Talk:Pickaninny
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box".
|
Script error: No such module "Archive list". |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than Template:Th/abp Template:Th/abp may be automatically archived by [[User:Template:Th/abp|Template:Th/abp]]Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".. |
Bizarre list of alternate forms
The article opens: Pickaninny (also pickaninny, pickaninny or pickaninny) is a word ... I don't know what the intended list of alternate forms should contain. Perhaps an editor has fallen afoul of some kind of spell-check or auto-correction. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't fine when they made their comment but was soon corrected. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pickaninny&diff=next&oldid=985021727) 2600:8802:571B:E00:4C92:A49F:111D:B31D (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Affectionate term?
Template:Noping recently added the text: Template:Tq2 The cited newspaper clippings are primary sources for the use of the term. They are only examples and don't say anything about how it was used generally. These statements are thus original research. Any source from the 1920s is going to be outdated anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- An advertisement in one magazine for artwork or a regular feature in another magazine hardly constitutes OR. The "Piccaninnies' Pages" was a two-page children's feature in the "Australian Woman's Mirror" from the 1920s to 1960s, consisting mostly of original work by young children.
- But "any source from the 1920s is going to be outdated anyway" is ludicrous in the context of changing attitudes and mores. Doug butler (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- A generalized statement based on the contents of a couple newspaper or magazine articles from decades ago (including about Template:Tq) is what constitutes original research. Who is saying "Piccaninnies' Pages" was meant to be Template:Tq?Template:PbThe age of a source definitely matters per WP:RS: Template:Tq —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- A children's page in a popular women's magazine not affectionate? The feature ran for over 20 years with the same whimsical banner. Nowadays it might be called "Kids' Pages" but in those days "kids" was deprecated. Doug butler (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Whether you are I think it's affectionate is beside the point. Article contents must be based on a published source that directly and explicitly supports the material, as per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- A children's page in a popular women's magazine not affectionate? The feature ran for over 20 years with the same whimsical banner. Nowadays it might be called "Kids' Pages" but in those days "kids" was deprecated. Doug butler (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- A generalized statement based on the contents of a couple newspaper or magazine articles from decades ago (including about Template:Tq) is what constitutes original research. Who is saying "Piccaninnies' Pages" was meant to be Template:Tq?Template:PbThe age of a source definitely matters per WP:RS: Template:Tq —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I tried looking in Google Books and found and H. L. Mencken quote (referring to the U.S.) which I have added. StAnselm (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately a source from 1945 has the same problem of being outdated (see above). Since Mencken is writing about his own youthful experience, it's effectively a primary source as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)