Talk:Maya Angelou/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

The line "Challener argued that Angelou's book has provided a "useful framework" for exploring the obstacles many children like have Maya faced and how communities have helped them succeed." The error is the "like have Maya". It should read "Challener argued that Angelou's book has provided a "useful framework" for exploring the obstacles many children like Maya have faced and how communities have helped them succeed." 2601:6:1400:D7:5AB0:35FF:FE60:955B (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Done BryanG (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

According to...

The article is crawling with "'According to ..." constructions. This is useless verbiage in an already overlong article. For the love of Pete, there is even "according to Gillespie, a large group of friends and extended family." Is this in doubt? That she had friends and family? Wikipedia has refs and footnotes for the express purpose of avoiding such clutter in the main body of text. Abductive (reasoning) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then for heaven's sake, fix it. Do a copy-edit. And please--"overlong"? This article is a FA, so it's gone through all kinds of vetting from other experienced editors who obviously didn't think so at the time of its review, and who felt that its length was worthy of its subject. They also felt that this article, with the amount of sources available, was broad and comprehensive enough. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot of work. Saying something is FA doesn't mean it is supposed to be written like a undergrad senior thesis with loads of quotes and groveling acknowledgement of the mighty scholars who have gone before. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You're kidding, right? Have you any idea how many hours that I've spent on these articles? How about asking nicely, like this: "Hey, I have a suggestion for how you can improve this article." That's what we're all here for, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Why is this article semi protected? 141.6.11.16 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.15 (talk)

It looks like User:Bencherlite protected it a couple of months ago for TFA purposes. Meantime, do you have any edits you want to propose? --John (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I gave it temporary full move-protection in 2013 (not a couple of months ago) for TFA purposes; it was already semi-protected indefinitely (and has been since February 2010) because of BLP-infringing edits, and I didn't change that. Bencherlite^Talk 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That is correct, although I didn't remember the timing of it. This article has historically been vandalized, in horrible and ugly ways. With her death, the protection is fortunate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oops. Note to self: start wearing reading glasses when examining protection logs. --John (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotes, tributes etc

I've (twice) trimmed the presidential quotes and would be extremely loth to see this become a collection of tributes. --John (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to see what a real "quotefarm" looks like, then see the BBC report, or the CBS report. When I added in some reaction to her death, I deliberately didn't add in celebrity Twitter-based comments, which would have been excessive. But I didn't think brief comments from two US presidents (heads of state, of course, not simply political figures) were excessive (which is why I added them in the first place) and am puzzled why you chose to leave the (much more pedestrian) quote from Harold Augenbraum (which was at the time the only "world of literature" tribute I could find) when Augenbraum has infinitely less worldwide name recognition than Obama or Clinton. But as I don't care about this really, you can have your way. Bencherlite^Talk 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, which has a policy about such things. There are other policies that we need to be mindful of, such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TEA (which is a suggestion, but a good one), WP:DEADLINE, WP:FORUM. I'm sure there are others. I suggest that since it's a FA already, we wait a little while and see what reports come out before we add to or change much of this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to state that, like Gandydancer, I also see nothing wrong with including these two relevant quotes that John re-removed. At the same time, John has a point about WP:QUOTEFARM and being careful to not let that section become a collection of quotes similar to Wikipedia Reception sections (such as the Critical reception sections of the vast majority of Wikipedia film articles). We can summarize statements in our own words, of course, where appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Angelou was a writer, not a politician. It is significant that two former presidents eulogized her. If the wording of their eulogies becomes important we can include it. I don't think at this stage the wordings are important, which is why I trimmed it. --John (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

One's the current president and the other's a former president, but what you meant is clear; I'm simply noting the "current; former" status because I'm sometimes nitpicky like that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, of course, you are right. Must drink more coffee. --John (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording as it currently stands, although I suggest that we add info about all the accolades, as the WSJ reports here [1]. I'd also like to replace the refs from the local TV stations with more reliable ones, since there are plenty. There have been a few useful articles that we can use, but I'd like to wait a little while before we add the info from them. Yes, coffee's always a good idea; alcohol too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Page views

