on an undisputed integrated championship basketball team." And even that article says two other African-Americans "before him (in Chicago and New York City) had played on integrated city champions, but never in an open statewide tournament."

And none of these appear to be the first Af-Am on an integrated high school team -- just the first (possibly) on a (city-? state-? national-? championship team. An integrated team winning a championship isn't a milestone -- the first integrated high school team would be the milestone. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I propose that this page be deleted, unless a page about white American firsts is created, along with hispanic American firsts, native American firsts etc... We can't just single one race out. WrightisRight05 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you create them then? Falcon8765 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_White-American_firsts

Would I have to get approval or something from a senior wikipedian? I have no idea how to go about doing things I'm pretty new haha signed, WrightisRight05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WrightisRight05 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruben Studdard and Fantasia

Why are you people taking my information off of here?! Ruben Studdard is the first African American male to win American Idol and Fantasia is the first African American female to win American Idol. Stop taking my contributions off Malik Shabazz and Fat&Happy. The King Gemini (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed them because they are trivial. Why not include the first African American man to make a guest appearance on The Mary Tyler Moore Show or the first African American woman to make a guest appearance on What's My Line? Those "achievements" are just as arbitrary—and just as trivial. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not trivial if it actually happened. It's history. And now about what you said about "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" and "What's My Line"; if that actually happened, it should be added because it's a part of history. If you are being a butthole, then I suggest you talk to me like an adult and not being a smart-ass. The King Gemini (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush

I (User:Tenebrae) have moved this eminently reasonable discussion here from own talk page in order to get as wide a variety of editors' opinions as possible. Here's the original post:

Tenebrae, I ask that you re-consider deleting Sharon Raiford Bush (nee, Sharon Crews) from List of African-American firsts. Ms. Raiford Bush's contribution to American history is archived by the National Museum of African American History and Culture, a Smithsonian Institution museum, alongside President Gerald Ford's recorded congratulatory remarks to her and the WGPR inaugural news team for becoming the world's first African-American television station on September 29,1975. In effect, Ms. Raiford Bush became the first African-American female weather anchor of prime time news. The Smithsonian registry is TR2009-6. "Please know that we are honored to be the repository for such a significant artifact of African American history," wrote Michele Gates Moresi, curator of collections for the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. Vintage photos of Ms. Raiford Bush were restored by CBS and are also archived at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History (#2009.01). An article was published globally by Exceptional People Magazine in its September, 2010, issue.37Celcius (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, WGPR being the first African-American owned television station seems like a significant national first. I think we should include that if we can source it better than via the cite here. (See concerns, paragraph after next.)

It's not, however, a national network — it's just a local station — and I'm not sure that the evidence above says that Ms. Bush was unquestionably the first African-American woman weatherperson anywhere ever in the U.S. by 1975. Aside from the fact that Af-Ams were appearing on local news outlets in cities like Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, the remarks given above seem to be about the TV station and not specific personnel there.

Also, I'm not sure the cited source passes the reliable source standard. The information about Ms. Bush comes from her own self-written bio page in what appears to be a self-published online magazine. It's not coming from an outside, disinterested third party. I think the policy of WP:SPS enters into it here.

The first Af-Am weatherperson on a national network news program would be a major national first. And the first undisputed Af-Am weatherperson anywhere in the country would be a notable national first. I'm not sure the evidence is there, from any source other than herself, that was was the very first Af-Am or Af-Am woman weatherperson on a U.S. TV station.

Might other editors go to link above and let us know what you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken Hudson

Two pages on the official NBA web site refer to Hudson as "former NBA referee Ken Hudson, the second African-American game official in league history" and "the first person of color to referee a city high school basketball championship (1967) and later became a pioneering NBA referee, officiating in the league from 1968 to 1972 as one of the league's earliest African-American game officials" (emphasis added). I think it would take an extraordinarily good source to support the recent claim that he was the first. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That source looks about as solid as it gets. I'd support removing the Ken Hudson line while we search for a definitive name. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

BET (1980)

What is an "African-American television channel"? And what sources do we have saying BET was the first one? The formulation in the Robert L. Johnson article is a bit more meaningful: "the first cable television network aimed at African Americans". This seems accurate, but even that statement has no cited source. The BET article calls it the first black-controlled company listed on the NYSE, with a reliable source, so that might be worth adding (probably 1991), but that doesn't resolve the television channel questions.

On a related topic, the Johnson article mentions a few firsts. Only one, billionaire, is included here. What's the policy/consensus on listing one person multiple times?

The "billionaire" first is sourced to http://www.factmonster.com/spot/bhmfirsts.html. Is that a reliable source? (I don't honestly think it looks like one, but it might be worth cross-checking for items missing from our list if that hasn't already been done.) Fat&Happy (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that factmoster.com doesn't appear to be a reliable source.

I also agree that BET is better described as "the first cable television network aimed at African Americans" than "the first African-American television channel".

With respect to multiple listings, Barack Obama must be listed four or five times. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just pointing out that Johnson wouldn't be unique if he were listed more than once. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't checked, but expected that (Obama). But I considered him somewhat a special case. Still, do we need both "First AA elected President" and "First AA President"? If those were two different people (a vice-presidential succession and a later election), I could see it, but two for the same event? And isn't "First AA president of Harvard Law Review" much like some things we have termed too finely sliced in other cases, like "First president of Foo University", etc.? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original topic, do you know of any good sources for BET being the 1st network, even though it's sort of common knowledge? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

First African American Women Co-Anchors

On NBC (WRC-TV Channel 4 News in Washington, DC) Pat Lawson Muse and Barbara Harrison were one of the first all-female anchor teams in the country. I am sure they were the first African American Women to accomplish this fantastic honor. My source of information: http://www.nbcwashington.com/on-air/about-us/Pat_Lawson_Muse.html. Am I correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.119.126 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Eleanor Joyce Toliver-Williams

I have for now just commented-out this entry (after formatting the citation link properly) since the only source for this story (other than a non-WP:RS family-written death notice that appears verbatim on various sites) is an undated piece at OurNewsNow.com. That a purportedly professional journalistic website would run stories (others besides this) without dates is troubling, since this is a very, very basic tenet of journalism ("When"). But after reading that obit, and given that this story appears in no mainstream source, it seems apparent that OurNewsNow.com simply used the family-written tribute as its source. This is too flimsy for an encyclopedia, which requires much more concrete sourcing.

As well, this obit and others mention a Black Aviation Hall of Fame, purportedly founded in Memphis, Tenn., in 2001 — yet this supposed hall of fame does not turn up either in a Google search nor a WhitePages.com search. This is another indication that OurNewsNow did no checking, and simply copied what the family claimed. The only sourcing for these claims come from either a self-published family tribute or a non-reliable source. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it seems that this citation is one of several by a conflict-of-interest linkspammer who has been warned by several editors at User talk:Ramzg of his inappropriate behavior. Several editors besides myself have gone through his contributions on about a dozen pages to remove this promotional linkspam. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

First African American MALE pilot?

Bessie Coleman is the first Af-Am *woman* pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_firsts#1920s), but who is the first Af-Am *male* pilot? Not in list. Bessie Coleman can be listed as "First Af-Am pilot", or some other emphasis on being first. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a really good question. I'll do some quick digging. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Haven't found an earlier male pilot, though I did correct the first pilot for a major commercial airline and found the first pilot for a regularly scheduled US airline (a cargo airline). It's entirely possible Bessie was the first, period, but let's check some more. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the sources in the Bessie Coleman article, one of them (footnote #3 at this writing) says first African American to get a pilot's license, male or female. Another source (#2) says she was the first American, regardless of sex or ethnicity, to get an international license, which is noted here but in such a way that it can be taken as a typo. Seems like a couple of tweaks are in order. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! That should have been my first step. Kudos to you, my fine sir! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I found this about another early Af-Am pilot — seems like the first Navy aviator, but may be the first male period — but the article is unclear (an the Air Force began as teh Army Air Force, so I'm not sure where the Navy comes in). I've been Wiki'ing for quite a while today and I'm beat, if someone else wants to untangle this one. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone born in 1926 being the first black pilot, period, seems a bit dubious. When you're less tired, check James Banning and these related refs (if nothing else, we should be safe calling him the first to fly coast-to-coast if that's not a trivial distinction):

http://earlyaviators.com/ebanning.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=QAXWwVrc9TsC&lpg=PA20&ots=BzOwKQFCh0&dq=%22flying%20hoboes%22%20%22banning%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=banning&f=false

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/james-banning-aviation-first "first Black aviator to obtain a license from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce"

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2230.htm ditto, "the first Black flyer licensed by the US Department of Commerce"

Two other possible names, found on page xiv of the Google book, would be Eugene J. Bullard (WWI, flew for French in 1917; added later: reading his own WP article, I want him in this article someplace, probably "1st military pilot") and A. Porter Davis (named with Banning as being licensed in the late '20s; 4th black licensed per http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/profiles/article.asp?id=125; 1st per http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2609715/?page=2 but not possible in 1928 given Coleman).

Annnd... another contender: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/In-the-Museum-The-Unrecognized-First.html Emory Malick, looks like a winner, at least for now, if we can all agree the sourcing is adequate.

