 | A fact from Black Admiral appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
"The fraud has proven once more the obvious often leads to the truth: it was unthinkable to believe a black American was granted any leadership position during Revolutionary War." POV???86.138.114.232 02:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article needs categories. I'm not sure what it would go under. I would of put the template, "categorize" but I didn't want to on such a well done little article. 12.220.94.199 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- No harm in putting in a template, it isn't a punishment. I think the cats are OK now. I am astonished at the story, because the head is of a completely different style than the rest of the painting. I think people were seeing what they wanted to see, alas. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the painting stripped down, where you can see the outline of the white guy's head with the black face on top. Very weird looking, as if the black face is peering through a hole in the canvas. Don't know if the photo is copyrighted. (here). --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Obvious? edit
Just looking at the painting, it seems kind of obvious that something is odd. I really doubt that a professional artist would choose a dark backdrop (is it a curtain?) and low-light conditions if the subject was black. It makes more sense knowing that the subject was white, and the dark curtain was used to block out the light in the background, so that the white subject would stand out. Notice how the curtain only goes down as far as is necessary to block out the bright background around the head and neck. Down by the hands, the sea water is already dark enough to provide contrast, so the curtain didn't need to block out that area. --BRIAN0918 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. It would be interesting to note in what books and exhibitions the painting was used already, but Google doesn't yield much. Anyone has a U.S. history textbook nearby in which the image is reproduced? Sandstein 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Spelling of owner's name edit
Just corrected the spelling to "McBurney" per the New Yorker article, since it's slightly more likely the NPR transcript's spelling of "McBirney" is incorrect. Anyone have a definitive link? -Big Smooth 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Blackface? edit
Is the reference to blackface necessary? Maybe it's just me, but that term brings up images that may offend some readers. Plus, removing the reference wouldn't take away any essential info, I don't think. Anyone (dis)agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.78.7 (talk • contribs)
- I can't see the offence, exactly (but then I'm not an American). For me the analogy is illustrative: blackface = whites who apply makeup to appear black. Perhaps you could elaborate? Sandstein 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- How is it offensive? And, even if it was, Wikipedia doesn't avoid being offensive. It's exactly the same idea as blackface, and is an analogy that most will immediately understand (if they don't already think it's obvious). --BRIAN0918 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- The "blackface style" description is apparently inaccurate. According to the story in The New Yorker, "The restorer believes that the original white face was sanded away and painted over with the new black face." That's not blackface -- that's painting a black person's face on another body. This painting would be "blackface style" if the original white face, rather than having been "sanded away", had instead been covered with black paint, approximately preserving the white face but overlaid with exaggerated African features. That's apparently not the case here. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- a brief sentence makes no difference as to the factual accuracy of this article. i doubt anyone could possibly be offended by that. Joeyramoney 01:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- The "blackface style" description is apparently inaccurate. According to the story in The New Yorker, "The restorer believes that the original white face was sanded away and painted over with the new black face." That's not blackface -- that's painting a black person's face on another body. This painting would be "blackface style" if the original white face, rather than having been "sanded away", had instead been covered with black paint, approximately preserving the white face but overlaid with exaggerated African features. That's apparently not the case here. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree - it's the closest thing to blackface a painting can get. Sandstein 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, the closest thing to blackface a painting could get would be if white facial features were altered with brown/black paint to make it seem as if the person were black. If the New Yorker story is correct, that's not what happened here. Instead, the white face was erased (sanded) and a new black face was added. It's essentially closer to photoshopping than blackface.
- BTW, there is an example of a famous Revolutionary War painting being reverse "blackfaced", so to speak -- the black man in the boat in Washington Crossing the Delaware was changed to white in some printed versions. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Splendid - so now we have two entries for a Category:Race identity disorder in paintings. Seriously, I think the evocative blackface analogy ought to be referenced somehow... technical details aside. How about: "... partially sanded off and painted over, blackface-style, ..."?