It might be of interest to some folks that yesterday, the day Dr. Angelou died (5/28), this article received over 600,000 views; as of this morning (5/29), it has received almost 350,000 [2]. (I'll update the latter number tomorrow.) While it isn't nearly as many as Michael Jackson received the week following his death [3], it's still significant, with a 24,000% increase. That increase, however, is similar to Jackson's increase (37,000%). Demonstrates the importance of Wikipedia, and how crucial it is for the articles here to be of high quality. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

One more thing to add: I've only glanced at the numbers of Angelou's other articles, but there's a similar increase. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Memoirs

Is not the term 'memoir' more accurate than 'autobiography' in almost every instance of the latters usage on this page? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No it is not. "Autobiography" is how Angelou and most scholars refer to her seven books. Part of the reason for it is that until the late 20th century, after Angelou began writing, the memoir was a subcategory of the autobiography, and they were often used interchangeably. I suppose if Angelou began writing her books a decade or two later, they would be called memoirs in the more modern definition and usage. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

According to an NPR interview in which she is asked to pronounce it, her last name is pronounced "an-jel-oh." I don't know how to modify the IPA but I can locate a link to the source so that this may be corrected.--~TPW 20:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The IPA already gives that pronunciation. Rothorpe (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

She did not earn a university degree...it was Angelou's preference that she be called "Dr. Angelou" by people outside of her family and close friends

The article mentions her honorary degrees but doesn't name any specific ones.

I was present when she received an honorary doctorate from Centenary College of Louisiana in May, 1989. I believe it would be nice to know that she had a reason for wanting to be called "Dr Angelou." Morag MacGregor (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, User:Morag MacGregor, this article is very clear about these facts. It states that she only earned a high school degree, and that she preferred to be called "Dr." None of the sources specifically explain why; just that it was her preference. Listing all her honorary degrees (over 50) would make this article too long. However, her honorary degrees are listed in List of honors received by Maya Angelou. How fortunate you were to hear Angelou speak in public, which I'm sure was a treat. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Typical Hagiography of a Liberal Icon

Where is the controversies section? She had a lot of detractors, you know. If she was a conservative darling instead of a liberal one, the controversies section would be the LONGEST part! lol But, wikipedia again discredits itself as any kind of legitimate source of information by daring not to present any views countervailing the left wing orthodoxy.99.185.56.93 (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:CRIT and WP:NPOV for starters. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, this article is a presentation of Dr. Angelou's life. Just because there isn't a "Controversy" section doesn't mean that all aspects, positive and negative, aren't presented. Because they are. If you want to read about the controversies surrounding her, go read the articles about all seven of her autobiographies, Poetry of Maya Angelou, and Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies, all of which are FAs. And then while you're at it, go read some of her books, which can't hurt, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Autobiography

The autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (which I just read), only goes up to the birth of her son, and does not include anything about her life after that. Note 23 (Cliff Notes) is incorrect. Further autobiographical information is probably in another one of her books (which I am looking forward to reading.) rsmtime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsmtime (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Rsmtime, thanks for bringing this to our attention. With all the increased traffic to this article since Dr. Angelou's death (6 1/2 million views the week following), it's been a challenge to keep up with all the edits and ensure that they're accurate and correctly sourced. You're right; the paragraph was incorrect, and additionally, Cliffs Notes is not a reliable source. Therefore, I removed it. Again, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

African American?

I see other poets listed by their nationality, not their nationality plus race. Can we call her an "American" in the lead?