OK, now I've also had enough for tonight. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

PMOM / PMOY

The first African American playboy playmate does not constitute much of a barrier breaking precedent. This information is better suited on the subjects', Jennifer Jackson's article and Renee Tenison's article or preferably on the playboy one. Most of the accomplishments listed on the above article have been of incalculable significance in African American history marking milestones as well as setting momentous precedents for generations of black Americans. Keep this in perspective, before reverting the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.90.1.65 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, "incalculable significance in African American history". Such as:

• First African American flight attendant
• First African American to win a major national player of the year award in college basketball
• First African-American male professional wrestler to win a world heavyweight championship
• First African-American police officer of the NYPD to be named a precinct commander
• First African American to be named American League MVP
• First African American to win a top-level NASCAR race
• First African-American cast member of a daytime soap opera
• First African-American model on the cover of a Vogue (British Vogue) magazine
• First African-American coach to win NBA Championship
• First African-American superhero: The Falcon, Marvel Comics' Captain America #117
• First African-American basketball player to win the NBA All Star MVP, the NBA Finals MVP, & the NBA MVP all in the same season
• First African-American NCAA Division I basketball coach
• First African-American superhero to star in own comic-book series
• First African-American general manager in the National Basketball Association
• First African-American interracial kiss in a mainstream comics magazine
• First African-American interracial male kiss on network television: Sammy Davis, Jr. (African American) and Carroll O'Connor (Caucasian) in All in the Family
• First African-American individual inducted to the Basketball Hall of Fame
• First African-American Bond Girl in a James Bond movie
• First African-American Bond villain
• First African-American model on the cover of American Vogue magazine
• First African-American model on the cover of ELLE magazine
• First African American to win Super Bowl MVP in NFL
• First African-American interracial kiss in a color comic book
• First African American inducted to the Basketball Hall of Fame as a player
• First African-American man to win Daytime Emmy Award for lead actor in a soap opera
• First African-American Miss America
• First African-American WWE Tag Team Champion
• First African-American coach to win the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship
• First African-American wrestling manager
• First African-American NFL referee
• First African-American Miss USA
• First African American tag team to win the WCW World Tag Team Championship
• First African-American WCW World Heavyweight Champion
• First tag team made up of two African Americans to win the WWE Tag Team Championship
• First African-American model to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition
• First African American to win the WWE Championship
• First African American to win the WWE Women's Championship
• First African American to hold the #1 rank in tennis
• First African American to hold the year-end #1 rank in tennis
• First African American to be named year-end world champion by the International Tennis Federation
• First African-American Arena Football League head coach to win ArenaBowl
• First African American to win a Career Grand Slam in tennis
• First African American General Manager for World Wrestling Entertainment
• First African-American NBA general manager to win the NBA Finals
• First African-American Extreme Championship Wrestling champion
• First African-American female professional wrestler to win the NWA World Women's Championship
• First African-American doubles team to be named year-end world champion by the International Tennis Federation
• First African-American Disney Princess
• First African-American to win the WWE Diva's Championship

I would have to agree that the significance of quite a few of these is truly "incalculable".

Miss America and Miss USA, covers of Vogue (in two countries), Elle, and SI's swimsuit edition set such greater precedents than Playboy.

And pro wrestling, basketball, and tennis; can't beat those – if the goal of the page is to vindicate Jimmy the Greek.

Perhaps a case could be made that by 1990 Tenison was a bit "ho-hum; been there, done that".

On the other hand, in March 1965, the same month as Bloody Sunday and 18 years before Vanessa Williams' Miss America win, Playboy finally responding to letters asking "but why does beauty only come in one color?" was a big deal, and the person who broke their color barrier deserves at least as much recognition for doing so as a WWE wrestler.

I've moved this discussion from my talk page to the article's, which is where discussions of article content really belong. Perhaps other editors will agree that these women's accomplishments are trivial and should be removed. But both entries have been included in the list since October 2006, and none of the editors seem to have objected until what I still characterize as a personal I-don't-like-it deletion with no prior discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I concede that some of the accomplishments mentioned above are, in your words "trivial", and maybe the article needs some brush-up but the reason I singled out the achievements of these two women is that their mention was, frankly, more appropriate in other articles. The issue was never about denying them recognition, something I thought I made clear. Another thing, simply because both entries have been there for six years doesn't imply an exemption from editing, I believe that is what this page is for and again I dont think that is what wikipedia is about. You may have formed an opinion about me but I should think it would be more constructive if we were all to be objective in this discussion. It may have been rash of me to delete the entries without proper consultation, but the edits can always be reverted should the majority of editors ultimately conclude it best to do so.197.176.164.68 (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a unspoken dichotomy here that needs to be addressed: Not all significant color-breaking accomplishments are political or governmental. Popular culture, as has long been established in academia and elsewhere, is hugely reflective of the attitudes and mores of a time. To suggest that societal acceptance of the first black flight attendant or the first black Playboy Playmate is insignificant, for example, is to ignore two things: 1) the cultural prominence of such iconic figures, each as redolent with larger societal connotations as are those of "firefighter", "cowboy", or "Major League Baseball player", and 2) that the entrenched racism that kept blacks out of such high-profile positions was trivial. If the airlines or Hugh Hefner thought society would blithely accept black flight attendants or black Playmates, they would have had them as readily as, say, redheaded flight attendants and Playmates — because it wouldn't have been a big deal. But racism in American society was such that it was a big deal.

See footnote 41 about Marlon Green, and the fact it took a Supreme Court decision before major passenger airlines would hire a black pilot. Does that sound like a trivial or insignificant first? And the first black flight attendant may be even more so, as the airline figure far more visible to the general public than the pilot behind cockpit doors.

The first whatever this or that in the WWE? Not my cup of tea. But simply by demonstrating that large a swatch of the American viewing public who may not have much day-to-day personal experience with black people will accept a black wrestler is significant. (And this hasn't always been true; after black boxer Jack Johnson became champ, well — where do you think the phrase "Great White Hope" came from?).

High-profile advances in popular culture and the employment realm are important, for the reasons I give here.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My good colleague Fat&Happy appeared to have made the "incalculable significance" sarcasm, which isn't the most constructive form in a discussion. From my experience with him, this appears to be a rare lapse; I've found him to be a thoughtful and meticulous editor with whom I'm proud to work. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I also opine that the first black Playmate is a significant event. Consider that even today the depictions of nude African, let alone African American, women are infrequent. When one considers the demographic for Playboy is white audience, putting a Black woman as PMOY in 1965 was radical. While it does sexualize the BW, it also creates a sense of beauty and desirability, and thus a level of acceptance. It is possible some take issue it involves nudity in a "skin mag", but controversy is always in the eye of beholder. Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Josephine Baker

Until we can clarify this, I've commented out, but did not delete, this vague claim for the great Josephine Baker: "1927: First African American to star in an international motion picture: Josephine Baker in La Sirène des tropiques."

First, what does "international motion picture" mean? In the silent era, all pictures were international. Second, Paul Robeson was starring in films as early as 1924. Third, the Josephine Baker article itself doesn't specify this. And finally, since the footnoted source is a book, it would be practical to quote the pertinent passage, to see if perhaps the authors were clearer on this point. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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? [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] 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. [18][19]. --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)

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)

Suggested criteria for inclusion or non-inclusion

Please sign each of your suggestions. Feel free to edit existing suggestions, but do not remove anyone else's suggestions.

Here are some proposed standards for inclusion or non-inclusion.

