Talk:Viola Davis

message: It was announced that Viola was cast as Amanda Waller in DCs Suicide Squad in 2016. I aded that info but it was deleted. Why???
Here is the source:
http://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-viola-davis-bags-amanda-waller-role-in-suicide-squad
and here another
http://batman-news.com/2014/12/16/viola-davis-amanda-waller-suicide-squad-reports-latino-review/
Poroboros (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Amanda Waller in Suicide Squad

message: As there seems to be some confusion about the two terms, please note that for the purposes of encyclopedic entries, the terms "black" and "African American" are not interchangeable. While they may refer to the same thing in some conversational settings; and, of course, there are cases where either is correct; they are still not identical terms. As such, they are not interchangeable. The term "black" is a  racial identifier which might apply to people of many countries. While the term "African American" is specific to native-born Americans of African descent, and as such, is an ethnic identifier. 
As examples, while Bob Marley was, and Usain Bolt is, unquestionably "black" - obviously neither is "African-American" - as both were born in Jamaica. 
Conversely, Charlize Theron was born in Benoni, Transvaal Province, South Africa. But she became a naturalized, American citizen, in 2007. While she is neither "black" nor "black American," she is still an "African-American." Anecdotally, I have also heard her self-identify as such.
Hopefully, you'll find these examples useful. Please consider them in your future editing, as you strive for accuracy and precision. Many thanks and happy editing! X4n6 (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick drive-by comment: "African-American" is a pretty poor term to use solely to discern race, because it simply assumes black African, and not, say, Australian aboriginal roots, while "black" would more accurately convey both, but lacks the national character that "X-American" has (omitting nationality is not always a bad thing, though). It also overlooks that "African" is not a race: the Borg Queen is exceedingly not black despite being thoroughly African. That said, if it's the phrase specifically used in the sources, then it's the best thing to use simply because it's not us editorialising. Ideally we wouldn't feel the need to note it at all, though. Imagine a world where we didn't give a toss about race but about just the acting itself. GRAPPLE X 13:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for you comment. However, the point I was making is that "African-American" is not, or at least it should not, be used to discern race. So in that sense, you are absolutely correct. However, it is used to discern ethnicity, and there it is more appropriate. While "black" simply connotes race, but says nothing whatsoever about ethnicity. Just as "white" says nothing about ethnicity, only race. Ultimately, I agree with you and again, thanks for your input. My point is simply to distinguish between the two terms. Because, as I've noted, they really define two very different things.X4n6 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You went out of your way to remove "black" from the lead. That is why you started this section. You added "African American" in its place. Grapple X is arguing that "African American" is a poor choice. I am arguing that "black American" and "African American" are generally synonyms, as indicated by various WP:Reliable sources, including ones referring to Viola Davis's Emmy win. I am also arguing that sources are simply referring to Viola Davis as "black." You made a big deal out of removing "black," despite the many WP:Reliable sources stating that Viola Davis is the first black woman to win the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. Flyer22 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: African American is the correct term here. The article subject is American, as well as the award she won. "Black" would be less encyclopedic, as well as less specific. American award and subject articles are of course worded more in Americancentric terms. Just as articles concerning British or Australian subjects are worded in ways that more identify with their terminology. Dave Dial (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

text: , regarding this and this, you should make your case here. As you can see in the #WP:Citation overkill in the lead section above, I made an argument similar to yours. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . Sorry, wasn't aware of this discussion. An encyclopedia should be fully accurate. Saying African American only tells us part of the story, that Davis is the first black American actress to win in the category, and leaves open the possibility to readers that a black actress from outside the US has won the category, which is not the case. Davis is the first black actress from anywhere to win. L1975p (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Just to address points made by . The fact the subject is American is not really relevant, an actress from any country in the world can win an Emmy Award. Stating first black woman is not "less specific" it is more accurate. "First African American woman" only tells us that she is the first black woman from one country (the US) to win the lead actress in a drama category. "First black woman" tells the reader that she is the first black woman from any of the world's 200 plus countries to win in the category. The latter is more encyclopedic. L1975p (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text: . Of course lots of the references will say African American, because they will be American refs and African American is an American term. Wikipedia however, is not American. The fact remains she is the first black actress from any country in the world to win in the category. Writing first African American does not inform the reader of all the facts, it only informs them that she is the first black American actress to win the category L1975p (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We go by what the majority of sources state, not by your own personal logic or reasoning. And of course it matters that the actress herself is American, African American, and the award is an American award. There are also alphabet source policies to back up those points too. I rather not have to debate it further and continue this, if the new wording is not up to your standards, start a RFC. And please stop pinging me, I watch pages I edit and will respond when I see them edited when I have time. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text: For the record, regarding this and this, I initially thought of including both as a compromise and as the best option. So I agree with DD2K (Dave Dial) on that change. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The ping was out of courtesy. Yes it is an American award, but one that can be won by people of any nationality. While I appreciate the attempt at a compromise, writing "As well as the first black woman of any nationality", makes the previous sentence, "First African American woman", redundant. If she is the first black woman to win in the category then obviously she is the first black American woman to win, but at least the lead now gives all the facts, which by only stating "First African American woman", it previously failed to do. L1975p (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I can assume good faith on the pinging, even though you did it twice in a row before I could respond. As for the other stuff, meh....sources are sources. Start a RFC if you want to use OR instead of the sources. Dave Dial (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for replying and you're right to assume good faith (my second ping was responding to your edit summary).As for the sources, Ref 36 in the main article takes you to a list of refs including e.online, which states "First time two black women nominated in the category" and "no black woman has won in the category". Vanity fair says "First woman of color ever to win the category". Variety says "First black actress to win for lead actress in a drama".  Ref 39, The Washing Post headline says African American but the actual article says "First black woman to win". So yes, sources are sources and lots of the ones provided use the term black actress. As I previously said I appreciate the compromise but I stand by the fact that the sentence "First black woman of any nationality" makes the sentence "First African American woman", redundant. L1975p (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Attn. Editors: Please note that "[[Black people|black]]" and "[[African American]]" are not interchangeable terms. 

