Talk:Viola Davis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Amanda Waller in Suicide Squad

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)

WP:Citation overkill in the lead

X4n6, reverted me on my revert on his or her citation overkill in the lead. I don't so much care that X4n6 replaced "the first black woman" with the "the first African American woman"; what I am concerned about is the unnecessary citations. Like I told X4n6, two citations is all it takes. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: X4n6 significantly reduced the number of citations. Flyer22 (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Flyer22 reverted my edits because, it appears, she believes "black" and "African American" are interchangeable terms. They are not. As I explained in my revert of her edits, they represent two separate attributes. However, so as not to edit war and in a sign of good faith, I was fine with omitting several RS. I'll assume the remaining NYT, Time magazine and Washington Post cites are sufficient for the edit. X4n6 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

X4n6, that is not why I reverted you. I already explained why I reverted you. And my statement that "black" and "African American" are both correct is because they are indeed both correct in this case. Viola Davis is the first black woman to win the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. And she is the first African American woman to win the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. Both are correct. And, for the record, "black American" and "African American" are interchangeable. And people often even use "black" to mean "African American," as can be seen by various WP:Reliable sources. But I reiterate that my concern was your citation overkill. I need no lesson on how "black" and "African American" are used. Flyer22 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And various WP:Reliable sources refer to Viola Davis as the first black woman to win the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, given that "black" is more encompassing, it's more accurate to state "black woman" in this case since no other black woman has won that award. It's not just that she's the first African American woman to win it; she's the first black woman to win it, period. Yes, as noted in the Black people article, what is black varies, but the sources are clear on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• While you may believe you "need no lesson on how "black" and "African American" are used," your statement that "for the record, "black American" and "African American" are interchangeable." clearly indicates otherwise. I refer you to the section below. X4n6 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

X4n6, the sources I pointed to above, and the many more I can point to, clearly indicate that I am correct on this matter and certainly need no lesson. If you want to take this to a wider venue via WP:Dispute resolution, feel free. I can list as many WP:Reliable sources as needed to prove my case. Flyer22 (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the African American article states "African American, also referred to as Black American or Afro-American" for the very fact that "African American" and " Black American" are interchangeable. Do read WP:Alternative title for why the lead of that article is formatted that way. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I originally listed several more reliable sources which all proved I am correct. But you cried overkill, and in good faith, I removed them. But those reliable sources, including the ones which remain, run the gamut from: the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, the Los Angeles Times; to even include an African-American publication, which I would presume - at minimum - would know the correct manner by which to reference their ethnic group! Etc., etc. etc. There were also several additional sources which I could have included. But it really would have been redundant. And as you, no doubt, would have complained, that really WOULD have been "overkill." Incidentally and FYI, the term "Afro-American" is about as arcane as the term "Negro." They both died in the 70s with bell-bottoms, leisure suits, Mood rings, disco and Corinthian leather. But perhaps, next you'll launch a spirited defense of that tired anachronism as well? Could "colored" really be far behind? Or perhaps even something a little more pejorative?? Where is your slippery slope? Also WP:Alternative title is entirely irrelevant, as it references only article titles, saying nothing about alternate or proper names of ethnic groups within those articles. But as long as even you concede that the term "African-American" - as reliably sourced in the article, is accurate - then there really is nothing more to discuss. It is in the article and, as you noted, is correctly used and applied there. So this really is just much ado about nothing. But if you are still doggedly determined to believe those two terms are interchangeable: despite the tsunami of evidence to the contrary, and despite the explanation below - and even despite common sense - well then! That is most certainly your prerogative. However, it is with equal certainty, my prerogative, that I have zero interest in continuing a "debate" with someone who is simply recalcitrant for recalcitrance' sake. And pointlessly argumentative, in the face of all objective and factual evidence to the contrary. Just to prove some inherently and fatally flawed WP:POINT. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

X4n6, you are wrong on this matter per what I stated above. And outside opinions on this topic would echo the sentiment that you are wrong. You made this discussion about "black" vs. "African American." You added that my statement that "for the record, 'black American' and 'African American' are interchangeable" clearly indicates that I need a lesson from you on this topic. I responded by stating that you are wrong for the very fact that WP:Reliable sources are clear that "black American" and "African American" are interchangeable. And that includes the many sources commenting on Viola Davis's Emmy win. I noted WP:Alternative title because I pointed out that the lead of the African American article also makes it clear that "black American" and "African American" are interchangeable; the justification for that aspect being in the lead of that article is WP:Alternative title. I am dodging your unnecessarily hostile attitude. Your arguments on this matter (with the exception of the term black people being broader than the term African American) are so odd and POV-pushing that I will go ahead and invite WP:Film, WP:WikiProject Biography and Talk:African American to this discussion just for backup on how wrong you are. In other words, you have no valid justification for keeping "black" or "black American" out of this article.