1. Should be a notable or historic first and recognized as such by other sources.Mcusa (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Should be positive in nature. While we could include such items as "first African-American serial killer", the purpose of these articles is too show the general trend in African-American accomplishments.Mcusa (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
3. When there is doubt, include the item. This list is not an honor and a more expansive list which includes a few dubious achievements is more valuable than a restricted list which misses some important accomplishments. Mcusa (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
4. No scripted firsts, such as in professional wrestling, in which the "accomplishments" are merely part of an assigned acting role. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Any first "overall" gold medal winner in a particular sport at the Summer Olympics or Winter Olympics. Examples: First AA gold medalist in Men's Singles Tennis, First AA gold medalist in Women's Singles Tennis, First AA gold medalist in Men's Doubles Tennis, First AA gold medalist in Women's Doubles Tennis, First A-A gold medalist in Men's Overall Gymnastics, First AA gold medalist in Women's Overall Gymnastics. Sports that do not award an overall gold medal do not qualify. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Any first in a specific career field category, but not sub-catergories or sub-specialites. Qualifying examples: First AA Male Medical Doctor, First AA Female Medical Doctor, First AA public school principal, First AA Major League Baseball manager, First AA public school teacher. Non-qualifying examples: First AA Male dermatologist, First AA female cardiothoracic surgeon, First AA National League baseball manager, First AA public school teacher in Michigan. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
7. High-level federal or state politicians (president, vice president, prime minister, governor, U.S. Senator, U.S. Congressman, Speaker of the House, Cabinet members, etc.). Examples: First AA governor of California, First AA governor of Pennsylvania, First AA U.S. President, First AA U.S. Vice President, First AA U.S. Senator from Texas, First AA Senator from Wyoming, First AA U.S. Representative from Vermont, First AA U.S. Representative from Nevada. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Mayors of major cities (population of at least ??). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Academy Awards in major categories (Actor and Actress, Supporting Actor and Actress, Director) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Professional sports (major sports leagues only) - First AA manager, head coach or equivalent in any major sport. First AA MVP or equivalent in any major sport. First AA player in any sport. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
11. NCAA college basketball and football (Division 1A only) - First AA head coach in basketball (male and female) or football, First AA Heisman Trophy winner; First AA MVP in each sport (male and female), First AA player in each sport (male and female). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Until we get the sockpuppet/meatpuppet issue noted in the previous section worked out, none of this has any bearing. While the list as it could probably use pruning, we want it to include the most notable, and not less notable achievements. First Olympic medal, male and female; first Olympic gold medal, male and female. And possibly a team medal if it included an African-American and came before either of the previously mentioned. Unless I'm missing anything — and there may well be a historical nuance I'm not immediately aware of — that should be the extent of this list's Olympic firsts. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a rookie to wikipedia and have not done any major editing, that is true. I'm not sure what sockpuppet/meatpuppet is but I am not posting under any other usernames or IPs.Mcusa (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note we have separate articles for List of African-American U.S. state firsts and List of first African-American mayors, making two of the above points redundant.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Again Tenebrae, acting like you are the ruler of this article. You aren't. You can try to deny it, but the talk page discussions say it all, as does your editing history in this article. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: 1 The accomplishment should be notable and historic. Yes, source(s) would be needed but let's remember some of the items may not have a ton of sources. One would likely be able to find more sources and mentions for recent events than somewhat major accomplishments that happened decades - or even centuries - ago. An accomplishment which has hundreds or even thousands of mentions may be notable but not necessarily historic; therefore, I would venture to say it should not make the list. Re: 2. If we state "accomplishments" in the definition, shouldn't run into any issues with folks wanting to list pure firsts which may not be accomplishments but rather simply events. Re: 3 When in doubt, don't include, but instead utilize the talk page. Re; 5: First athlete to appear in an Olympics (Summer and Winter) and/or first to win an Olympic medal, and first to win gold overall. There are dozens of Olympic sports, even more so when counting both Summer and Winter. The list could easily become dominated by Olympic accomplishments which I don't believe is this article's purpose. If one wants to work to create a new article titled "African American Olympic Games firsts", then so be it. But I believe we should focus on solely the first AA to qualify for the Summer and Winter Olympics, first to medal in a Summer and Winter Oly, and first to win a gold medal (if the first winner happens to have won gold, then they would be labeled "first to win a medal and first to win a gold medal). I liken all the different Olympic sports to states -- if there is a separate article for "state firsts" then we could just as easily create a list for "Olympic firsts." We should have first male and first female (and whichever of the two sexes was first, would be considered the first overall). Re: 7 First overall elected state official, but not first for each state as there is an article for state firsts. First president, Senator, member from House of Representatives, cabinet position, and military general. I don't think it would be wise to list each specific department, either federal gov't-wise or military-wise. If there's a separate page for federal gov't officials (and military), then the heads of each specific dept's could be on that article. Re: 8 First overall elected mayor, first mayor of a major city. Let's see who the candidates are for this "major city" and then we can decide on what a "major" city is defined as. Or we could use an official definition from an organization like the U.S. Census Bureau if they should have a definition of "major" city. Re: 9 In addition to the big categories, I would vote for first overall Academy Award winner. If that happens to be a director, fine. If that's a screenwriter, fine. If a separate article is created for Academy Awards and awards given by other organizations, fine. Re: 10 For the actual major sports leagues, I would include more candidates than for the Olympics, as the major sports leagues as defined in North America all have their base in the U.S., and thus, unlike the Olympics, the sports leagues are very much a part of the historic precedent of the culture (i.e., American) at-large. I'd say first athlete to appear in a game, first manager/coach, first athlete/coach/manager to make the championship game of that sport, first athlete/coach/manager to win a championship in that sport, and first owner of a franchise in each of the 4 leagues. We could also have first commissioner of a particular league. Re: 11 Collegiate athletics would be largely the same for professional (not exactly, however), except like the Olympics, we don't need to have each sport have "a first." Also, we should have instances of male and female firsts. First to play in a game, first to manage a game, first to win a NCAA championship. If the award is notable in American culture, such as the Heisman, then a first for it could be included. 12 I would also say a first for business and TV network news. First CEO of Fortune 500 company, first on-air anchor/contributor, and first recipients of any major awards in said categories. Zepppep (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an awful lot to wade through, but at least for now I see you're with the consensus that this article can't have a first for every Olympic sport, and that there's no consensus to add Gabby Douglas. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is an awful lot to wade through. Such is the work in front of us if we want to get this article whipped into shape. Specifically, no, I'm not in favor of having a mention (current or future) of every AA for every Olympic sport. In fact, very few (see above reason #5 above). And, no, I'm not for adding another Olympic athlete to the article unless he/she fits the criteria I have suggested. However, if the individual you have raised a question about, Gabby Douglas, is the first female to win a medal or the first female to win a gold medal, in either the Summer or Winter Olympics, then yes, I am. Being as she is not the first black AA female to do either of those feats, the answer would be "no." I hope my efforts haven't been whittled down to only who is currently up for discussion as of August 2012, otherwise I'll be back at the same place in (enter future date [here]) when 2 users of differing opinions think Jane Doe ought to be on the list. And when that time comes, hopefully all an editor has to do is point to the definition of what the list in fact lists, making it clear why such individual is/is not allowed to be listed. And should the individual in question be involved in some sort of new activity/event/arena/field we haven't yet thought of today, or have done something worthy of a discussion of the merit of mention but that individual (whether it's a business person, or musician, or...) case isn't clear cut, they can come to this talk page and hash out their arguments. But those instances will hopefully be rare because we will have done the legwork today! Zepppep (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Tenebrae either doesn't know how to read or he doesn't know how to tell the truth. He says to Zep, "I see you're with the consensus that this article can't have a first for every Olympic sport, and that there's no consensus to add Gabby Douglas." First, only one user (Mcusa) said that every Olympic sport should have a first, so that's never been an issue. As both Zep and I have instructed Tenebrae, read #5 on the list. But of course he refuses to acknowledge it, just as he does with any suggestions, comments or questions posed in this discussion. He thinks no one notices that he has yet to say one word about why fake wrestling firsts are on the list. TEN of them. Haha. Second, there's no consensus not to add Gabby Douglas either. But he presents it as if there is consensus not to add her. There isn't. Tenebrae just wants what he wants and that's all that matters to him. Can you count, Tenebrae? Besides you and Malik, who think you own this article, there are three editors who said that Douglas should be added: Evan, Mcusa and me. And Ryan is the only other person who said no. And Zep hasn't really said either way if he thinks Douglas should be added; he's been commenting, very nicely, on how this article/list needs a major overhaul, which of course Tenebrae refuses to acknowledge and keeps running away from. All he does is just keep finding excuses as to why nothing should change. And making false, out-of-context statements about how everyone supposedly agrees with him. Haha. He continues to post inaccurate information as if people can't read and see the truth of what's being said. And then he gets so threatened and worried about people saying there's problems with this article that he resorts to falsely accusing users of being sockpuppets, but doesn't have the guts to back it up by reporting it. Why? Because he knows it's not true and realizes he will be laughed at if he files it. He does it just to take the attention off the real issues that the rest of us are here to discuss. Tenebrae, you continue to think you own this article, but it's apparent that if anyone should be guiding this article it should be Zep, someone with an open mind and good faith intentions to improve this article. So why don't you stop interjecting your rulings on everyone's opinions in this talk page as you've been doing for years, and stop reverting edits in the article as you've also been doing for years, and let people who are neutral handle things. How can anyone take you seriously when you believe that the First WWE Diva should be on the list, but not the first Olympics overall gymnastics champion? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not say every Olympic sport should have a first, though I wouldn't be against that either. I just think that Douglas's achievement was notable - and it was widely reported as notable by major news outlets. The major reason it was notable is that the women's all-around is top tier event. Mcusa (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait Mcusa, you can't reply to my comment because Tenebrae says you and I are the same person. So that would be like you talking to yourself. Haha! And sorry for the part where I said you're the only person who wanted every Olympic sport "first" included. I was just basing that on Tenebrae continually claiming you wanted that; I thought maybe you and he had talked about it off the page at some point. But I guess I should have learned by now that I can't believe one word he says. Anyway, your comment about the overall gymnastics gold being a "top tier" event is a valid point. First of all, there aren't that many "overall" golds at the Olympics. And the overall gold is gymnastics is clearly among THE most prominent accomplishments at the Summer games, as it's always one of the most featured and reported-on events among the media. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Tenebrae apparently doesn't understand why pro wrestling firsts shouldn't be on the list, and refuses to even address it, let me explain it to him. As an example, let's take this currently-listed first: "First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox". Alicia Fox does not exist. Alicia Fox is an entertainment character played by Victoria Crawford. So the "championship" first is a pretend title given to a fictional character. So if that first is on the list, then we should add a listing for George Jefferson, the fictional TV character that was played by actor Sherman Hemsley on the TV show, The Jeffersons. Jefferson was the first AA Dry Cleaner of the Year in the U.S., so should we add that to the list, too? Hey, it's just as "worthy" as the wrestling character's first. Or how about J. J. Evans, the TV character on Good Times, portrayed by actor Jimmie Walker. Should we add a listing for "First AA National Young Artist Award winner" for J.J. Evans? Should we add a listing for every first an AA fictional character achieves? Of course not. 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. So let's get all the wrestling firsts off the list to begin with, then the guidelines for all the real-life firsts can be focused on. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the rationale behind recent commenter(s) inclusion in regards to Olympic athletes? Male & female firsts? Which events? How many possible events would that be in total? Zepppep (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, as I said in #5 on the Suggestions list above, I'm leaning towards listing only firsts for individual/overall golds in a particular sport, such as tennis and gymnastics. And, yes, male and female should each qualify IF the rest of the Firsts list includes both males and females. Here's a list of all the sports at the Summer Olympics. And here is the one for the 2010 Winter Olympics. As long as the the first is an indivdual/overall accomplishment as verified by the list of sports for a particular Olympics, then it would be fine. So sports like swimming would not qualify because it does not award any individual/overall golds, such as overall best swimmer. All of the many swimming events are equal; there's no major swimming gold that's above all others as in gymnastics. Having said all that, I am certainly open to hearing arguments for including the first gold in each sport. After all, the Olympics is the biggest international athletic competition in the world. It is not unreasonable to ask why the list includes, for example, each U.S. government department/cabinet first, but not the firsts in each Olympic sport? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I favor a separate article listing firsts in each Olympic sport and category of sport. I also support a separate article for any one field that has several "categories," because including all of those categories onto this article I feel is not the purpose of this article. When people go out talking during their daily lives, are they going to talk about "the first AA Olympic athlete to win the 200 IM relay" or "governor of ____" etc.? No, I think they will remember the bigger "firsts" which is what I believe this article is all about. If we started separating the business firsts we could find ourselves with a list that is is in the thousands. Military? Again, that's why up above I supported separate articles for such. Right now, I feel the article's criteria for inclusion is far too lax and it makes the article weak when it comes to usability. I feel separating male and female, Winter and Summer, first medal and first gold is already enough space on the article. By my count, that would be up to 8 individuals listed, and that is just for the athletes. The article suffers as it is ill-defined and its lead is weak. "Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list". From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. I feel this article, as is, has neither. (And I believe FIFA's World Cup qualifies as the biggest int'l athletic event.) Zepppep (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, your points are excellent. I really like your idea of having a separate list devoted to Olympic firsts and others (such as the one for A-A mayors), and having the main list be only for very major A-A firsts. And btw, I said that events like 200 IM Relay should not be included. I explained that only overall/individual golds for a sport should be included. 200 IM Relay is not an overall/individual gold for the sport of track and field. Haha. But individual all-around gold <is> an overall award for gymnastics. And singles champion in tennis is an overall award for the sport of tennis. See what I'm saying? So, yes, your plan is great. But without question, all wrestling people must be removed from the list. Only real-life firsts should be included; no firsts for characters portrayed by actors. ;) And no firsts on the main list for random government departments either. Haha. Government departments can just have their own list, too. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 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)