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Race and Culture in regard to Black is one and the same in the United States of America. You cannot disassociate the two in this regard.shiznaw (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

While I understand race/ethnicity is significant, Maya Angelou's race is not her nationality. Nationality is the descriptor used in the lead on Wikipedia. Notice that Billie Holiday is listed as an American Jazz singer, Michelle Obama as an American lawyer etc. Also, Angelou's ethnicity, African American, is listed in the info box and also referred to throughout the article, so it seems well covered. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer can be found at WP:BLPLEAD. Ethnicity and nationality should be placed in the first paragraph if they are important to the life and career of the subject. In Angelou's case, they are critically important. A side benefit is that Angelou's ethnicity also names her nationality: African American. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that race is significant to the life and career of most if not all African-Americans (actually race seems pretty significant to the life of all Americans period, whether it be via heritage, culture, white privilege etc). I think this is a dangerous precedent and it also doesn't appear to be how it is done on Wikipedia (with the exception of biographies of former american slaves, who were not technically considered full American citizens under the laws at the time) People from all over the world read Wikipedia, and Maya Angelou, Billie Holiday Michelle Obama etc are/were Americans in terms of their nationality. The precedent on WP is to use nationality as the descriptor in the lead--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're saying we should ignore the guideline and do something different, because other articles do it? Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is Angelou's ethnicity should not replace her nationality, or come before her nationality in the lead. If the content of the article stresses her ethnicity to the point that it should be emphasized in the lead and should be included under WP:BLPLEAD, it should be done in later sentences of the lead, similar to how it is done in the Oprah Winfrey article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to be clear that what I'm after is the honoring of Angelou's legacy, the acknowledgement of her critical importance to African American literature. I'm not trying to pigeonhole her. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there are some problems with the guideline, but solving them isn't what we're here for. You might be surprised to hear that I don't care one way or the other, as long as Angelou's legacy as an African American writer is preserved, which it is in this article. The rest of the lead does a fine job at describing her importance as an African American writer and poet, so I'm fine with leaving the most recent edit as is. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Description of Dr Angelou's occupation as 'actress'

This article is very informative and covers Dr Angelou well, however I would like to add that she would have considered herself an 'actor' and not an 'actress' I believe I heard her say something to the effect in the 80's that you are the thing and not the gender of the thing. R Sang UK (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

216.48.142.20 (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

Please change "prostitute" from the article to "performer" or remove entirely. 72.229.210.95 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please explain the reason for your request. Yes, the word is in the lead, but it isn't in the infobox. Like Angelou, this article is very clear that she resorted to the profession of prostitution for a very short time, to support herself and her young child, like so many other women must unfortunately do. She never shirked from such facts about herself, and neither should we here. If your problem with its inclusion is that it's disrespectful, I disagree, since she was always clear and honest about that part of her past. Actually, I believe that it would be disrespectful to not include, and not something she would've wanted. It also demonstrates that one can come back from something like that, and be hugely successful, which honors her memory as the role model she was. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done fully concur with Christine (Figureskatingfan) and Wikipedia is not censored - Arjayay (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Georgia, Georgia

Angelou's Georgia, Georgia, produced by a Swedish film company and filmed in Sweden, the first screenplay written by a black woman,[54] was released in 1972.

This seems like an unprovable claim. Perhaps the first one that was made into a movie? 178.39.137.239 (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is supported by a source. I think that it's self-evident that the film was produced. And please make sure that you start a new section when you start a new topic, as I have done for you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Maya Angelou Influence in hip hop.

(2016-3-14) It should also be included when the topic of hiphop is covered that Maya Angelou appeared on the 1994 Branford Marsalis project Buckshot Lefonque which featured beats by DJ Premier of Gangstarr fame. The song "I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings" featured Ms. Angelou reciting her famous poem of the same name. -Sherifyasu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherifyasu (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding editing

I would like to add the following sentence, but editing isn't an option, please help.

In 1994,the artist John Biggers illustrated Maya Angelou's poem "Our Grandmothers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryantscotton (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

she was born in 1927 not 28 NickMehlert (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

You may wish to add a section dealing with Maya Angelou's plagiarism issues, particularly regarding the recent controversy of the US postage stamp issued in 2015.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.162.4 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning Johnson's plagiarism issues is rayciss, because she uses a tribal collective method of passing on words. The fact she used a used a black man's words mean she cleansed the words of genderism and made them goodly. Edited by Tasantha Teka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c08c:cb0:7151:c6f8:c76e:7bce (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: In the lead sentence change "memoirist" to "writer"

