Jump to content

Talk:Ethnic stereotypes in American media/Archive 1

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

I need more people to help on this article...

I have gone through great lengths to research, confirm, re-confirm, organize, and re-organize the content of this article. The neutrality of the article has now been established. Please feel free to point out any possible factual errors if you happen to find any. Also, please feel free to add anything to the article in which you might think has not been covered yet. Thanks.

RatherfordSkills 03:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)



I've moved the article to an NPOV name. FCYTravis 03:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks. I could use a hand.

- Rathskill


To Kevin Myers,

Kevin Myers, you provided an edit to this article by providing tags. You also said that this article's subject matter is very important. This is why you should have been inclined to correct the article immediately (without having to provide tags). If you don't have the time to edit (besides providing tags), at least offer your suggestions in greater detail (in this talk page). Please remember this, we are human beings first and technical critics second. Thus, we have the moral responsibility to help society; we must be inclined to fix any errors within the article ourselves without having to wait and hope that someone else will come along and improve the article. Ask yourself this - what use is it for the article to be placed in a tagged category, if people do not show the initiative to fix it once they see it? Just looking at many tagged categories, I see that many articles have not been attended to (and many have been tagged for months). I hope you understand my concerns. Thanks & good luck with your edits.


- Rathskill


To people

The article is very large. Therefore, if people find anything that needs correction, please specify in more detail. It would be very difficult for me to clean it up if things were not specified, because the article is very large. I would also appreciate that others show the moral initiative to improve the article by not just providing tags. My hope is that, whenever someone finds something in this article that needs to be fixed, that he or she will correct it themselves. I literally cannot continue to fix this article on a 24 hour basis. Since this article carries a very important subject matter, everyone has the moral obligation to fix it (should they spot anything that needs improvement). Also notify me of any omissions you may have done so we can discuss them in detail in my talk page or in here. I prefer here. Good luck.


RatherfordSkills 16:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)



I added the "inuse" tag for now. I'll see what I can do. I still encourage others to help me with this article (even with the tag on). Before you decide to edit though, I prefer that you explain in detail (on this page) and we can discuss about it. This huge article has been a seriously heavy burden to publish and the amount of research I continue to put into it should not be taken lightly. I strongly believe that humanity needs to be exposed to this type of information, otherwise, I wouldn't have gone to extreme lengths to create this article in the first place. It is that kind of tenacity and moral initiative that I hope to see in other people as well, because this subject matter affects everyone in our world (including unborn children of the future). Cheers.


RatherfordSkills 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Different Languages

This article needs to be translated into all other languages as well. Maybe someone knows how to translate this article? 'Cause I don't know how.

Archival McTannith 15:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The introduction

I gave the introduction its own category "Overview". This makes it easier for users to edit that beginning of the article, instead of having to click on "edit page".

Archival McTannith 16:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)



Hehe thanks.


Ratskill 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Cleanup

I removed the "inuse" tag so as to invite others to edit the article as well. This article deserves other people's inputs and contributions no doubt. I also reinstated the "cleanup" tag at the bottom of the article. This way, it will not pose as a visual distraction at the very top of the article (which starts off with a table of contents). Having a rectanglular box adjacent to a squarish box would in my opinion, be considered an unconventional look to any article's beginning. Usually, readers are more used to seeing articles starting off with paragraphs and text, not excessive block shapes. Anyways, thanks and good luck.


Ratskill 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Brief descriptions have now been added to more than 90% of all the links in this entire article.


Billy-Ray Bates 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

I added a huge bibliography with many sub-sections. Hope it helps.

--Justin Alvarez Jr. 01:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge this page with parallel articles

I found some other smaller articles that cover the same issues as this one. We should merge those smaller ones into this one (this being the destination). I recommend White privilege (sociology) as the first merger. Then after that's done, we merge this entire article (as a source) into Media bias (being the destination). Eventually after this, we should try merging from Media bias to Racism. Racism will be the base subject for all 3 previous articles.