Inconsistencies

Inconsistencies in 8 specific categories/fields have been listed below. If you would only like to comment regarding a particular listing or category, please do so within that category (or add another category, do so below the 8th (which is entertainment)). If you wish to comment on the inconsistencies as part of the larger picture, please discuss at the end of the 8th category subsection. Zepppep (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, I have to highly commend you on this thread and the excellent job you've done in attempting to improve this article in a very calm, fair, consistent and open-minded way. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, IP! And I am taking you and Tenebrae's suggestion of signing all the first paragraphs of each subsection of this one thread, so as to not confuse anyone. Zepppep (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. And you can just call me 76. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Business

Currently, the article lists "First African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company: Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae" and "First African-American woman CEO of an S&P 100 Company: Ursula Burns, Xerox Corporation." 1) Since when is the S&P 100 notable for a general article like this? 2) Would mentions for "First Fortune 100" and "First S&P 10" be allowed? The article's lead does not specify.

The article lists "First African-American billionaire: Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television" and "First African-American female billionaire: Sheila Johnson," both under the same year, but does not specify the date. Therefore, the reader doesn't know which Johnson was actually first. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

I would go along with removing S&P 100. The Fortune 500 is the original, longstanding yardstick for an established level of corporate size, reach and accomplishment. Others are, by definition, secondary.

Good point on the two Johnsons. Since I don't imagine we could give a date as to when their bank account and stock portfolio totalled $1 billion, these two may have to go together under the same year: "First male and first female African-American billionaires". --Tenebrae (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I could go for that. As of now, it looks to give Robert the first mention simply because...he's male? Which of course would make no sense. I suggested merging them together until/unless a source can be cited that may give an actual date. Zepppep (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a woman, why not do them alphabetically? I mean, if no dates can be found. --Farpointer (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Academia

"First African-American president of the New York City Board of Education: Isaiah Edward Robinson, Jr." is listed; would editors be able to add the first of say, Chicago, IL, or Minot, ND? The criteria is not well-defined. "First African-American graduate of Harvard Business School: Lillian Lincoln" is listed; would editors be able to add the first graduate from Penn's Wharton School of Business, as well as Azusa Pacific University? The criteria is not well-defined. "First African American to graduate from Harvard College: Richard Theodore Greener" is listed; what about the first graduate from Brown University, or North Texas? The criteria is not well defined. "First African American to earn a doctorate degree (Ph.D.) from Harvard University: W.E.B. Du Bois" is listed; again, I'm confused. Is this to mention all firsts from Harvard, or Yale, or Brown, or UCLA, or Cedarville University? The criteria is not well defined. "First African American elected president of the Harvard Law Review: Barack Obama" is listed; there are several notable law reviews in academia. Would an editor be able to add a listing from a school they like, or something they think is "notable and historic." Would a different editor have to make a judgement call or hash out reasons on the article's talk page until an agreement was made? What if an agreement was never made? The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

NYC Board of Ed. can go as far as I'm concerned, unless it's the single largest board of education in the country, in which case it's notable not for his being the first NYC but for being the first of the nation's largest.

Historically and culturally, Harvard and Yale occupy distinct places in America. I'm sure I can back that up with copious footnotes if there's genuine disagreement on this, but these two institutions are considered the two most prestigious universities in the country. I didn't go to either, by the way, and while numerous people I know went to the rightfully vaunted Columbia U., it's not thought of in the same way this culture thinks of Harvard and Yale. The first Af-Am to make it to various achievements at those two places, given the constant spotlight on them, is different from doing them at any other college. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebare, that makes no sense and completely violates the neutral nature of this project. We cannot single out a few universites (Harvard and Yale), regardless of how prominent they clearly are, and eliminate all others. I honestly can't believe you're seriously advocating for this. We do not favor some schools over others and we do not base inclusion guidelines on how something is "thought of." No way! If we are going to list the first graduate of one major university, then we must list the first graduate of every major university. This applies for all other accomplishments within academia such as first university president, first Ph.D., first law review editor, and all the rest. Either we list just the first in the entire country or we list the ones at each major university. But singling out a few as being worthy over all others is ridiculous. You can cite a million footnotes, but it won't change the fact that they will all be subjective opinions. By the way, I think Stanford and many other "elite" schools will take serious issue with your bias for Harvard and Yale. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that one could cite a couple of hundred though not "a million" footnotes makes my point that these two institutions are, by wide agreement culturally unique among others in the U.S. It's not an arbitrary distinction, but one developed over literally hundreds of years. But this is how discussion goes, and I'm glad to be doing it and I hope other editors besides us three weigh in on this. We might lower the heat a bit; I'm not sure exclaiming "No way!" helps engender a feeling that you're not being emotional about what should be a calm, logical discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to divert the conversation at-hand, but perhaps Harvard and Yale are so well thought of by folks is also because for a long time, the schools didn't allow minorities or females for a very long time, if memory serves me correctly? And if that's the case, it could be what's lead to such a bias creeping into society. I do not want to play dumb: Yale and Harvard are two of the most-respected institutions in the world. They probably deserve mention on this article. But so would an institution like MIT, Gallaudet, Howard, Johns Hopkins, UC Berkley, Wesleyan, Univ of Chicago, and many others. If "culturally unique" is the test, Grinnell College probably needs to get listed. Maybe the institutions listed are not at the level of Yale or Harvard, but again, isn't that up to the eye of the beholder? The New York Yankees are the world's second-most valuable sports franchise, I believe. They have won more WS than any other AL/MLB franchise (pains me to say it). However, if I saw a list that stated "first sellout crowd at Yankee Stadium" but maybe ignored the first sellout crowd in all of MLB, I would not be happy as a reader of an encyclopedia. A book of trivia, sure. But I would be mislead, and one should not be mislead by an encyclopedia. Maybe we could instead have more broad categories, such as "first from public institution" and "first from private institution" ? Zepppep (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The exclamation point, which I rarely use, was solely meant to express the seriousness of inappropriately favoring a few over all others in a particular category. It's an extremely slippery slope that we must avoid. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We're expected to use reasonable judgment. But this question is certainly valid. The Harvard/Yale issue probably deserves an RfC in itself that would help us develop a consensus of academic criteria. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

An RfC is not used when only one person is advocating for a position. Especially when that position violates the rules of neutrality. I thought we were past this nonsense of favoring a few over all others; deciding who's better or more important than the rest. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

State government

Some listings in the past have been deleted because editors have given the argument "there is a separate article pertaining to state government firsts." If that's the case, why do "First African-American woman elected to a U.S. state senate: Cora Brown, Democrat (Michigan)," "First African-American governor of New York State: David Paterson (elected as lieutenant governor, succeeded on resignation of previous governor)," "First African-American Governor of Massachusetts: Deval Patrick," "First African-American woman elected Speaker of a state House of Representatives: California Rep. Karen Bass," and "First African-American Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Roderick L. Ireland" appear? Are this in fact the first overall of all 50 states, or just the firsts of those particular states? Why does the wording suggest it is only the first of that particular state? What about the firsts of Oklahoma, or Pennsylvania, or Louisiana? Are they not listed because no user has thought of listing them, or do the following appear on the article because editors who have the article on their watchlist might be asleep at the wheel? (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Correct. These are the current governor firsts on the list:

• First African-American acting governor
• First African-American governor (non-elected)
• First elected African-American governor
• First African-American Governor of Massachusetts
• First African-American governor of New York State

Based on these current listings, we should list the first governor of every state.

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"First African-American woman elected to a U.S. state senate" is a national first. The fact that she was elected in Michigan or Hawaii or Kansas doesn't make a difference — just the fact that an Af-Am woman was elected to any state senate anywhere for the first time. Same with first one elected to a state House of Reps.

I'd go along with removing first Mass. and first NY governor and first chief justice of Mass. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply showing all of the listings in various categories to show the contradictions in context. I needed to show both the worthy and non-worthy inclusions to make the point. Obviously, the first person elected to a state senate would be worthy of inclusion, but the first governor of a particular state is not (unless it's decided that all states should be on the list). For the record, I think only the first AA governor (or any other position) in the country should be on the list. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sincerely happy to be in agreement with you, and to have reached this under such constructive circumstances. I mean that. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so what's next? Zepppep (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, guys, seriously; what's next? Is it now permissable to remove the entries discussed above, where consensus has been met, or do we need to wait or do something in the meantime? Let's keep the ball rolling! Zepppep (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need to keep the nice progress moving forward. You have my support in removing the agreed-upon entries discussed throughout this thread, and following the other guidelines which appear to have consensus. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with 76 above on the removal of those three items. Given the length and contentiousness of these debates overall, I would also give it a day or two in case other editors who may happen to be away from their computers today have comments. There's no deadline, so having Zep do the honors 24 hours from now will prevent anyone from saying that three editors made a decision and rushed it through without even giving it a day. I've been on Wikipedia a long time — trust me, waiting a day is the safest and least contentious course. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, whatever you decide is what should be done. And do not speak for me Tenebrat. I did not say anything about the "removal of those three items." I said, as you well know, "removing the agreed-upon entries discussed throughout this thread, and following the other guidelines which appear to have consensus." Nice try. Again. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither Zep nor I nor anyone else can unilaterally make contentious changes without consensus. And "Tenebrat"? Really. Are you 6? Grow up.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, as I said, whatever you feel is best is fine with me. You have my full support. And as far as who's 6 Tenebrat, who was 6 when they called me a "taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP" who is "lowering the level of discourse"? <silence> Your days of controlling this article are over. Make that years. Six years to be exact. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes are about the long term, not as I've stated in the past "the flavor of the month." I am in no rush to proceed as agreed upon. 3 days is a good recommendation. I will wait at least that long, and if in case I drop the ball, one of you may do the honors. Zepppep (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal government

"First African American to be appointed to the United States Senate by a state governor: Roland Burris" appears on the page; is this as significant as the first-ever elected U.S. Senator? What if a user wanted to add "first AA appointed to the U.S. Senate after the incumbent died while serving in office"? The criteria is not well defined. Also, if there is a separate article for state government firsts, is there also one for federal government firsts? Why are so many of the listings related to federal government and cabinet position & federal agency firsts? The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Amazingly, all of the following U.S./federal government firsts are currently on the list. So are we going to list every first for every cabinet or government post? We need to get focused.