message: I never suggested consensus. The previous conversation was about saying AA woman or black woman, not both. It was you DD2K (Dave Dial), that edited the page mid discussion to include both. When I first stated redundancy you said "Meh... sources are sources. Start a RFC if you want to use OR". My response told you I was going by the sources already on the page, and I reiterated my point. That got no response so I edited. The noteworthy thing about Davis's win, is that she is the first black woman to win in that category. Saying she is the first of any nationality, negates the need to say she is the first from the US. L1975p (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying, but yet again you have failed to address the point I was making (isn't that what the talk page is for). Tony the Tiger only inserted info about her being the first African American to win, which with respect to him, was insufficient, as has been addressed earlier on this page by GrappleX, Flyer22 and myself. You then edited the page mid-discussion to write both African American and first black woman of any nationality to win, and I argued that only the latter is necessary. Your previous reply to me incorrectly told me I wasn't using the sources, when that's exactly what I was doing, one of which is Davis's Emmy acceptance speech, where she does not use the term African American, but does talk about the lack of opportunities for "women of color" and "redefining what it is to be black". If you want someone on a talk page to "stop it", it might be helpful to actually address the points they have made. L1975p (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Emmy win

message: Content about Davis' sister being sexually abused has absolutely no relevance to Davis, regardless of it being properly sourced.  Verifiability doesn't = inclusion 100% of the time.  WP:INHERITED might also apply here.  What's more, the content has no encyclopedic value, unless there is an article in Wikipedia about sexual abuse that includes Davis' sister's circumstances as an example.  In regard to this article, however, the content does not assist readers in better understanding Davis as it is not about Davis.  For all these reasons, I have removed it once again -- after it being reinserted twice (along with other content that doesn't belong in the article, either).  If anyone wants to support its inclusion, this would be the place and time to discuss it.  Reinsertion of it should stop until a consensus can be reached.  If need be, an RfC will commence if peaceful, thoughtful, and productive resolution doesn't commence soon.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is trivia, not even about the article subject, and has no encyclopedic value.  We are not a fan website nor are we a repository for tidbits about the lives of family members of the article subject.  Reportability does not equate inclusion.  Are you new here? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  12:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  these noteworthy details about Davis's close family member that have been covered by the press need to remain within the article. Please do not remove again until a consensus is reached on the talk page. Do not edit war Winkelvi. Davis has discussed this incident at length and considers it important in her life. Pauciloquence (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are now officially WP:HOUNDING me.  It's bordering on harassment.  Knock it off. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not. Viola Davis is on my watch list. Just saw it pop up. I came to the article, perused it and added back some pertinent info that it looks like you have removed several times. You need to stop edit warring. You need to stop accusing me of groundless crimes just based on whatever is the reason you are doing that. Recently you accused me of "following" you when I was correcting a error at an article on a wiki project clean up list. If you continue harassing me with these false claims, I will report you to an administrator. Pauciloquence (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Report away.  Any administrator will see that I'm not the one harassing or hounding, it's you.  You've been active with this account in Wikipedia for only two weeks, never edited this article until a few minutes ago, and your edit was to revert something I did.  Just as it has been elsewhere.  I don't buy your story, and, to be honest, I don't think an administrator with half-a-brain will, either.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated, irrelevant content 

message: Can we give her a better photo? There are much more flattering photos of her out there, no reason to use a comic-con panel photo JerrickRangvaldr (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better photo 

message: Viola Davis' audiobook just won her a grammy. Should we put this in her page. Homeostasis39 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Grammy 

message: She was awarded her honorary doctorate for Fine Arts from University of Rhode Island 86.27.56.57 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viola Davis is now a Doctor 

message: She has been awarded her honorary doctorate from the University of Rhode Island for Fine Arts Flabe5555 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viola Davis received honorary doctorate