Talk:Black sitcom

I did a google test on this article name and it revealed 1000+ google hits. Please keep this! --SuperDude 16:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this the only black cinema/film/entertainment article out there? If anyone knows of more please tell me them. One, I would like to see them and two I would like to link them. I can't find any more. Is there a black film history article? If not then I would like to make one, but I don't want to make a double. I am new to wikipedia and any help would be greatly appreciated. hdstubbs

There might be more, but I know about [[Category:Blaxploitation films]], and there are categories for black actor/actress, and black directors. I don't the link off hand. Go to [[Category:African-American actors]] and start from there. QzDaddy 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I added Gullah Gullah Island--Bushido Brown 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I am proposing that this article be deleted, because creating a separate distinction for "black sitcoms" is inherently racist. There is no "white sitcom", the reason being that the default media context is "white". This means that a "sitcom", with no other qualifiers, is assumed to feature an all or mostly white cast. This should not be the case. There is no article for "black doctors" or "black athletes", because each of those fields has nothing to do with race. Just because a sitcom features an "all black" cast does not mean that race is not a core issue of the sitcom, nor that it is relevant at all. —Godheval^{T C W} 18:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Black sitcoms are a certain kind of sitcom. They are written specifically for the black community, using black actors and writing stories that will appeal to a black audience. Now a show like the Cosby Show should be taken out, because it was intended for everyone, but the article should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.207.201 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not a certain kind of sitcom. Are sitcoms with predominately "white" casts called "white sitcoms". Is the George Lopez show a Mexican sitcom? No to both. You are also incorrect in saying that "black sitcoms" are written specifically for the black community, as if to imply that they cannot or are not intended to be enjoyed by any other audience. They are sitcoms like any other, portraying specific people and situations that fit within the overall American experience - which includes people of every ethnicity. —Godheval^{T C W} 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you saw how blacks were portrayed on television before then on American television, you'd understand why this is important. In movies and television all blacks were originally required to wear black face, they even dressing them up as watermelon slices, and having them dancing around like fools in one historic clip I saw, which discussed the issue. They were degraded by the racist media of the day. As time went by, even when things got a bit better, there was still a very racists attitude towards them. Red Fox had problems with racism on his set even, even when he was at the top of his ratings. And the Cosby show did have a positive affect on how mainstream America saw black people, especially those who only saw them on the news getting arrested for something, or presented in a negative way in other media. I believe this article is quite valid. Dream Focus 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, if I saw how they were portrayed on television? Buddy, I study and analyze and write commentary on these kinds of issues on a regular basis. For your information, blackface rarely featured African-American actors, but rather Euro-American actors with black face paint. I know all about Al Jolson and the Sambo archetype. There is an article about blackface that discusses it clearly. That has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here. I am talking about distinguishing "black sitcoms" from any other type of sitcom.

The ones listed here, and indeed this whole classification, gives no special mention to how African-Americans (or anyone else) have been portrayed historically, or how the current definition of a "black sitcom" precludes any such offensive portrayals. This article is STRICTLY about sitcoms that have black casts, and my point is that there should be no separate article for that. If you look at the regular Situation comedy article, which itself is in need of serious attention, you will notice that it breaks down sitcoms by region, and by other sub-categories.

What you FAIL to understand is that in distinguishing "black sitcoms" from any other, you are suggesting that they are necessarily different from any other, which given the racial history of this country also implies that they are qualitatively inferior. What I am discussing here is far deeper than you seem capable of understanding, and so I resent you trying to pass off some cursory knowledge of the subject as the authority to end the discussion and remove the delete proposal. DO NOT remove it again, until this discussion as truly been resolved. —Godheval^{T C W} 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a bogus categorisation and serves no useful purpose. pablo_hablo. 16:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You must nominate it for proper deletion, put on the Article for Deletion review if you want to be rid of it. Speedy deletion without review, is only if no one objects, and I still object. Seeing the number of black sitcoms increasing over time, and having a list there you can easily find them and then click to find information about them, is helpful to some. If you want to nominate it for deletion, then do it properly. Dream Focus 21:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A two-second look at the page history reveals that this wasn't nominated for speedy deletion. pablo_hablo. 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. They call it something else now. "proposed that this article be deleted" I see no reason to have that instead of the regular nomination which would get noted by those who patrol the AFD boards. I believe the "speed deletion" tag would say "remove this tag if you disagree it should be deleted within so many days, or its gone," or something like that. Same tag, different name. Dream Focus 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read WP:Speedy, WP:Prod and WP:AFD it should help you clear up your confusion. pablo_hablo. 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Read that, and it seems the only difference is, you want a speedy deletion but don't have a reason for it, so you do this instead, hoping that no one visits that site for 5 days to notice the tag, and thus you eliminate an article you don't like. Horrible policy. If it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, then a proper nomination for deletion should be the only other option. Dream Focus 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"I want a speedy deletion so I nominate ..."??? meanwhile "hoping that no one visits that site for 5 days"????

Your knowledge of my motivation seems to match your account of my actions.

I did not propose the deletion of this page, neither did I replace the tag that you removed.

If you want to discuss deletion policy in general, as it seems, I am sure there are places to do that, and there are probably people who are willing to do so with you. I am not. pablo_hablo. 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. I wasn't thinking of anyone when I wrote that. I should've worded it, if "someone" wanted a speedy deletion, instead of using the word "you" to mean the same. And yes, I just went to that page to argue that policy, since this isn't the place for it. I was just horrified to think such a policy exist, it allowing so much open to abuse. No offense was intended to anyone, and I do regret any negative emotional response to my previous posts. Dream Focus 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

chart suggestion

How about making a chart listing how many seasons it ran and the highest ratings any episode got? Would this be relevant information? Dream Focus 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

The name of this article and category should be changed. First, 'black,' is a misnomer, a political term that doesn't describe actual people. Second, 'black,' is meant to refer to all Africans, not particularly African Americans, who are the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.41.205 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black sitcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091014054650/http://www.kansascity.com/221/story/1465342.html to http://www.kansascity.com/221/story/1465342.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black sitcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023073334/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/mill/1999/01/25mill.html to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/mill/1999/01/25mill.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)