Proposal to change change "memoirist" to "writer" in the lead sentence. Writer includes memoirist, and her works have been called autobiographical fiction. Also, she wrote plays as well. Any one objects? Darx9url (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. It would be exchanging a precise word for an imprecise one. "Writer" could also be said to encompass "poet", but we don't want to remove that word, do we? I think the current wording of the lead sentence hits the most noteworthy aspects of the subject's public life. Other things she was noted for are given in the next sentence—soon enough. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "writer" is too broad. Plus, this article (including the second sentence in the lead) describes the kind of writing she does: autobiography, poetry, essays. I suppose we could add "playwright" there. And yes, although Angelou's work has been described by some as autobiographical fiction, most critics agree that her prose is best characterized as autobiography, which again, is discussed in this article and in others about her work and life. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Critique

Maya Angelou's article is one with appropriate and reliable references. Majority of the information given about Angelou had a citation and was factual.

The links of the citations do work and are well known websites. There appears to be no sign of plagiarism in the article. This article uses website like AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION and NEW YORK TIMES. Rhorton10 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017

Kasantha Itwasntmewho (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017

Itwasntmewho (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Edited by tasantha teka

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2017

Hello, I would like to edit your wikipedia page because some of your "facts" are incorrect. Being Maya Angelou's great grand daughter, I feel like it is only right to have someone of the same blood, continue on her legacy in any right way I can. Please get back to me with a response. Thank You! Stardust2256 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

[[

File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stardust2256: Hi I'm Christine (Username: Figureskatingfan), and I've had the profound honor of being the main editor of most of the articles about your great-grandmother on Wikipedia. Reading her books and poetry, and then doing research on them and on her life, and then writing about her in Wikipedia has profoundly changed and influenced my life. I only regret that I was never able to meet her. Please understand that nothing put on any of the articles about Dr. Angelou is inaccurate, and have been strictly supported with reliable sources. Most of them are featured articles, which means that they've been reviewed for accuracy and good sources by the Wikipedia editing community, much like articles that are submitted to scholarly publications. That being said, the last thing any of us (and especially me) want is for anything in these articles to be incorrect. Discussion and collaboration is key in the creation and development of all Wikipedia articles, so if you could name the facts you question, please do so here and we'll talk about them. You can also email me (see the menu at the left), although please understand that I'm busy IRL, so I may not respond quickly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

reliable source

Why would Angelou herself saying she was raped at a certain age be considered a less reliable source than other reliable sources? Shouldn't what she says in the interview at least be quoted even if researchers have evidence to show she may be mistaken or confused? --Espoo (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide the elapsed time for the part of the video where she specifies the age? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The relevant excerpt is in the video in the second link i added. I'll look for the elapsed time soon. --Espoo (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maya Angelou. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Angelou%2Boptimism%2Bovercame%2Bhardships/9887987/story.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6PLj9XvLc?url=http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners to http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Store clerk

• http://www.beyondchron.org/the-2010-fillmore-jazz-festival/
• 64.175.41.31 (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maya Angelou. 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/20130911041900/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-27/entertainment/38068625_1_angelou-vivian-baxter-new-book to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-27/entertainment/38068625_1_angelou-vivian-baxter-new-book

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

In the "uses in education" section on Maya Angelou, her poem "Still I Rise" is currently part of the Edexcel GCSE anthology. This needs to be included. EditorGH (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We should add the "American prostitute" category

Don't get me wrong, if it was a random "celebrity used to be a sex worker" trivia mentioned in a (reliable) source, I'd heavily argue against it being relevant enough to add as a category. But she did mention it herself in writing and comment on the situations surrounding it, noting that it wasn't something she felt ashamed for having done. Again, it definitely feels awkward, but I think it merits inclusion. 181.115.8.245 (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. My gut instinct is to say no—although she spoke openly about it, it's entirely incidental and has zero to do with her notability. Similarly, she's not in Category:American opera singers even though she appeared in Porgy and Bess, and she's not in Category:American civil rights activists although she was an SCLC coordinator. On the other hand, the main function of Wikipedia categories is to help readers find things and make connections, and I guess it's arguable that inclusion in Category:American prostitutes might facilitate that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch. It's got zero to do with her notability. Darx9url (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at [Together in My Name] Cudjoe notes that prostitution was an "important in her social development". This would suggest that her time as a prostitute influenced her outlook on life and therefore her later works. [[4]] gives an example: a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career. As noted by Cudjoe, Angelou's time as a prostitute was "important in her social development", and therefore relevant to her later career so would be appropriate to include in Category:American prostitutes.