Justin Alvarez Jr. 02:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with proposed mergers. This article doesn't cover white privilege, which deals with social aspects far removed from media coverage. Media bias, on the other hand, is a more general topic, and Media and ethnicity covers one type of media bias. Racism is a still larger topic. It is possible to have related articles, after all, and it turns out, desirable. Cleduc 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't very encyclopedic. It is hard to read, and looks like a poorly formatted Link farm. I'm half inclined to put a cleanup tag on it. Cleduc 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Look again

There already is a cleanup tag at the bottom. Stop whining and fix the thing yourself if you think there's something that needs fixing. Try reading the earlier messages of this page (the ones above your's), then you'll actually get a clue of what's going on with the edits around here and why Ratherford has strongly emphasized the necessity for the more experienced users to help out with this article. If you have nothing to contribute but complain, then stfu. Otherwise, we need your help.

Also the article consists of a very deep subject matter (a very important one) and uses a lot of facts from many different sources. Look again, the article isn't just a list of worthless links. It has tons of credible links from universities. Read that? I said universites. You know, the ones with names like Yale, Cambridge, Michigan, Harvard, and many more. You should format it yourself once you notice something that needs to be improved. Don't wait for others to do it. If you care a lot about society, you should be fully inclined (not half-inclined) to fix the article. At least me and others here, even though we make a lot of technical "format" mistakes, make the great effort to do our best. I'm a new member here. You're probably not. That means that this article automatically demands your seasoned experience over mine.

My point is that, you should have fixed this thing once you saw problems. Don't just make pathetic " half-inclined" suggestions and just put all your trust on my inexperienced knowledge of wikipedia. Ratskill is right when he said that the more experienced editors should be fully inclined and willing to help by not just relying on tags. Experienced users should contribute to this very important article as much as anyone else. You have no excuse for being "half-inclined". Quite irresponsible remark in my opinion. The article's subject matter deserves the fully inclined efforts from experienced editors (efforts that involve the direct and immediate fixing of any errors).


Justin Alvarez Jr. 05:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

To all the experienced editors of Wikipedia

I re-instated the cleanup tag (I put it on the top) so that more experienced users will actually make an effort (for a change) to contribute to this extremely important article. Please use your experience to make the necessary corrections that this article deserves. And stop being useless technical critics and wait for us inexperienced users to fix the thing. We need your help. It takes time to learn the specifics of Wikipedia, and it's far from easy. But this can be easier if the more seasoned and experienced users actually stopped complaining and do something positive. Once you see problems within the article, do the corrections right at that moment. If you don't do corrections right then and there, chances are, inexperienced users like me will make more errors (resulting in more work).

Do you know why this article is so "poorly formatted"? It's because a lot of the experienced users just sat back all this time criticizing while not fixing the problems immediately. All they did was rely on us inexperienced users to fix the article ourselves. Had this article been properly moderated, the less likely that rookie errors would have accumulated this much.


Justin Alvarez Jr. 05:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)



Well said. The article is too important to be ignored. Anyone who stumbles upon this article and happens to find any mistakes should do the revisions immediately. If a poster has nothing to offer but bitch about the article being poorly formatted, please shut up. You have no idea how much work the rest of us have put into this project. We need more people to help and less dipshits who make half inclined remarks.


Archival McTannith 14:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Darlings, I was talking about the article, not making personal attacks, and I suggest you do the same. I do not have to improve this article, as I am not paid to do so. I would suggest that this article be improved significantly before nominating it as a destination for merging, however. Cleduc 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Well said. The article is too important to be ignored. Anyone who stumbles upon this article and happens to find any mistakes should do the revisions immediately. If a poster has nothing to offer but bitch about the article being poorly formatted, please shut up. You have no idea how much work the rest of us have put into this project. We need more people to help and less dipshits who make half inclined remarks.


Archival McTannith 14:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)





Cledus, we rather you help us edit this extremely important article or at least, if you don't have the time, try to make some time for it. Not that we are forcing you, but if you are a seasoned editor, your experience is needed. The subject matter that this article is centered around deserves your full involvement.That goes for everyone else.

Don't engage in comparing articles with one another. Stop the ego bullshit. If an article covers a very important subject, then that article deserves the best skills to contribute to it. Both articles white privilege sociology and media and ethnicity cover extremely important issues. What this means is that, the experienced editors who helped contribute to the white privilege sociology should also feel the moral urge to edit this one as well. The reason why you (Cledus), only feel half inclined as you say, is because you are too focused and too attached to the article white privilege sociology. What you are forgetting is that, such an article does not belong to you or to anyone else. It is under the authority of Wikipedia (just like this article).

