Talk:Soul music

Lead

Soul music is fundamentally rhythm and blues... If this is true then this article should simply redirect to that one. I don't think this is exactly accurate; soul seems to me a subset, evolution, or maturation of R&B. Even while soul was thriving, "R&B" encompassed funk, blues, disco, and even rap and proto-rap (e.g. Gil Scott-Heron) none of which are really soul music. I will take a shot at revamping the lead soon but this seems tricky enough to bear discussion here first. Any comments? Jgm 00:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The term rhythm and blues is so vague as to have virtually no meaning. Soul music is fundamentally secularized gospel, with some influences from rock and country et al, I think. Tuf-Kat 02:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on Northern soul?

I'll take care of it. --FuriousFreddy 19:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Delisted GA

There are no images. slambo 17:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Musical characteristics

The page chronicles the history of the genre but sorta neglects specific musical characteristics (e.g. specific keys, scales or transpositions). Is there anyone with something to say about this? JFW | T@lk 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Soul music is music by black people

Why does the article dance around this fact without ever stating it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.42.160.56 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.

Why state the obvious? --Ezeu 19:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Because, Ezeu: (i) Not everyone in this big wide world knows of the origins of soul music (ii) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that ought to provide info as accurately as possible; Give the devil his due..."Know what I mean?" User: CodeLyric 29, November 2006

• Maybe now I'm stating the obvious, but not every one who plays/sings soul music is black, and not all black musicians and singers perform soul music. Yes, American blacks invented and developed the soul music genre, but the statement "Soul music is music by black people" is both incomplete and factually innaccurate. Remember, Wikipedia is for presenting documented facts backed up by reliable sources. People can interpret whatever they want from the facts that are presented. Spylab 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I just happened to see this statement about "soul music being music by black people" on the Talk page here. There was the widely known "blue-eyed soul" of the Box Tops and other similar groups in the 1960s. Also, some black soul bands included white side musicians. Steve Cropper and Duck Dunn played behind numerous R&B and soul performers. The soul music I personally listen to most is music largely performed by African Americans but it is inaccurate for anyone to say that this is exclusively who played soul music over the years. Some considered Dusty Springfield a soul singer, such as in her work on Dusty in Memphis. There were numerous record producers specializing in soul music who were white too. Music by "black people" includes many genres they have participated in such as blues, soul, rhythm and blues, gospel, electric gospel quartet, country, and rock, so I find this to be a confusing section of the talk page. Certainly the fact that African Americans led the development of the genre is important to note. – Bebop 02:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, Spylab, guess what? Technically speaking you got a point there "but not every one who plays/sings soul music is black". I'm happy for you! As a matter of fact, you got a keen eye, son. But man, your 'defense' of non-blacks in the soul community...stinks. It's hypocritical: The fact that you correct the usage of the preposition "by" in that statement while completely ignoring the injustice done to the African American people by not being mentioned as the originators of Soul Music reflects a well known phenomena of "white america"...(the 'king', rock and roll, n***** noise), ring any bells?? And that's what my brutha up there was really talking about mister.

Let me lay it out: No decent article can speak about European Classical Music without citing references to dudes such as Mozart or without placing dates, locations etc. Yes, any _serious_ article would dedicate a substantial portion to such matters. The fact that this article 'danced around' this particular 'right' is what that the heading there is really talking about...(which is so rather obvious - even for this African -, I don't know why I've got to be explaining this) but hey, somethings (and people) just don't change, right? Whatever.

You talk of "documentated facts backed up by reliable sources"?? Son, and just WHO provides these "documentated facts"?? WHO certifies these "reliable sources" my dear??? A Wikipedia administrator? Man, this is a cultural thing and if there is any one with the AUTHORITY to decide WHAT is SOUL..it is those WHO ORIGINATED and DEVELOPED it. User: codelyric, 10 July 2007

• The second sentence of the article states:

According to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, soul is "music that arose out of the black experience in America through the transmutation of gospel and rhythm & blues into a form of funky, secular testifying."

Following that, in the Origins section, the article names people who are known as the originators of soul music, and most (if not all) of them are black or some kind of mixture of black. I'm not sure how that is "dancing around the issue" of the black American origins of soul music. I'm also not sure where I have supposedly "defended" non-blacks in the soul community other than to say they have existed, which is a documented fact. Also, where's the so-called hypocricy you accuse me of? Bottom line: Wikipedia policy is to present facts backed up by reliable references, regardless of the race, nationalality, religion, class, hair colour etc. of the writer. Wikipedia articles are not places to express personal opinions or to post original research. If you have any specific suggestions to improve the article, feel free to list list them here or make the changes to the article yourself.Spylab 11:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Dear Spylab, I've intentionally "bounced back" hoping to see how someone would respond...its incredible, but anyway. Its sad, to say the least, that somehow you either don't see or just don't want to see things in context, for a soul...well atleast, you got a cool head. Anyway, again, I'll lay out things for you:

- In the first place, your reference to the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" block and "Origin" section DID NOT EXIST when that brutha spawned this thread. Otherwise, both he and Ezeu back there would have been stark raving mad to have been discussing the issue in the first place! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!? So, please do not quote things that have been edited AFTER and therefore not in context. Neither was I speaking of the present document. Re-READ my previous edit! I am defending a soul brutha who had every right to have raised that particular complaint, even though he might have not used 'text book' english...of which you corrected him.