If, as suggested above, notability is the only criteria, then should say Category:North Carolina etc be excluded as her notability is not that she comes from North Carolina? - John B123 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

False analogy. Angelou was widely known in her later years as a resident of North Carolina, and any number of reliable sources will attest to that. She was never widely known as a prostitute. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: - You miss the point. Being a resident of North Carolina, no matter how well documented, gives her no more notability than any other resident of that State. The previous discussion suggested that articles should only be added to categories related to their notability. - John B123 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, my first inclination was to say "absolutely not!", but looking at a few of the others on the list one would almost have to say "absolutely!". It seems that it does not take much for Wikipedia to call a woman an "American prostitute". Calamity Jane apparently did some prostitution "off and on" before her career took off. With all the well paying jobs open for women back then one has to wonder why she would stoop so low! I looked at a few others as well, for example Barbara Payton, an alcoholic starlet who may or may not have prostituted and we offer no reliable source for even that. IMO someone needs to decide just exactly what "American prostitute" actually means...I think that it should mean that that is what they are known for, not something they did at some point in their life to earn a living. Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

JohnB123, I didn't really miss your point—and I accept that your point has a certain logic to it—but I was making a separate point of my own. Here's another, related point: Wikipedia categories are often less than perfectly logical. When it comes to criteria for inclusion, trying to take a one-size-fits-all approach inevitably leads to bizarre situations like this one wherein we find ourselves seriously entertaining placing a noted writer in a category that is value-laden and brimming with negative cultural connotations because...why? Well, because there are parallel categorizations that fit perfectly well (but don't carry such connotations). Fortunately, we can exercise our editorial discretion and not fall into that trap. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: - I agree totally the 'one-size-fits-all' doesn't always work and that editorial discretion is needed. In a way that was the point I was making: previous parts of the discussion alluded to 'notability' being the determining factor for inclusion, but applying that the already included categories throws up anomalies. on a separate note, not including in categories because of value-laden and brimming with negative cultural connotations may not be consistent with the principles of WP:NPOV? - John B123 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

If Angelou had gained fame as a prostitute then yes, of course, the category would fit. This is not the case, so the category should not be listed per WP:CATDEF. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

She was open about it and wrote about it in her books. The effort to take this out is a gross respectability-politic that Angelou didn't live by. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: - The central concept of WP:CATDEF is defining characteristics not fame. It is documented that her time as a sex worker was "important in her social development", and she wrote about it. In my view it is appropriate to add the category in compliance with WP:CATDEF. @The Drover's Wife: - Totally agree - John B123 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Angelou's prostitution experience defined her as a writer, along with all her other experiences, such as being required/forced by her record company to make a calypso album. These experiences did not define her as a prostitute or a calypso singer but they gave great depth to her as a writer. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not the interpretation of "defining" taken by CATDEF - it talks about what sources define a person as, not what defined them as a person/artist/whatever. It's a subtle difference but an important one, as whether or not prostitution defined Angelou's work, she is not typically defined as a prostitute. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