There is no need to keep WP:Pinging me to this talk page, by the way; it's on my WP:Watchlist. I will cease WP:Pinging you here as well because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems more than abundantly clear, that you are desperate to escalate this for no other reason than to prove how right you think you are. Yet inexplicably, you have already argued several times that, in your view, both terms are interchangeable! Using your own logic, it really doesn't matter whether the term "black" or "African American" is used. So to what purpose exactly, you want to escalate this is unclear. Short of what I've said all along: you just want to "debate" for debate's sake. Yet notably, you have failed to refute a single source I've provided, nor rebut a single example and/or explanation I've given. All you've managed, is to cite completely irrelevant and entirely non-dispositive policies. You should also know that WP articles are not a source. At this point, I'm convinced that proceeding with you further is simply feeding the troll. Perhaps this is an example of the behavior you warned editors about on your user page. In any event, I'll save any further responses for cooler, and more coherent, minds. When/if that becomes necessary. But stalking me and attempting to goad me into an edit war, as you did here and here, is the easiest way to find yourself at ANI. There will be no more warnings. X4n6 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

X4n6, it seems abundantly clear that, despite the number of years you've been registered with Wikipedia, you are an inexperienced Wikipedian who doesn't know how to use Wikipedia's policies and guidelines appropriately. You also have WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks issues. I did not stalk you. Your entire "13:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)" post is absurd. You make it sound as if I was solely going by what the African American Wikipedia article states; I was going by its sources. As for why I've sought outside opinions on this matter? It's because you are going by some odd logic as to bar this article from using "black" and/or "black American." And your odd logic does not hold up. As for taking me to WP:ANI, feel free. And see what happens. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've also been clear that "given that 'black' is more encompassing, it's more accurate to state 'black woman' in this case since no other black woman has won that award. It's not just that she's the first African American woman to win it; she's the first black woman to win it, period. Yes, as noted in the Black people article, what is black varies, but the sources are clear on this matter." Flyer22 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITEBUNDLE might be a solution here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik, but this discussion has clearly moved away from the citation overkill aspect. It's now about "Black" and "Black American" vs. "African American", which is why I used that title when alerting the aforementioned pages to this discussion (and the related section below). Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't had my coffee yet. What about applying MOS:IDENTITY? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY was used. That's why I provided so many reliable sources. Including one from an African-American publication. But clearly, that wasn't good enough for one editor. But again, if you'll support it, I'll restore it. Or even you can. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks User:Erik. I'd certainly be happy to do that. I originally gave multiple sources. However I voluntarily removed them because of claims of overkill. If you would support the restoration of those cites, please let me know. And just to be clear, the question has always been about the difference between "black" and "African-American." Although the other editor has demanded to include "black American" in the discussion, which is fine, but as discussed below, "black American" and "African-American" obviously aren't the same either. See: Charlize Theron. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I demanded nothing. Flyer22 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Erik, I highly doubt that X4n6 considered MOS:IDENTITY or was even aware of that guideline. If X4n6 were aware of it, then stating that "black" shouldn't be used is ridiculous, given that Davis identifies as black. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Attn. Editors: Please note that "black" and "African American" are not interchangeable terms.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

L1975p (talk · contribs), 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)

Hi Flyer22 (talk · contribs). 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)

Just to address points made by DD2K (talk · contribs). 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)

DD2K (talk · contribs). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment - For the record, Charlize Theron is not an African American, and most definitely does not identify as such. If she did, she would be pointed out as a fraud. There is a specific meaning to being an African American, and she in no way fits that criteria. It's a borderline BLP violation to claim she identifies as such without a reliable source to back that claim up. And no, SNL doesn't count. Dave Dial (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

Emmy win

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)

• Since you were the one who changed the wording here, after TonyTheTiger first inserted the information here, and Tenebrae and X4n6 put the info into the lede, you are currently the only editor who objects. So if you revert again, you are doing so against current consensus. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

Unrelated, irrelevant content

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)

• Noteworthy details about family members are always included in the early life, family or personal sections of BLPs. In this case, it is not only noteworthy, but Davis herself must find it notable, as she has discussed it publicly, per the RS you have now tried to remove several times. So any possible argument you could make fails the second Davis herself generates press and confers relevance and notability. I also hope you realize INHERITED is just an essay, not a policy or guideline. However, per WP:WELLKNOWN, which is a policy, this material "belongs in the article." A simple Google search shows the subject has been reported in Variety, People Magazine, the NY Daily News, NBC's Today Show, the Huffington Post, etc. So any notion that it should not be included here is baseless. However, if you'd still like to RfC it, despite both policy and multiple RS, you're certainly free to do so. But kindly don't remove this sourced content unless/until you have the consensus for doing so. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

I agree with X4n6 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)striking comments from sock of now indeffed user and sockmaster WordSeventeen -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You are now officially WP:HOUNDING me. It's bordering on harassment. Knock it off. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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) Striking comments from sock of indeffed user and sockmaster WordSeventeen [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Better photo

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)

New Grammy

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