• First African-American U.S. diplomat
• First African American elected to U.S. House of Representatives
• First African American elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat
• First African-American bank examiner for the United States Department of the Treasury
• First African-American female Ambassador of the United States
• First African-American United States Solicitor General:
• First post-Reconstruction African American elected to the U.S. Senate
• First African American Cabinet secretary
• First African-American woman elected to U.S. House of Representatives
• First African-American appointed as a United States Assistant Secretary of State
• First African-American woman in the U.S. Cabinet
• First African-American woman elected to U.S. Senate
• First African-American woman appointed U.S. Secretary of Energy
• First African American appointed Surgeon General of the United States
• First African American appointed Director of the National Drug Control Policy
• First African-American United States Secretary of Commerce
• First African American appointed U.S. Secretary of Labor
• First African-American Secretary of State
• First African-American woman to be appointed National Security Advisor
• First African-American woman appointed Secretary of State
• First African-American President of the United States
• First African-American United States Attorney General
• First African-American woman United States Ambassador to the United Nations
• First African-American United States Trade Representative
• First African-American woman Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
• First African-American White House Social Secretary

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right: ""First African American to be appointed to the United States Senate by a state governor" does seem to be parsing it way too finely. Same with first "bank examiner for the United States Department of the Treasury," which certainly is not at historic as Secretary of the Treasury.

For the rest, I would say the first Af-Am appointed to each of these major posts is historic and noteworthy. Do we really think it's not historic and noteworthy to have the first black Attorney General or first black Secretary of State? Really? Is the first black Surgeon General not a major historic thing? --

Again, you missed the point. My statement was, "So are we going to list every first for every cabinet or government post? We need to get focused." Obviously, certain firsts are very worthy of inclusion, but many are not. But there are no current guidelines as to what should qualify and what shouldn't. That's why Zep started this thread. First trade representative? First woman administrator of the EPA? First bank examiner? First rep that's a democrat? Really?? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've agreed with you on bank examiner. I didn't see "first rep that's a [D]emocrat," though I'd agree with you there as well. As to agencies, that's a good question — why the EPA and not other agencies? US Trade Representative seems certainly an important position but minor in the context of cabinet positions and the like; I would exclude it.

I would certainly include each of the cabinet posts and the national-level White House appointment; those seem like discrete, concrete criteria. I would keep Ambassador to the UN since that's not ambassador to an individual country but to, essentially, the world. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. How about First White House Social Secretary? Ouch. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And if the WH social secretary qualifies, then we have to start adding the White House Chief Usher, White House Executive Chef and all the rest. ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The White House Social Secretary is actually a really important position — the gatekeeper of access to the president of United States — and having an African American in such a key national position for the first time is a huge deal. Not sure about chief usher; have to learn more. Chef sounds like one of many back-room positions not in the public eye — although I suppose a case could be made that an Af-Am preparing meals for world leaders as our official national representative in that regard would indeed make it notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again... Tenebrae trying to favor one, or a few, over all others in a category. Sorry, but we do not use biases to judge. And for the record, the Chief Usher of the White House is a huge position. The Chief Usher essentially runs the entire operation of the White House. Gary Walters was a legend in the White House and one of the TV newsmagazines did a big feature on him when he was CU. The Chief Usher controls practically everything that happens in the WH. And the WH Executive Chef is a very prominent postition, just as notable and important as the Social Secretary. You sound like you pull these judgements out of a hat. Again, if we include one primary department head, then we should include them all. Or we include none of them. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Um ... I agreed that these positions are or seemed as if they might be important. We agree on that. So what's the problem?

No, we do not have to "include them all" or "include none". There's no Wikipedia rule whatsoever that says that. There are, however, guidelines and policies such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We use reasonable, mature judgment derived from a multitude of editors' consensus. And you misspelled "judgments," by the way.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep fighting this effort Tenebrat. Your days of owning this article are done. Sorry. And the spelling correction... what was that you were saying about acting like a six-year-old? And it's "include none." Lmao. Keep your games going, Tenebrat. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've alerted an admin to your puerile name-calling. And I have no idea what "And it's 'include none'" means since that's what I wrote. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK Tenebrat, just be sure to mention to the admin that you called me a "taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse." You won't forget, will you? Haha. And the period goes inside the close quote. Get it together. And keep this up. If you so choose. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Municipal government

"First African-American alderman of Chicago: Oscar Stanton De Priest," "First African-American police officer in present-day New York City: Wiley Overton, hired by the Brooklyn Police Department prior to 1898 incorporation of the five boroughs into the City of New York" and "First African-American woman to be a police officer in Los Angeles: Georgia Robinson" appear; are these notable and historic? Is it simply a case of the wording that is messed up? Should it actually read "First AA alderman of a city: ____", "First AA man police officer: ____" and "First AA woman police officer: ____"? If an editor wanted to add the first for Detroit, MI and Lone Tree, IA, would that also be acceptable? Would users have to come to the talk page and hash out their arguments? Are only "major" cities included? As mentioned in other threads, what is defined as a "major" city? Who gets to define it? What if a non-major city had a "first" before a major city? Would the major city win out simply because people have heard of the city, or because one might argue "anything to do with Chicago is discussed on a national level?" The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Correct. The current listings contradict the claims of some editors that only an overall first in a category should be included. For instance, they say that only the first mayor in the U.S. should be listed because, they say, there is a separate mayor's list. Well, then explain all these current mayor listings:

• First African-American mayor
• First African-American mayor of a U.S. city
• First African American elected mayor of a large U.S. city
• First African American elected mayor of Los Angeles, California
• First African-American woman mayor of a U.S. metropolitan city
• First African American elected mayor, and first mayor, of Washington, D.C
• First African-American mayor of Chicago
• First African-American mayor of New York City
• First African-American woman mayor of Washington, D.C
• First African-American mayor of San Francisco
• First African-American mayor of Houston

So are we going to list the first mayor of every major city? This is a huge contradiction.

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that becoming mayor of one of the largest handful of cities in the US is not an historic first.

I think the question then become: How many cities? That will be an arbitrary number, by its nature, but an arbitrary number we can decide by consensus. I would say an African-American becoming mayor of one of the five largest cities in the US is historic and noteworthy. Others may like top 10 or top 3. But, clearly, no one can say it's not historic to have an African-American running New York City or Los Angeles, at the very least. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, consensus is being used for a lot of things on this page. I think some readers would say becoming mayor of several cities in several states, particularly cities in southern state, would take issue with "major" getting all the attention. Birmingham, AL; Columbia, SC; Atlanta, GA, to name a few. Notable and historic. Even by your preference, the article lists the mayors of both the 14th and 25th largest cities in the U.S. (see: List of United States cities by population). I guess we either need to add about 20 more cities or we need to nip the number down significantly -- today. Zepppep (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the criteria you are advocating for are totally subjective and completely violate the requirement for neutrality. We don't pick and choose which "major" cities are more important than others, just like we don't pick which major universites are more important than others. We either list the first mayor in the country or we list the first mayor of every city of, let's say, a minimum size, which can be determined (for example, a minimum population of 100,000). Stop singling out cities, universities, etc. and trying to say that a few are more important than all others. This is about encylopedic consistency, not favoritism. Encyclopedically, the first AA mayor of Pittsburgh is just as important as the first mayor of New York or Miami or Chicago or Boston or Seattle or New Orleans or Charlotte or Los Angeles, etc. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That type of rigid literalism is the antithesis of reasoned judgment. I'm wondering if any other editor here believes that the first Af-Am mayor of New York or Los Angeles is not a major historic first. What do other editors say? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I brought up the issue of "how is 'major' being defined" several threads ago. It went ignored. Because the criteria for inclusion is so ill-defined, it is difficult for anyone to be able to point to a reference in confidence. There is a separate article for List of first African-American mayors. Mind you, not "List of African-American mayors", but first. With that in mind, there is no reason for this article to have so many (and more are going to come using rationale accepted throughout the history of this article) mayors listed if there is already an article listing such. This article should list 1) the first mayor of a municipal entity, and I would argue 2) the first mayor of a "major" city. But since the conversation around defining "major" went silent, there is no understanding of the term. And according to reasons given in the "entertainment" subsection of this thread, the editors who posted all the mayors on this article would apparently need to be contacted. And for reasons given in previous, older threads, "stable content" should not be removed. Zepppep (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, the conversation around defining "major" did not, as you claim, "go silent." Well, not by me. Read up. I said we could determine "major" by setting a minimum population. 100,000 or 250,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000... whatever is decided. Or, even better, we could base it on an official list of the 20 biggest cities in the U.S. (or however many is decided). For instance, we could use this list. Simple and consistent. ;) And Tenebrae, we don't include enyclopedic content based on subjective judgements; we do it based on objective, sourced facts. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hear ya, IP! It didn't go silent by me, either! But it seems our comments on this talk page largely go ignored and hold no bearing. You want specific criteria for Olympic athletes' inclusion and professional wrestlers off. I want a decent lead and well-defined criteria, and what I've offered, (and a little bit of help editing from Tenebrae and you, but mainly just thoughts -- nothing concrete), has not been implemented at all. Instead, readers and user who get motivated to want to add something do it, and then often times, are shot down and told to "check consensus on talk page." Yet, when I read this talk page, I don't actually see much consensus. When I see the article, I don't see much of anything! I want for this article to be easier for readers to understand -- as it is now, it is not well written. An editor like myself, who I like to think has a decent eye, and an editor like yourself, who I also think has a decent eye, and an editor like Tenebrae, who is a freaking professional writer, for goodness sakes, are busy on this talk page when we should be doing very little grunt work at all, instead focusing on the title, checking sources, helping other users understand the spirit of the article and when needed, which would not be often if this article was well-defined, we would visit the talk page to add in our 2 cents' worth and be done! By mentioning the first of XYZ a reader may get the impression that XYZ was in fact first, but in reality, XYZ may be well down the list! Take the first Ph D from Harvard mention. Readers currently may get any of the following impressions: that only Harvard counts; that Harvard beat out all other universities for this mention; that the article has only progressed as far as mentioning Harvard but is about .001% of the way "there" because there are several other schools with Ph D programs that aren't listed, or even "first male" is all that counts, but not first female since it doesn't state "man" in the listing. There are several listings which state "woman"; readers may also get the impression this article is sexist, which would violate a whole lot of what WP and a majority of its contributors are about! Zepppep (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Bravo, Zep! Very nicely stated. I'm with you. Again, I think you're doing a great job. Your leadership on this article is very much appreciated. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I also applaud Zep for taking the lead. I would ask that for the sake of readability, Zep, that you break up long blocks of text into paragraphs. Experienced Wikipedia editors know that hard-to-read walls of text often get glossed over since it looks like a rant (just as ALL CAPS LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING!). No one wants to ignore any calm and reasoned point — we're colleagues working together and optimally are supportive of each other even politely and respectfully disagreeing.

