Talk:House negro

Reference added, with comment

this is a fairly well known word, so i referenced an international use of the word to emphasize this. however, in the interest of peoples feelings, i am not in any way supporting the use by al-qaeda of this term. its just to indicate notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

de orphaned

i have now linked other articles to this one. i am very new to wikipedia, and am not sure if im comfortable removing the tags. i suppose an argument can be made for merging this article with "uncle tom". i would appreciate comments on what i can do next, and i will research wiki policy to see what i can do to remove tags. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed links to 2 living persons

two people were listed as "well known house negroes". since they are alive, this is in violation of WP:BLP (biographies of living persons). we cant have any potentially libellous material. of course, if the 2 people have been accused publicly of being "house negroes" by important sources (say, jesse jackson), and the controversy was very public, that could be discussed in neutral terms on the subjects article pages. but simply adding a link from this article to their names is not acceptable-especially if the main articles dont mention a public controversy. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixup

this is my best shot at fixing up the article. i think it now adequately shows notability. i hesitate to add the alternate term, house nigger, to the body of the article, though some of the links use this term, but if its necessary to add it and is not excessive use of pejoratives, please do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people

There is NOTHING that this list violates on this site. It's sourced and it's related to the article. Personal opinions are not valid enough. Please discuss.--XLR8TION (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the section violates WP:BLP. Second, even if it didn't, almost none of the sources are reliable sources. I appreciate that you put a lot of effort into that list, but you can't violate Wikipedia policy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page you mentioned, and there is nothing in the list that violates it. I have reverted the page back and have placed a request for third party assistance. Please wait for TPO before any changes are made.--XLR8TION (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to hear a third opinion about whether the article should have such a section, but WP:BLP says that material is removed unless there are reliable sources. Which the current section doesn't have. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section (a list of people who have been called "House Negroes") violates WP:BLP because it serves no purpose other than to disparage the people on it. Nobody has ever been called a "House Negro" as a sign of respect or admiration, and I doubt if anybody has ever referred to her- or himself as a "House Negro" (except for irony). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that there is no comparable section in Uncle Tom or Self-hating Jew. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

In my opinion, the list of notable house negros should be removed. The list is not accompanied by reliable sources. For a label to be attached to a person we not only need to see a reliable source that 'person X is a Y' but we also need a reliable source that says, or at least indicates, that 'person X is generally accepted as being a Y'. The sources included here neither make the general claim nor are they reliable (they are mostly blogs of some sort). Secondarily, people are generally called all sorts of things, often derogatory things, but it does not follow that that derogatory label is attached to that person. For example, we wouldn't include Obama in a list of 'notable liars' because a congressman called him one. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ No, we'd include him in that list because he is a liar.