Talk:Nita Negrita

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nita Negrita article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

African diaspora

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Controversies[edit]

These are valid criticisms of the show, if you have any complaints, please contribute to the discussion instead of directly editing the article. I know some of you work for GMA. 24.182.41.227 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA-centric?[edit]

The article describes the lead character as "Filipino/black girl named Nita (Barbie Forteza). Her mother is Filipina and her father is black Filipino" though the controversies section mentions "Filipino/African-American child". I know that some Americans refer to all black people (regardless of nationality) as African-American, so is this character black Filipino or African-American? sheridan (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

blackface[edit]

I have restored the section on the blackface controversy and replaced one source with a more reliable one. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute towards this discussion, rather than just reverting edits. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy you are referring isn't that controversial. Its just 1 article that brought up the subject but it really doesn't carry a lot of weight to be even featured in this article.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that with only one media source, it isn't really suitable for this article? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a High profiled controversy. No need to mention every nitpick or criticism from the netizens. Also, your controversy section wasn't even written well in the first place.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, as the only source I supplied was not enough to give weight to the content and the fact that it wasn't written well, you removed the content. So, based on what you're saying, if I manage somehow to find enough sources to support the content and write it a little better, then the controversy content is acceptable.

And I'm a little interested why there isn't a controversy section on this article. There was one previously, but I don't see any consensus regarding its removal.

Anyway, if you don't have any objections I'm going to see if I can find some more sources, and thanks a lot for the advice MrHotWiki, you've been a lot of help. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just let the subject go. Right now, it sounds like you have an agenda to mention something you think is a "controversy", when there's isn't. So just stop making it happen.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I let it go? Either there is a controversy and sources will confirm that, or there isn't and nothing will happen.

It isn't up to you or I to decide if something is controversial, we remain neutral.

If there are sources confirming that it is controversial, will you object to the content being added and on what grounds? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm super surprised! I found lots of reliable sources talking about the controversy!

That means it is a controversy! At least neither of us relied on our own personal opinions about this, instead we can just rely on sources, the way that every other wikipedia article does. Thanks again MrHotWiki, I couldn't have done this without your help and advice. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an agenda about posting "controversy" in the article. If you want discuss it further, in my opinion, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a platform to make a big deal about a "controversy" which isn't even notable in my opinion.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to stop thinking about opinions and agendas. Just follow the sources and you have your content, it's that simple. If you think there is another side to the story, then find sources that support that side and add balance.

Note: "You can't put something in the article when someone is opposing your edit." is not true.

Note: "controversy" is in the sources.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Honneth[edit]

The mention of Axel Honneth commenting on the show is incorrect as well as the quotation from the book cited. The author of the book cited was commenting on the idea of disrespect in Honneth's recognition theory and used examples of racism in the popular media as examples. To make this short, Honneth did not say anything about this show, it was the author of the book who made the commentary on the perception of Filipinos about skin colour. 152.32.104.226 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]