I noted in the Academia section that criteria for college inclusion should be the topic of an RfC — although first I'd like to see the pro wrestling issue worked on! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, first Chicago alderman is insufficiently important. I'm not sure about "first policeman", either, but that may be the wording, which suggests there were earlier examples in what's now NYC. (If it's "first anywhere", put it in. 1st black woman, too.) On mayors, I'd limit to DC (national capital), NYC (biggest city), Atlanta or Birmingham (wherever the first Deep South mayor was), & 1st "major city" (pop over 1mil? which IIRC makes it Chicago). And any pro wrestler beyond the very first to join any pro circuit anywhere should be removed with extreme prejudice. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If creating my replies into paragraphs makes it easier for you or anyone else to read, duly noted. I could go with Trekphiler's thoughts except for the NYC part. NYC has been the biggest city for quite some time in the U.S. That would mean there are going to be a lot of NYC mentions on this page, which I don't think is necessary. Lump it in with the other major cities. If it happens to be the first one, then it's listed. For southern cities, I would describe it as "First AA mayor of a city in a state where slavery was once legal." As suggested earlier, I would define "major" as an established organization would. If the U.S. Census Bureau has a definition, we could just use that. 1mil seems a bit too big but I could be wrong. Zepppep (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than "a state where slavery was once legal", it might be more meaningful to describe the distinction as either "a state that was part of the former Confederacy" or at least something along the lines of "a state in which slavery was legal at the beginning of the Civil War" to avoid casting a wider net than intended. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I think we're in agreement with the spirit. The exact wording might just need some refinement. Zepppep (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sports

"First African American Wimbledon tennis champion: Althea Gibson (doubles, with Englishwoman Angela Buxton); also first African American to win a Grand Slam event (French Open)" is listed; why do champions for the Aussie Open or U.S. Open not appear? Or is it because someone likes Wimbledon better, or is it because someone might argue "winning Wimbledon is more notable," in which case he or she is letting his/her opinion dictate the contents of the article, rather than say, a list of criteria determined by consensus? (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Very valid points. If the "first" for one of the four tennis majors is listed, then the other three must also be listed. Either they all qualify or none of them qualify. And should it include doubles, also? For the Olympics, some editors have been insisting that gold medals for individual sports are not to be included; that only first gold in each Olympics (Summer and Winter) should be allowed. Well, if that's the case then why are these two listings for Don Barksdale on the list: "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, why not the first on a swimming team, gymnastics team, water polo team, ski team, skeet shooting team, hockey team, etc.? And if the first gold for basketball, why not the first gold for every other sport? Very contradictory. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

These are good questions. I don't know if Wimbledon is a pinnacle championship, the way the Indianapolis 500 or the Daytona 500 are in auto racing. I concur with both editors above (the first one is unsigned) that these tennis events' inclusion needs to be discussed.

BTW, I would point out, despite the anon IPs tone throughout, that none of these contradictions are the result of bad faith or bad planning. They are, as in virtually any list compiled piecemeal, the result of no planning and of outlines becoming clear only through months and years of trial, error and discussion, such as we're having now.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph under this subsection was not unsigned. See the first paragraph under this current thread, "Inconsistencies" to see who wrote the first paragraph for all subsections under this thread. Additionally, this specific subsection is about the sports section -- general comments, which the above paragraphs seems to be, should be written after the 8th subsection, titled "entertainment". Wimbledon is one of four tennis majors -- there is a ton of respect for it as well as the other three majors. Re: the paragraph which seems to be focusing on weaknesses find throughout the entire article, not just listings related to sports...Discussion is a completely rationale way about deciding on items which may be contentious, unclear (that is, somewhere between the lines), or a new field that will cause the article to grow. However, discussion is more cumbersome than a visitor to the page who can clearly read for themselves what the criteria are for inclusion. Think: "an ounce of prevential is worth a pound of cure." Or use WP's own MoS as an example. WP could let people create articles using their own standards, then hash out differences on the talk page and wait for consensus to be reached. Or, they could do what they've actually done: created a MoS and asked all articles to adhere to it. It's a much better way about going about things. It allows editors to focus on articles, not on holding daily or weekly discussions to discuss the latest one-word quip or sentenced or emotionally-charged word to an article. Lists need to have a well-defined criteria for inclusion; those that don't have contributions made in good faith by users reverted by editors who may also be acting in good faith; may have edit warring because a lot of opinion is used to keep or remove something from the list rather than directing a user to something concrete; and both edit wars and a poor lead will never allow this article to reach FLC status. Zepppep (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor above who said, "I don't know if Wimbledon is a pinnacle championship, the way the Indianapolis 500 or the Daytona 500 are in auto racing" apparently isn't much of a tennis fan. Haha. But Wimbledon is not only a pinnacle championship, it is widely regarded as the pinnacle event in professional tennis. But it doesn't really matter where it ranks among the four majors because the point is that, encylopedically, all four (Wimbledon, U.S. Open, French Open and Australian Open) are totally equal. So we cannot say it's acceptable to list the first Wimbldeon winner, but not the first winner of the other three. So we either list the first AA winner of a major (regardless of which one it was) or we list the first winner of each of the majors. I say that all four should be included because they're all equally part of the grand slam. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, maybe you should just sign the opening paragraph of each subsection so no one will be confused as to who wrote them. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did it, per you and Tenebrae's advice. 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Zepppep (talk)

If Wimbledon "is widely regarded as the pinnacle event in professional tennis" then by definition "all four (Wimbledon, U.S. Open, French Open and Australian Open)" cannot be totally equal: Pinnacle means "the highest point." So it's either a pinnacle event, with three others, or the pinnacle event. It can't be both. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedically, they are equal. They are the four majors. Of the four, Wimbledon is regarded as the top prize, the one players want most. Stop the condescension. I don't need you reciting the definition of pinnacle to me. It can be both, but in different contexts. But the only context I care about here is an encylopedic context. Whoever said that Wimbledon is not a pinnacle tennis event clearly doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If Wimbledon is "the top prize," then by definition it is above other tennis prizes. This is a matter of basic grammar. "Encyclopedically, they are equal" cannot be true if mathematically and grammatically they are not. I'd like to know what "encyclopedically" means in this context.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment clearly stated "top prize" with regard to which one players want most. If you truly don't understand the difference between the subjective feelings of the clear majority who consider Wimbledon the top prize in tennis (players, fans and the media) vs. the objective ranking process by the ATP and WTA which establishes the equality of what they designed as "majors," then there's no point in anyone trying to educate you on it. As previously stated, this article should list either the first A-A to win a tennis major (regardless of which one it was) or the first A-A winner of each of the four majors. It's a pretty simple and completely fair and logical concept. But your desire to pick and choose which item or items within a particular category is most worthy of inclusion over all others - such as your desire to favor Harvard and Yale over all other colleges in the country - is unnaceptable for an encylopedia. I will not participate in any further discussions regarding this particular issue or your advocacy for favortism. These topics have already been explained to you far more than was necessary. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder, let's stay civil. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the reason why Wimbledon was listed was because of one or both of the following reasons: 1) it is the oldest major of the 4, 2) it may have been the first major an AA won a match, was allowed in an event, or won a championship. I do not think we can read a player's mind as to which of the 4 majors "the players want most." The listing should reflect the first AA to be allowed to play in a tennis major (just like Robinson was the first to play in the MLB, not "first to win a game as a member of the MLB"; if champion is what is to be considered, then Larry Doby beats him), with an additional listing for the first champion of any of the four majors (and if the first came at a time when there was only 1, 2, or 3 majors, then state it so). If either of the two (appearance, champion) should happen to occur at Wimbledon--great. But the listing, no matter where a player was allowed to play or win, should be first of the 4 majors - otherwise I think we're going to need to least all 4 which I don't think is necessary. The Aussie Open was last to be considered a major, in 1905, while Wimby was first in 1877, so there have not always been 4. But I would venture to say no AA was allowed to compete that far back. Zepppep (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! As you stated: we cannot "read a player's mind as to which of the 4 majors the players want most." This is why we cannot single out Wimbledon as the only major worthy of inclusion. I was simply pointing out that Wimbledon is a huge tournament, contrary to what another editor was implying. Anyway, we should list either the first AA to win a major (any of the majors) OR list the first winner of each of the 4 majors. But we can't say we're going to list the first winner of one particular tournament, but not the first winner of the other three.