- You are not sure how you "defended" non-blacks in the soul community? Are you sure, that you are not sure?? Check it: You begun you other statement like "...but not every one who plays/sings soul music is black, and not all black musicians and singers perform soul music...", I mean wtf? Of course not! But have you ever heard of the term African American Music? Black Music? Huh? How may non-blacks up that mutha right now? Plenty! But, has the title African American Music ever been an issue?? And that's why when I hit Ezeu back there I said "Give the Devil his due". Sylab, we could begin going into a hundred million factors and play games all day but this is not a mathematical problem man. Its a cultural issue.

- Where is the hypocrisy? Well then, I'll quote it again, "The fact that you (are sharp enough) correct the usage of the preposition "by" in that statement while completely ignoring the injustice done to the African American people by not being mentioned as the originators of Soul Music reflects a well known phenomena...", is that clear? ( And don't start quoting things from the present somewhat 'rectified' articles ) I was speaking in the context of 'then'

- I quote you, "Wikipedia policy is to present facts backed up by reliable references, regardless of the race, nationalality, religion, class, hair colour etc. of the writer." And I ask you, "Sylab, who is denying (or has denied) this? Please, don't even quote it...As a matter of fact, I was the one demanding justice! what the..."

And oh, yes, I frequently freely contribute to changes in many a "such" an article...codelyric 11 July 2007

• That Rock and Roll Hall of Fame quote was in the article long before you made your recent post on this talk page, leading me to believe that perhaps you have not fully read the article. If you have, then I'm not sure why you would pointlessly obsess about old versions of the article when there is plenty to discuss about the current version. You still have not offered any concrete suggestions about how to improve the article, and have not clearly explained your previous baseless accusations about me supposedly "defending" such and such, or of me somehow being a hypocrite. Perhaps you are here just to vent, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. This page is for commenting on what is actually in (or not in) the article, and for making real suggestions for improvements. Spylab 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Th'Gator here. I'm completely new to Wikipedia input, and this method of expressing my opinions seems somehow wrong - I should be adding a post instead of editing existing ones. If someone would set me straight on how to do this properly, I'd deeply appreciate it.

Perhaps it would help if I pointed out that "gospel music" originated from a religion, primarily white Western European in influence, which was taught (perhaps forcibly) to enslaved Africans, many of whom had to abandon their animistic religions learned from birth.

While they made Christian religion uniquely their own, the roots of that religion were shared by those who taught them. Therefore, it's realistic to hypothesize that soul music would easily migrate to those descendants of slaveowners who shared the same religious practices. For this reason, I'd suggest that soul music be described as being INSPIRED by black origins.

Though I grew up in the New Orleans area, I'm new to really understanding what's soul, what's R&B, etc. The movie "Ray" helped a lot, but I'm not from the same traditions as most of the slaves' teachers. I'm just plain not good at classifying music anyway.

I'd like to nominate Janis Joplin of "Big Brother and the Holding Company" and many country (& Western) artists, especially "Alabama", as white soul artists. Should anyone object to the latter, I suggest that someone else (I'm really busy, but I had to comment here) check out the TV special on "Alabama" which removed the instruments from a rendition of one of their songs. The "a cappella" result was pure gospel. Th'Gator (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Soul music goes back to negro spirituals and plantation singing. There is only one group of people anyone in their right mind would think of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

myspace

I have removed a link to Juliette leon in myspace. Let me know if that was a mistake. We generally don't link to myspace. :) Dlohcierekim 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Re-added by anon. :) Dlohcierekim 12:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is written from a rather highly biased point of view. Soul music is more than just the recordings most loved by rockists (Aretha Franklin, Otis Redding, et al.), although they are certainly among the greats. The article needs to be re-written to encompass a greater focus (The Chi-Lites aren't soul?!). --FuriousFreddy 00:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Half of the links in this article look like spam to me:

• HoneySoul.com - Audio interviews, podcasts, listening parties, radio shows, videos
• PlanetSoul.com - Radio, Audio interviews, reviews, blogs, more
• Soulfulkindamusic.net
• NorthernSoul.co.uk
• Soul Source
• SoulTracks.com - Online soul music magazine and biographies
• Shades of Blue - R&B bios, labels, reviews and trivia

Are these meant to reference something? If not they should be deleted. Thoughts? Strobilus 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that a few of them are spam-like, and those ones should be deleted. Only the sites that are legitimate resources with relevant information about soul music should remain. Spylab 10:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MarvinGayeWhat'sGoingOnalbumcover.jpg

Image:MarvinGayeWhat'sGoingOnalbumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are you music historian/critic/columnist?