She defined herself as such in her own, very widely-published sources. I really strenuously object to this attempt to remove past occupations of women some editors subsequently deem to have become too "respectable" for it (even when the subject had no time for that kind of respectability politic.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Did she say "I am a prostitute"? No. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's not the standard we use for categorization. Take a look at the guideline on categorizing articles: it specifies that categories don't include annotations/justifications, so should generally be uncontroversial. The simple fact that multiple editors feel strongly about inclusion/exclusion suggests that it meets the "likely to spark controversy" bar here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is uncontroversial, or at least it was completely uncontroversial to its subject. Other people's respectability-politics arguments about a writer they like shouldn't trump what she literally said about her life. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Angelou doesn't appear to have defined herself that way. This took place during a brief period when she was a teenager with a young son, and she wrote about it with reluctance simply because she felt she ought not to pretend it hadn't happened. She describes one occasion of being referred to as a prostitute as like "a kick in the stomach". If, say, a famous English soccer player were to acknowledge having briefly had sex with men for money when he was a teenager, to pay for his child's upkeep, I'd be surprised to see anyone argue that he should be added to Category:English male prostitutes. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: That it was "uncontroversial 'to its subject'"—which I'm not so sure about—is immaterial. We don't write our articles based on what subjects think about themselves; we write them based on the preponderance of opinion among reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subjects. If someone can show that scholars of Angelou's work generally refer to her as a prostitute when referencing her in various contexts, then by all means we should stick her in the disputed cat. It's hard to imagine, though, that you could know who among us likes Angelou and who doesn't, and I'm unhappy to see such attempts to personalize the discussion in that way. For the record, I think this has precious little to do with "respectability-politics" [sic] or indeed any kind of politics. Mostly, it's about striking a reasonable balance wherein pertinent facts covered in the article don't necessarily lead to inclusion in a category.

@John B123: NPOV doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is the most nuanced of the core content policies, the most complex, and also the most subjective—particularly when it comes to its due weight component. It may help to remember that we're writing for a diverse, global audience. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an absurd argument: no one would "generally refer to" a famous author (primarily) as a "prostitute", even when, as Angelou was, completely open about this aspect of her history and its influence on her life. Where someone has had multiple careers, we categorise as per those careers. Someone, for instance, who wants to find information on former sex workers who went to achieve other things shouldn't be actively prevented from finding that information because a couple of Wikipedians tried to remove anyone they deemed "respectable" from the category. Angelou is the perfect example of this attitude being farcical, because there's no question that she was one, and no question that she was okay with being identified as such, but the concept of her being associated with those other women who'd done the same thing makes some people very upset. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I could accept any of the points of view in this discussion if they were applied all the time, but 'the rules' only seem to be applied when it suits. There are thousands of examples on WP when the 'rules' are not applied. Taking one at random, Thomas Garnier (Dean of Lincoln) is not known as a cricketer. Cricket is not mentioned in the article at all but the article is included in the category 'Oxford University cricketers'. For rules/guidelines to have any value they have to be applied consistently not just when it fits personal opinions. - John B123 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oxford University cricketer isn't a contentious category, but prostitute is. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

My reply is always the same when someone says "but those other articles aren't conforming to the guidelines" – I always recommend fixing the other articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: - Good theory, but have we all got the time to discuss every article in depth? Everybody's interpretation of the guidelines seems to be different and even the precedence of which of guidelines to apply is contentious - John B123 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

John B123, we have core policies, non-core policies, guidelines, and supplemental recommendations (how-to pages, widely cited essays, etc.), and we also have precedents, which sometimes are formally established by RfCs and other times are just commonly applied because they have local consensus and they seem to work. Those are all rules of a sort, but when you say that "the 'rules' only seem to be applied when it suits" what you're actually describing is the editorial discretion that I mentioned earlier. Maybe that's flouting the rules, but the rules themselves demand such inconsistencies: WP:IAR is one of our oldest and most important policies, after all. It's not a neat and tidy way to build an encyclopedia, and sometimes it's abused, but it actually has served us pretty well thus far. Maybe someday the editing chores at Wikipedia will be taken over by machines. When that happens, whatever rules remain will undoubtedly be followed to the letter, with no exceptions. In the meantime, thankfully, we're human and imperfect and full of contradictions. That's not necessarily a bad thing, is it? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: - I agree totally that there needs to be editorial discretion, and without that all sorts of strange anomalies occur. To me 'editorial discretion' means following rules, guidelines (or whatever you want to call them) unless following a particular rule would cause a problem. As a relative newcomer to WP, the impression I get from this, and other discussions and actions, is that it works in reverse. People do as they see fit and then somebody else who disagrees with them finds a rule to justify their objection. To me there is a vast difference between editorial discretion and inconsistency. But thanks anyway for your reply. Whilst I may not agree, I can follow the logic John B123 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