There are currently 3 "first" listings for tennis majors:

• First African American Wimbledon tennis champion: Althea Gibson (doubles, with Englishwoman Angela Buxton)
• First African American to win a Grand Slam event (French Open) (also Althea Gibson)
• First African-American man to win a Grand Slam tennis event: Arthur Ashe (US Open)

So we have the first man and woman to win a major (Gibson and Ashe), which is totally fine. But the one for first Wimbledon champion changes things. Once you single out the first winner of a particular major, then you have to list the first winner of the other three majors. Because we can't have favortism; all 4 are majors. So we should either allow the Wimbledon listing to stay and allow the first AA winner of the other 3 majors to be listed OR we should remove the Wimbledon listing.

FYI, we also have these 5 tennis firsts on the list:

• First African American to hold the #1 rank in tennis: Venus Williams
• First African American to hold the year-end #1 rank in tennis: Serena Williams
• First African American to be named year-end world champion by the International Tennis Federation: Serena Williams
• First African American to win a Career Grand Slam in tennis: Serena Williams
• First African-American doubles team to be named year-end world champion by the International Tennis Federation: Serena and Venus Williams

Do you think they all of those 5 are necessary or worthy of inclusion? Or is it going overboard? Where do we draw the line?

--76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Media

"First African-American woman reporter for The New York Times: Nancy Hicks Maynard" appears; is that because one has argued the publication is distributed on a national level? What about other newspapers that are delivered nationally, such as the Chicago Tribune or Wall Street Journal? Is it because New York is considered a major city? What if a small town in the hills of Tennessee had the nation's first AA woman reporter at their town newspaper? What if an editor wanted to add The Los Angeles Times, would they have their edits reverted because of something that points to a well-defined list of criteria, expressed in the article or the lead, or would an editor have to always keep their eyes open for additions like this and then explain it to the editor via edit summary? The criteria is not well defined. (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Historians, academics and the vast majority of journalists consider The New York Times to be the nation's paper of record. It has nothing to do with its distribution.

The first Af-Am at a newspaper not owned or run by Af-Ams would be, I would think, historic and noteworthy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the rationale you used in the "municipal government" subsection, then, we better get prepared for a whole ton of newspapers to be added to the list. And keep in mind the largest "handful," "10" or "3" cities, well, several of them have multiple publications in the same city. Also, because this article has the 25th largest city's mayor listed, that would mean at least an additional 24 publications would be OK to add to the article. Of course, as mentioned, roughly double that if one wants to include the cities which have multiple publications. Zepppep (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of folks who think the NYT is nothing but hogwash. There are lots of folks who think historians, academics, and a vast majority of journalists are nothing but leftist crazies -- socialists, even. Would this article be able to withstand a NPOV test, then? Also, the first AA columnist, editor, or editor-in-chief would be far more notable than a reporter. Also, there are lots of publications very well respected by various groups of people, including other historians, academics and "vast" majority of journalists. First reporters, editors, and editors-in-chief for the WSJ, LAT, ChiTrib, ChiSunTimes, WaPo, SFChronicle and several others are expected to be added to the list. Zepppep (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep pretty much stated everything I was thinking. So I won't comment further on this category. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a political debate on a Wikipedia page. Whether someone thinks academics and historians are "leftist crazies" — and that's a meaninglessly broad tar brush, given the wide range of academics and historians — the fact is there is a historical hierarchy among publications: You can't lump The New York Times and Dog Fancy together.

In any case, given the fact we have a long-stable article, two editors getting together and throwing out aspects of it for political reasons, or conversely throwing in "a whole ton of newspaper," would be considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

For what amounts to a major change to a stable article, there has to be broad consensus, and that means far more than two editors agreeing on it. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As you can see Zep, Tenebrae is back to his old ways. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment

There are at least 6 listings pertaining to professional wrestling. Is this because professional wrestling is at the core of American culture, and thus, the firsts in this field are critical? Or is it because an editor fell asleep at the wheel, or because an editor with good intentions added these but added these simply because the present day lead/criteria allows them to, and thus, nearly every single addition is decided by an editor's review or talk page discussion, rather than users/editors referring to a well-defined list of criteria? (signed after the fact by Zepppep (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Great points. Actually, there are 10 firsts for professional wrestling on the current list; all of them for the fictional accomplishments of a character within a script. And your point is perfect by putting pro wrestling in the Entertainment category. That's exactly what they are - entertainers. (WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment.) Pro wrestlers are acting out a script exactly as actors do in a TV show, movie or stage play do. Bill Cosby could be on the list as the First AA to have a self-named sitcom (if it were true), but his character on The Cosby Show, Cliff Huxtable, could not be on the list as the First AA Ob/Gyn. Firsts for the actors within their industry are of course totally acceptable, but firsts for the characters they portray are not. One is real-life, the other is not. For example, it would be totally acceptable to include Carl Weathers as the First AA to win an Academy Award (if it were true), but definitely not acceptable to list his character Apollo Creed as the First AA to win a professional boxing title. This rule should be exactly the same for actors in the pro wrestling industry. But it isn't. For example, there is a current listing for the "First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox". But none of that is real. Fox is simply a fictional character portrayed by actress Victoria Crawford. Crawford plays the role of Fox, and the script called for that character to be the Diva's Champion. All of the current pro wrestling firsts need to be removed. A listing for the First AA actor in professional wrestling (or similar title) would be fine, though. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the pro wrestling entries can be pared down, certainly, although — as I believe Zep suggests in the unsigned post — it occupies too large a place in American culture to be simply ignored. As for its being scripted, one might argue that the choice to script an Af-Am champion is as significant as the choice to script an interracial kiss. That would be the comparison — not, absurdly, that it's equivalent to claiming the fictional Dr. Huxtable is a real Ob/Gyn. I don't think the editors who added the pro wrestlers thought for a moment that modern pro wresting isn't scripted — discussion of the scripts is a major part of pro wrestling fandom.

That said, and as I've said before, I believe anyone who feels this is of great concern should call for an RfC to calmly and cooly discuss which categories to keep and which to delete, and to include in the discussion those editors who added the pro wrestling categories. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(Not unsigned. These subsections are all part of one thread.) So why hasn't an axe been taken to any of the 10 professional wrestling listings but has consistently been applied to Olympic athletes? Let me attempt to make what I wrote in this subsection's paragraph crystal clear so my comments are not misconstrued: professional wrestling is not of enough cultural importance in the U.S. to permit 10 listings. Furthermore, any firsts for professional wrestling would be debatable at best for being either historic or notable. One mention may very well be acceptable; 10? No. I would support Rfc. Zepppep (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was leaving this response to Zep but another editor and I were editing at the same time, so I'm adding it here now.

A couple of notes first, in response to a couple of your points. First, each post should be signed, if they're going to be in separate sections. Second, why hasn't an axe been taken? As I'd said earlier, because this, like many lists. are put together piecemeal and consensus standards evolve over months and years. It's not like a concerted effort was made to undermine the encyclopedic quality of the list by including them. They were included, no one to my knowledge objected or, perhaps, noticed. It's no big deal. That's what discussions like this are for.

As I've noted, I agree with you that 10 categories are far too many. Zep, since you've been outside the contentious back-and-forth between the anon IP and myself, why don't you up the RfC about whether pro wrestling should be included and if so with which categories and why. I think having you do it rather than either of us would just seem more neutral. Start it in a new section below, and I'll support the effort 100%.