I'm flagging this.... There is a simmering black/white issue here from the arguments I'm reading... I'm hoping that a music PhD will come and clean up this article.... It probably needs better verification... I'm having problems with Louis Prima. All I know about Louis Prima is Keely Smith and some jazz standards from the 40s and 50s... Back then it was called R&B - by about the late 50's, early 60's....a particular form of R&B became known as soul music... However - An expert will help greatly...

02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:What'dISay.ogg

Image:What'dISay.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Louis Prima

Took him out completely from this article. He did what was loosely termed R&B at the time. The best examples of his music are the remakes done by rockers in previous years such as "I Ain't Got Nobody" by David Lee Roth & "Jump, Jive N Wail" by the Brian Setzer Orchestra - which isn't of course, soul music, but a highly energized form of swing music and/or jump blues. The entire American swing revival of the late 90s took its cue from Louis Prima rather than Glenn Miller. Soul music descended from the "black churches" and influenced the rhythm and blues scene - not created out of spontaneity.

13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New York? Chicago? Illinois?

The article says the following: "Cultural origins: late 1950s United States (esp. New York, Chicago, Illinois)". Why?? I thought soul music was created in US state of Georgia by Ray Charles and James Brown. Netrat_msk (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you limit the origin of soul with Ray Charles and James Brown? There are multiple sources for the genre. 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They were the main contributors. Anyway, what about soul music coming from Georgia? Netrat_msk (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neo soul as a subgenre

How about moving Neo soul from fusion forms to subgenres? Neo soul is surely influenced by hip-hop, but it almost never features any rapping or scratching etc. so actually it is rather influenced by hip-hop soul than hip hop itself. IMHO neo soul is a part of moder soul music rather than hip hop. So unless we believe soul music died out in late 1970 to be completely replaced by contemporary R&B, neo soul should be regarded as its sub-genre. Netrat_msk (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, neo soul belongs more to contemporary R&B rather than actual soul... Maybe we shouldn't move it. Netrat_msk (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

what are "plastic body moves"

I see no link and google has no answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.143.193 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rhythm and blues is already said to be a bit gospel

"Rhythm and blues (also known as R&B, R'n'B or RnB) is a popular music genre combining jazz, gospel, and blues influences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.159.77 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ReadyorNot.ogg

The image Image:ReadyorNot.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

SOUL

WHY IS IT CALLED SOUL?

This probably comes from the idea that one's soul is the seat of or the manifestation of emotion. It may be a sort of chicken/egg thing, but around the time that soul music arose, the term "soul" was often used to describe the emotional nature of a musician and/or his performance. A certain singer might be said to have a lot of "soul" in a given recording, and by extension, the recording itself would be said to have "soul", hence a style of music which emphasized a strongly emotional style of singing could be said to be soul music. Black musicians in particular were said to have soul, while often the "blue-eyed" white musicians were said to not truly have "soul" but we're rather just copying without understanding the style. Wschart (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Crappy article

Part of the following should be integrated into this really crappy article:

• A brief history of Soul Music
• The Definition of Soul
• The History of Soul (also at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2157141/the_history_of_soul_music_.html, but it is blacklisted)

None of these sources are entirely satisfactory, but they have lots of good info that is lacking in this Wikpedia article.

How could you talk about soul music without mentioning Sam Cooke?!?! "You Send Me" was released in 1957. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.177.205 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree - but there's a shortage of editors (we're all volunteers, you know) willing and able to improve articles like this one, so if you want to give it a go, read this and get stuck in.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: Belatedly, I've started doing a little work on this. If others want to pitch in, feel free. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

References needed - apply within

I'll have a look around for some references. I think we may be able to remove some of the no ref tags. This article should be better but its such a wide genre with so many artists that its hardly surprising that no one has wanted to take it on. We are talking easily two months of solid work and attention to improve this article. I noticed that others have complained that it needs improvement but given the reasons above no one can apportion blame to anyone else.

I sometimes wonder why Wikipedia doesn't take these sorts of articles into music colleges and departments through a student/equipment grant scheme. Offer the music department some music equipment or other related stuff and trust me - they will have their students working on this article like a slave. lol

Sluffs (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sluffs. I've been meaning to get round to this article for some time but haven't yet managed it, apart from a bit of tweaking to the section on the 60s some time ago. I have sources, I expect you have sources... - I'm sure we and others can work together on this. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

At 15:58 on the 11 September 2013‎ - user Ghmyrtle decided my future involvement in this article

Nope. You blew it mate. Out of here.