I would like to request the part under 'Uses in education' that goes as follows: 'Angelou's depictions of her experiences of racism have forced white readers to explore their feelings about race and their own "privileged status"' to be removed as it presumes a, quite frankly, racist trail of thought against white readers based on opinions that have nothing to do with the history and education uses, of Maya Angelou. Thank you :). 94.6.143.78 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm against this change, since the wording as it now stands is a representation of Glazier's description of how she uses Caged Bird and Stand Together in her classroom. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Glazier specifically talks about how white privilege in white readers changes their view of Angelou's writing. The cited source "assumes" nothing, instead charting out the racist responses with quoted examples. The one point you have in your favor is that the cited source does not say anything about white readers being "forced" to examine their white privilege. Instead it says white readers avoid the discussion of racism as much as possible. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

Why does this say that Maya Angelou was a sex worker?!?!? This should be deleted 209.94.129.62 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: see the personal life section - she worked in the sex trade. If you want to suggest a rephrasing, please do it in the format of "change XXX to YYY" --DannyS712 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC) DannyS712 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Please change

to PippaDiggs (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: why? The first citation provides more context. DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Please change http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/ang0int-1 to https://www.achievement.org/achiever/maya-angelou/#interview PippaDiggs (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Note: duplicate request; already answered in section below. NiciVampireHeart 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Annie Henderson?

What do we know about Maya Angelou's grandmother? Is there enough to start her own short article? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@IronMaidenRocks: On a quick look most of the sources that deal with Harrison do so only in relation to Angelou's life and work, but if you could find sources that avoid the WP:NOTINHERITED problem you could start an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Maya was a sex worker ?

I just finished reading this article and the intro mentioned that Maya once worked as a sex worker. Seeing as there is no mention of this in the body of the article I am guessing that this is vandalism. Can anyone confirm, elaborate or amend this section ?

Rory Deutsch (roryptg@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.24.146 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rory, this is discussed in the Personal life section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

maya angelou had 9 kids 3 different husbands 68.80.143.98 (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There are some wrong quotes in here

Setting aside the value of "black" vs. "Black," there are several quotes in this article that were changed to "Black" when the original source used "black." These, along with other uses of "Black," should be lowercased everywhere appropriate. GeraldFordsEconomics (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)GeraldFordsEconomics

Yikes, someone must have gone and made those changes, which of course were unwarranted. I went back and checked them, and then fixed them as necessary. Thanks for the catch. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There are some unnecessary quotes in here

For example, "She was "a reluctant actor", and was nominated for a Tony Award in 1973 for her role in Look Away." Is the quote of her being a reluctant actor important, notable, or a perceptive opinion argued by an important or notable figure that should be quoted as such? No. It's a biographical detail in a magazine piece. Therefore, it doesn't need to be quoted, and can be stated without the quotes. There are other examples of this in the article, and I'll remove them as they come. GeraldFordsEconomics (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)GeraldFordsEconomics

Seems like a characterization that shouldn't be made in Wikipedia's "voice". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

autobiography

"many critics consider them to be autobiographies". Vague statement. Which critics?