Sorry Tenebrae, but RfC is not meant to be used when absolutely no strong reasons are given for one side of an issue, as is the case with pro wrestling. RfC is used when there are good arguments on both sides of an issues and consensus can't be reached. Of course, we still have yet to hear even a single good reason why pro wrestling should be included. We appear, therefore, to be at a point of consensus. If you want to have a separate list for pro wrestling only, go for it. But they cannot be mixed with serious, real-life firsts. And funny how you call my Cosby/Huxtable example absurd when it is precisely what is being done with all of the wrestling listings. Is Alicia Fox real? Did the actor who plays Fox really earn a "title" or did the script assign it to her character? And I never advocated for the first interracial kiss being on the list. Show us the proof of that claim. Nice try. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said you advocated for the first interracial kiss. It's frustrating to work with someone who continually infers things that aren't there and who then make outrageous claims and accusations and say things like "Nice try." Calm down, please, and let's use language and tone suitable for adults beyond the age of 18. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If Zep wants to call an RfC, that's his right. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing us of our rights. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From WP:RFC If the issue is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask a third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. You two may seek a third opinion if you wish, but Rfc doesn't qualify. I have no problem with Bill Cosby appearing on the list; I have no problem with potentially one professional wrestling mention, perhaps two if male and female were separate categories, and although I had to say it, comic book firsts. This opens up a whole nother can of worms: in addition to other lists, such as List of first African-American mayors, this particular article we're discussing right now should really be defined as real humans beings. If someone wants to set up a list for fictional characters, such as comic book characters, that's fine with me -- but otherwise, I have a feeling we're going to start getting a bunch of comic book additions. And the main reason for that would be because there is no specific criteria for inclusion. If, however, the criteria was written in a way that made it clear the list could not be populated by 10 professional wrestling mentions (and maybe soon, 20) or 50 comic book mentions, then I would be all for it! Zepppep (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, did you catch what Zep said? "Rfc doesn't qualify." And Zep, this isn't between just two editors. Mcusa and I are strongly opposed, you are opposed (other than now saying you'd support maybe one or two), and even Tenebrae said four times yesterday that he's "not wild" about the wrestling inclusions and that he "might even" oppose them. But he continues to refuse to simply take a specific position. And Zep, when you say you have no problem with the Bill Cosby inclusion, what are you referring to? You mean being the first AA to have a self-named TV show? That was purely an example to show what would be acceptable and what wouldn't. Haha. I don't know if he really is the first to have a self-named show. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so if 4 agree that 10 should be reduced to a lesser number, and at least 2 strongly oppose inclusion whatsoever, what's next? Can we get working on reducing that number or do more hoops need to be jumped through? (Respectively, of course.) Thank you for bringing up the Cosby reference and your questions. Allow me to clarify my position: Halle Berry followed a script. Now, the Academy Award she won was not pre-scripted; she won that, let's hope, for her on-screen performance compared against her peers. Professional wrestlers are different from actors, I understand -- but to what degree. As funny as wrestling might be, it is entertainment. The audience is taken along for the ride just like audiences watching a TV show, at a concert, etc. The producers, screen play writers, etc. associated with the movie know the outcome, just like those involved with professional wrestling. Who is to say that professional wrestling doesn't have at least one notable or historic first? Did it influence society? Did it open some eyes to some people regarding AA that may have had their eyes closed at once? I don't know. But I am OK with listing the first fictional characters for various fields. I would be OK with listing the first professional wrestler signed to a contract. I would not be OK with the first AA pro wrestling "champion" of a pro wrestling series, tournament, etc. as, as you've mentioned numerous times, the outcome is already pre-determined. The athlete/actor went through an interview process (to what standards, I don't know) just like athletes and actors on the list did, so the fact that someone was hired by a professional wrestling company is worthy of inclusion in my eyes. That would be about the only thing I could see getting on the article, however; everything else would have to be on some sort of "fictional AA firsts" article that does not yet exist. I could support a max of 2 pro wrestling mentions on this article, male and female mentions would = 2. Zepppep (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now we're totally on the same page! :) It's all about real-life accomplishments vs. scripted ones. With regard to pro wrestling, I have absolutely no problem at all, as I said, with including the major real-life firsts of the actors in the pro wrestling entertainment industry. What I am adamantly opposed to is listing the scripted firsts of their characters. So the example you mentioned (First AA professional wrestler signed to a contract) would be totally fine because that is a real-life accomplishment; the actor/performer actually signed a contract to work in that industry. But I of course agree with you that all the firsts for the assigned, "titles" (World Heavyweight Champion, Diva Champion, Tag-team champion, etc.) do not qualify because they're obviously pre-determined, choreographed, pretend titles assigned by writers and producers. You mentioned Halle Berry. Yes, Halle Berry, the actress, won (earned) the Academy Award for her profession; the character she played in the film did not. Her award was not a scripted or make-believe event. If you look at all the current wrestling listings, all of them are for scripted/imaginary accomplishments:

• First African-American male professional wrestler to win a world heavyweight championship: Bobo Brazil (NWA)
• First African-American wrestling manager: Slick
• First African American General Manager for World Wrestling Entertainment: Theodore Long
• First African-American Extreme Championship Wrestling champion: Bobby Lashley
• First African-American female professional wrestler to win the NWA World Women's Championship: Amazing Kong
• First African-American WWE Tag Team Champion: Tony Atlas (partnered with Rocky Johnson, a Black Nova Scotian)
• First tag team made up of two African Americans to win the WWE Tag Team Championship: Men on a Mission (Nelson Frazier, Jr., aka Mabel, and Robert Horne, aka Mo)
• First African American to win the WWE Championship: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
• First African American to win the WWE Women's Championship: Jacqueline Moore
• First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox

The one that should be on there, as you indicated, is the "First AA male (and female) to sign a professional wrestling contract". But no firsts for any "championship titles." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't mean anything that other editors with this page on their watchlists may not want to wade into what's been a fairly uncivil debate due to one taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse. They tend to wait for something formal, where there's a modicum of oversight. Frankly, to start talking about wholesale changes to one aspect of this article without asking the editors who added that material to be involved in the discussion . . . well, that seems about par for 76, but I can't image that Mcusa or Zep feels that's right or proper.

OK. I still have work to do tonight so I can't get to this till tomorrow at the earliest, but to be fair to other editors who've worked hard on this article, I'll go to the trouble of asking for a Request for Comment about the propriety of pro wrestling firsts in this article, and I'll notify past editors.

I don't personally believe we need all 10 pro wrestling categories. But what I can't seem to get through to you is that other editors do believe they belong, and their opinions, though I may disagree with them, have stood the test of time. No one reverted them and no one commented on them for months or possibly years, which is de facto agreement on their propriety. It's not like this isn't an actively edited article.

I imagine this will be met with jeers and taunts from 76, but corny as it sounds, show some respect for the process and show respect for other editors' views — even those of the pro-wrestling guys. Tomorrow we'll invite them and others here, hopefully have a wide variety of opinions, and that's how you build consensus for major changes. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What?? You call me a "taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse" and then follow-up with "show some respect"? Are you kidding me? Zep, you see this? We're moving along and this guy comes in here and starts attacking. If that's where you want to go Tenebrat, you got it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good move, Tenebrae. I do hope others weigh in. When I posted "inclusion criteria (broad)", I solicited opinions from about 6-8 WikiProjects but thus far, have not seen any new users. Zepppep (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall comments to this thread only

I would consider professional writing (which would appear in a book-form encyclopedia) to list "firsts" in a more categorical way, rather than with a narrow description as is currently found on this article. For example, my hope is for this article to go to "First AA graduate of a major college/university: ___" rather than its current "First graduate of Yale/Harvard/, etc." I would expect "First AA to serve on a state supreme court bench: ___ " rather than "First AA to serve on Massachusetts Supreme Court." The above inconsistencies were noted by Zepppep (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

I agree 100%. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the article to see which firsts don't really fit into any current category in this thread. They include: Judicial, Military, Publishing (authors, publishers, comic books, etc.), Religion, Careers (business, law, medicine, law enforcement, etc.)? Maybe Media could become combined as Media and Publishing? Whatever others thinks is best is fine with me. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I wasn't conclusive. This article has multiple issues, not only the ones most recently listed and categorized. Judicial into whatever level of gov't it applies (I listed municipal, state and federal); I didn't even get into the military -- there are whole lot of "firsts" I'm not sure if they belong or not; publishing would go into media (above); I put law enforcement into municipal as that is what police are part of. The others, have at it! Right now I think we have enough on our plate but if you want to dive deeper, be bold! I'm more inclined to build off of what has been started and continue to pursue actions on items which I think are bigger (i.e., lack of inclusion criteria). Zepppep (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best is great with me. I just figured that for any future disputes, editors can always refer to this thread for more guidance on a particular "first" to see if it qualifies for inclusion. The ones I mentioned have lots of entries on the current list. You guys can make the call. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This has already been raised up-page, but let me reiterate: IMO, criminal firsts should not be omitted. If there's to be a complete picture, good & bad must be covered. (I wouldn't leave Meyer Lansky off a list of notable Jews, or Adolf Hitler off a list of notable Austrians, frex.) We're taking no position on the value of the achievement, only its significance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TREKphiler. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Who the said criminal firsts should be omitted?? Funny, the only one who wants to take positions on the value of things is Tenebrat... Harvard and Yale, NYC and LA, and countless others? Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:42, 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)

Request for Comment: Pro wrestling

It has been brought up on this talk page that due to the scripted nature of pro wrestling championships that this article's pro wrestling firsts be examined and pared down from the 10 existing categories. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the categories:

• First African-American male professional wrestler to win a world heavyweight championship: Bobo Brazil (NWA)
• First African-American wrestling manager: Slick
• First African American General Manager for World Wrestling Entertainment: Theodore Long
• First African-American Extreme Championship Wrestling champion: Bobby Lashley
• First African-American female professional wrestler to win the NWA World Women's Championship: Amazing Kong
• First African-American WWE Tag Team Champion: Tony Atlas (partnered with Rocky Johnson, a Black Nova Scotian)
• First tag team made up of two African Americans to win the WWE Tag Team Championship: Men on a Mission (Nelson Frazier, Jr., aka Mabel, and Robert Horne, aka Mo)
• First African American to win the WWE Championship: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
• First African American to win the WWE Women's Championship: Jacqueline Moore
• First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox

--Tenebrae (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: The 10 above are not categories, they are the existing pro wrestling listings. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• All of the professional wrestling listings should be removed. They are all make-believe accomplishments of characters being portrayed by actors. Writers and producers create scripts, choreograph the "matches," and pre-determine the results. They assign some of the actors to play the role of championship title holders. It's analogous to putting on a stage production. See Professional wrestling, which explains in the lead that "Professional wrestling is a mode of spectacle, combining athletics and theatrical performance" and "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." That article also alludes to how the championship "titles" are "mimiced," wikilinking to mock combat. An A-A stage actor would qualify for this article for earning the first Tony Award, for example, but certainly not for anything their fictional character did in the play. This article is about real-life firsts, not fictional ones within a script. It would be fine to include the first African-American to sign a professional wrestling contract because it's about a real-life actor achieving a "first" in a particular entertainment industry, which is no different than having the first A-A to sign a TV or movie contract. If you want to have a place for pro wrestling scripted accomplishments, such as championship titles, then create a new, separate article devoted to that topic only. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 18:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would eliminate all of these. As noted above, first AA to sign with a major wrestling league, such as WWE or forerunners, would be historic. Everything else is just fiction. Mcusa (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• In response to the RFC solicitation, I support 76.189.114.163's points in verbatim.   — C M B J   06:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think only the first black male and female wrestlers in a major league, and the first manager. Were there any in the 1950s when they had pro wrestling on TV?--Farpointer (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with having only the first male and female to sign a contract in the industry. But not "manager." Again, "manager" is just a fictional role within a script, just like "champion" is. That would be like saying we should include the first mother in a TV series, or the first neighbor or police officer or doctor or any other type of fictional character category. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:58, 10 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)