This isn't a contest of who can make the best article. This is about getting involved in other Wikipedia articles, as that is what this service stands for -- a free encyclopedia. Once you spot a problem within any article, feel free to edit it right then and there. DO NOT WAIT FOR OTHERS TO DO THE WORK FOR YOU. Whenever you see a mistake, that act of spotting that mistake becomes you're technical responsibility. Furthermore, if the article carries an important issue (like this one), your act of spotting a mistake becomes your moral responsibility.

Never forget that every article does not belong to us. We have no authority over it. But we as free editors have the moral responsibility to act upon a mistake once spotted (especially when it concerns important issues). If you want to provide tags, then do so, as those things are a means of calling others to help out. But once you tag an article, don't just leave it at that. The moment you spot a mistake, that mistake becomes your sole responsibility to fix.


--Ratherford Skills 17:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)




I am not a subject matter expert on media or ethnicity, and I have no urge to become an expert in order to contribute to this article. Why not focus your own energy on the article instead of criticising my lack of involvement? It will be a better use of your time -- because I'm done responding to this thread. Cleduc 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)



Actually if you looked at the article's history, they do put a lot of their time and energy on this article. Also if you looked at the title of this discussion "To all the experienced editors of Wikipedia", it addresses many people. Not just you.


--Zhiago 18:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


POV Check Tag

I've added the POV Check tag. I know that the main contributors for this page are very sensitive and defensive about it, so I'm sorry to upset you, but this page is the clearest NPOV violation I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. From its first sentence, this article argues a very specific point of view. It is asserted that the media is racist, and the article intends to discuss the nature of that racism. The notion that anyone might dispute that racism in the first place is not discussed. This attitude is maintained fairly steadily throughout the article.

Ncsaint 23:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Racism Definition

I previously made a comment about this which someone deleted, presumably by mistake. Why is there a huge section on the definition of racism in this article? There is of course already a substantial article on racism. The whole point of a huge encyclopedia like this is that one article does not need to define all terms associated with its subject matter; you can simply link to the 'racism' article. If the contributors to this page have something to add to that article, they should do so. There is no reason for you to limit yourself to editing this one article, and in so doing turn it into a blog for your thoughts on all topics. Or is the definition in that section a definition of racism only insofar as it pertains to media?

Ncsaint 04:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

I agree that the neutrality tag should stay. That's fair game because after all, this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But in reality, the western mainstream media is racist. The problem with this article, is that it's very difficult to present such facts in an objective and encyclopedic manner. There are 2 reasons for this. The first is, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian editor, and therefore am not fully versed in the policies of this community. Second, the overwhelming number of sources that expose the mainstream media's racist patterns towards Non-whites greatly outnumber the number of sources that argue otherwise.

Remember this, if there were an equal number of sources that say that the mainstream media isn't racist, I would have provided those as well. The fact is, there are far less sources that support that arguement in the internet. That in itself should tell you something. The only reason why I agree that the neutrality tag should be used is because many of us inexperienced editors didn't know how to present such overwhelming facts according to Wikipedia's technicalities.

Anyone here who refuses to see the fact that the western mainstream continues to put White men on a pedestal, is covertly racist (whether they are conscious of it or not). Sometimes, you have to investigate your own intentions as to why you may have wanted to put the neutrality dispute tag in the first place. I know my intention for supporting the application of the tag (read the statement in bold above).

As for you, I don't know. That's your business, not mine. Hopefully, if you are White, that you aren't being defensive about this article. Of course, I can only hope that you're disputes are in the best interest of the public and that they carry nothing more than the good intention to improve the credibility of this article.

Ratherford Skills 03:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


My neutrality objection was not just based on the lack of documented objections, but also (and mainly) on the way in which the theory itself is presented. The article is itself making a particular case, rather than describing a position that some people happen to hold. As a reference point, here are a few sentences from the opening of the related article on white privilege:
" In the view of those using the term, it is the primary benefit of racism expressed as preferential treatment within a society. As racism is usually understood to be punitive towards people of color, white privilege is claimed to be the pattern of social benefits accruing to members of the socially privileged and oppressing group, at the expense of members of the socially disprivileged and oppressed group."
Now, it may be the case that everyone working on that article agrees with this position, but they do not present it as truth, but rather as a viewpoint one can hold or not. Similarly, while I think most people would agree with you that there are racist trends in the media, it is bad form to phrase things in the manner they are phrased here, especially at the beginning of the article. I hope that makes my objection clearer, as I am definitely not saying that this is POV because I disagree with it.