The answer to this question is in the article's "Style and genre in autobiographies section". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

False Fact

She was NOT the first Black woman to have a screenplay produced into a movie in 1972 - unless you mean in Sweden. Lorraine Hansberry wrote the screenplay to her play, A Raisin in the Sun, which was produced in 1961. 173.23.55.45 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not what this article says. It says that Georgia, Georgia was "the first original script by a Black woman to be produced". A Raisin in the Sun, as notable as it was, was an adaptation of a play, not an original screenplay. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

Maya Angelou was of afro american ethnicity and its written that she was a american writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.198.226 (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Note

An ancestor is called "John Savin" and "John G. Savins". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.184.175 (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading. It

Read. The. Hole. Thing 2603:9000:5A00:2900:3C3A:5FE8:416E:D809 (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Maya angelou political situation during her time

I want information about maya angelou 2402:4000:10CB:675F:2:2:F1B7:D865 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

When talking about what Maya's mother did, we should probably link words to the article of what a card dealer is, because some people may not know what a card dealer is. Dakota 4784 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dakota 4784, I just did a cursory search and there doesn't seem to be an article about card dealer and not being familiar with the term myself, I'm not sure that I've looked in the right place. If you or someone else does, perhaps you'd be more successful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The closest article I could find is the article Poker Dealer which if I am led to believe is another term for that. Dakota 4784 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dakota 4784, that looks right to me, too. I will go ahead and make the link. BTW, you didn't have to go to all the trouble of making a formal request; you could've just done it yourself. Be bold! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Odd wording

Also in 1961, she met South African freedom fighter Vusumzi Make; they never officially married. Is there a way to write this better? I don't think it's exactly encyclopaedic to euphemistically refer to a relationship like this as "meeting". W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 16:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

gdd

aa 169.139.16.90 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

aaaaaaaa 169.139.16.90 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

More photos

• 
  1945 yearbook photo
• 
  Calypso Heat Wave (1957) publicity photo
• 
  Calypso Heat Wave (1957) publicity photo
• 
  Calypso Heat Wave (1957) publicity photo
• 
  1971 photo
• 
  1972 photos
• 
  1974 photo
• 
  1978 photo
• 
  1987 photo with Tom Feelings

@Figureskatingfan: I recently uploaded a bunch of photos of Maya Angelou. The ones above are some of them. I already put two in the article. Wondering people's thoughts on adding more. FunnyMath (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@FunnyMath, wow thanks for finding these images and uploading them for our use! One of struggles with improving articles about Angelou through the years was the dearth of free images available. Now, thanks to you, it seems like we have the opposite problem: too many available images, so many that we can't use them all in order to prevent MOS:SANDWICH. There are worst problems to have, right? ;) I've added one image to this bio and a few others to some of her ancillary articles. If you can think of other ways to use them, please do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! I always enjoy finding public domain stuff to upload. Yes, I remember MOS:SANDWICH. Fond memories of them. :P I think you did a good job adding the photos. I'll be sure to let you know if I have any new ideas in the future. FunnyMath (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"She became a poet and writer after a string of odd jobs during her young adulthood. These included fry cook, sex worker, nightclub performer, Porgy and Bess cast member, Southern Christian Leadership Conference coordinator, and correspondent in Egypt and Ghana during the decolonization of Africa. Angelou was also an actress, writer, director, and producer of plays, movies, and public television programs."

There is no sourcing given for the above claims. I was able to find her listed at imdb.com as a dancer in the 1959 movie version, by Otto Preminger, of Porgy and Bess, but that's it. Considering how credibility-challenged Angelou was, citing such assertions is unacceptable. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:536:28AF:87FE:6B65 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

"With the publication of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Angelou publicly discussed aspects of her personal life. She was respected as a spokesperson for Black people and women, and her works have been considered a defense of Black culture. Her works are widely used in schools and universities worldwide, although attempts have been made to ban her books from some U.S. libraries. Angelou's most celebrated works have been labeled as autobiographical fiction, but many critics consider them to be autobiographies. She made a deliberate attempt to challenge the common structure of the autobiography by critiquing, changing and expanding the genre. Her books center on themes including racism, identity, family and travel."

There is no sourcing for any of the foregoing. It's just the editor opining away, and acting as if it were citing objective facts. The following assertion is so opinionated and racist that it couldn't possibly be objectively true: "She was respected as a spokesperson for Black people and women, and her works have been considered a defense of Black culture." 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:536:28AF:87FE:6B65 (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The section you cite above is from the lead (see WP:LEAD), which doesn't require citations because it serves as a summary of the articles. All of the claims are supported by sources found later in the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)