Ncsaint 04:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)



To NCsaint

I accidentally deleted your earlier post. Now as for the article itself, the inexperience of most of the editors who worked in this article is evident. That's why many of the facts in the article weren't presented in a neutral point of view. It is that lack of experience that has caused a lot of the errors within the article. I would certainly need your assistance in conforming this article to a more neutral point of view. The fact that you are showing a willingness to help here is greatly appreciated and most needed as well.

I also agree that the definition of racism does not need to be included in this article. There is already a separate article on Racism. However, if you looked at some of the specifics of that section within this article, a lot of it pertains to the media. I was also trying to make the reader correlate those definitions in relation to the earlier sections of the article.

Perhaps this article is a bit too long. If you believe that something within the article is redundant and only makes the article bigger, I'm open to the discussion for removing such portions. Thanks and good luck.

--Ratherford Skills 04:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to try to help where I am able. I have very limited exposure to sociology, (although I have read a small amount of philosophy of race), but I will try to help rearranging some of the sentences to a more NPOV format.
As far as the racism-definition issue goes, I see your point. Probably the best thing would be for some of the people who put that section together to sort through what is specific to media, delete or move the rest to another article, and rename the section to reflect whatever content is retained. That would also help with the length. I am not one of the Wikipedia experts you are hoping for I'm afraid, but I have spent some time here, and I can't think of any articles off hand that are this long (although a lot of the length is references).

Ncsaint 04:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Good work on the first paragraph. I think that portion seems more neutral and encylopaedic now.Archival McTannith 09:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening Section Revamp / Ongoing Changes

I tried to make the rest of the opening section more NPOV in general. In some cases, I had a little bit of trouble interpreting sentences that had to be rewritten, so I'd appreciate it if those responsible for the content in there could check to make sure I didn't twist the meaning of any of it.

I also moved the list of sources on the NBA dress code down to the bibliography. I'm not sure if that's the best place for it, but it seemed to me that it was an oddly specific issue to have right in the article's lead-off. Maybe there is somewhere else inbetween that would be more appropriate. Ideally, someone more knowledgeable in this field than I would write something about that issue for this article, since it seems very relevant, and right now it is just a list of sources.

In general, there is way too much space taken up by 1.) lists of sources, and 2.) extended quotes from other published articles. The latter constitute a fairly big problem, since I think someone mentioned on this page before that those sections might be violating the copywrite policy.

Ncsaint 04:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)



Just read the recent edits. Seems fine with me. Relocating the NBA dress code issue to the Bibliography section is appropriate in my opinion. Although, I believe it can also fit in with the section that deals with cultural imperialism. What do other's think about this? I also think that this article needs to make use of tables that would allow for the reorganization of links so that things are more space-conservative. I'm not very keen in making tables though, so I just thought it would be helpful by bringing up the idea.

For the extended excerpts and quotes, I do believe that some of them violate the copyright policies. What we can do however, is to re-write those excerpts so that they aren't just copy and paste material. I notice though that the excerpts are very long, so I think re-writing them would take many days. I'm up for it and I'll probably start in 2 days. I'll make time for it, no question. Any suggestions and opinions from anyone would be helpful as well. Justin Alvarez Jr. 15:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias, possible move

This article has a great deal of amero-centric bias. I would like to help, but completely re-writing the entire article is beyond my scope. It might be better to move the article to Ethnic stereotypes in American media. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua 01:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That's possible. Although keep in mind that the American media is the most powerful media in the world. One could make a very strong point that the greater portion of the global media is mostly Americanized (which is actually a fact). However, I'm still open to the idea that the article can be moved to your proposal. Be patient though, this article is very large, so don't expect this article to be finished anytime soon. Any help (no matter how small) is greatly appreciated. Justin Alvarez Jr. 03:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I will wait and see if anyone else weighs in on this issue. KillerChihuahua 04:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop using horizontal rules. See: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout and follow the guidelines. KillerChihuahua 05:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

'External links'& 'See also' integrated to Bibliography/Webliography

The sections titled "External links" and "See also" have been integrated into the "Bibliography and Webliography" section. They have also been put into new smaller sub-divisions called "External sources" and "Internal sources" within their parent sub-section titled "Miscellaneous sources".Justin Alvarez Jr. 04:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethnic_stereotypes_in_American_media/Archive_1&oldid=95780770"