Reason: one hour's work and a lead-in that was not fully formed destroyed for the sake of nothing.

pants - four million articles - I'm going to choose one that you are not interested in.

lol. they never learn or work it out. mind-racer editor putting foot to the pedal. gone.

Sluffs (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede should mention the key subgenres, like Motown

I think that the lede should mention the key subgenres, such as Motown. However, I think that just giving a list of subgenres does not transmit enough information to the reader (e.g., "The key subgenres are Motown, Northern soul, Blue-eyed soul....). I think it is desirable to have a list of these genres AND say a few words about each subgenre. And here is where the debate arises. Some editors object to the cutting and pasting of text from the body into the lead. The challenge is that the text in the body often does a very good job articulating the nature of the different subgenres, so it is desirable to copy some of the body's text into the lead. I looked in MOS:LEAD and I did not find a specific prohibition of reusing text from the body in the lead. There are statements that the lead should summarize the body, and that the lead should not have too many details. I think a few words about each subgenre is not too detailed.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The lead/lede, mentioning those sub-genres, is essentially fine. Of course, the guidance is that the lead needs to summarise the rest of the article - that is why it is there. The problem in this case is that the main article is still quite poor, and needs a lot of expansion. I know I keep promising to expand it (see earlier threads) and one day I will. But if anyone else wants to expand the main article (using reliable sources) while leaving the lead essentially as it is, go for it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation sources

A good source for citations on Stax related matters is "Respect Yourself" by Robert Gordon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.238.114 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove Fats Domino from the article please

I tried to remove Fats Domino from the article, but it was reverted. Domino is neither a soul singer nor an influence on Soul Music. He is R&B, Boogie-woogie, and Rock 'n' roll. In one way it doesn't matter because this may be one of the worst articles on a major music genre on Wikipedia. But somehow the article needs to be cleaned up and if we can't start fixing the small problems in the article we will never get to the big ones. I have a library of over 1,000 music books and I have never seen Domino named as an influence on Soul Music. It misleads users. Comments please.StonePeter (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Northern Soul

I think there should be a move to take out Northern Soul as a subgenre. It's not a genre or even a style it was a scene. All the soul played was basically American soul from Detroit, Chicago and the south. Semioplex (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The genres in the infobox in the top right corner of the page are listed in alphabetical order, not in order of importance. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"...originated in African American communities..."

I've reverted this change to the opening sentence once, but would like to see further discussion here. Of course, soul music was performed by African-American singers and musicians. That is not in doubt. But did it "originate in African American communities" - or was the fusion of secular R&B and gospel traditions into soul music primarily initiated by record companies, for the prime purpose of selling records and making money? And, those companies were primarily (not exclusively, I know) owned by white people. So, is it right to assert that the genre originated in African American communities? Or, is it best to leave that unsaid, and for the reader to gain a more nuanced interpretation by leaving those words out and reading the whole article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I too have reverted it in the past. My rationale was similar to yours. For now, I've addressed the linking issues, but would consider removal again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be willing to accept "African American community," which would be a cultural community rather than "African American communities" which sounds geographic. I also would not object to "communities" just being removed. Carptrash (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

STOP edit warring

There is some sort of edit warring going on as to whether or not Blues should be included somewhere here. I don't even know where, I have opinions but think that we should discuss it here rather than run through any more "undo"s. First of all, where does this Blues show up? Or not. Carptrash (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that it's an edit war yet, and the thing that we're editing out or back in is the {{blues}} navigation template. It appears at the bottom of the article along with the other two navigation templates. Their use is discussed at Wikipedia:Navigation template. The only concern is whether the subjects listed in the templates are indeed related articles. That might be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Walter Görlitz:, whether this is a technical war or not, it is silly, all this "undoing" and getting out of control. My way of dealing with almost any problem, here or in that other world, is at the point at which the problem manifests it self. Which is here. I will develop an opinion, now that I know what we ate talking about, but not before I finish my lunch. Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First, there's no need to ping me.

Second, while WP:BRD was not followed, it's far from getting out of control.

Third, the discussion that should happen at WikiProject Music is whether this article belongs in that template or not. You may discuss whatever you want here. We'll discuss things that affect more than this article at the project level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Always looking at the big picture? While I am just trying to reach a local agreement. Carptrash (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There were edits across several genre articles, and the question of inclusion cannot be discussed here. In short, there wasn't an edit war and the underlying issue is larger than the topic addressed in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, so go fix the rules where ever they get fixed. Carptrash (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

About Motown

I just cut this phrase out: "Some considered the sound to be mechanistic," because we really do not get to claim that "some considered" anything without including a source or reference. I am not going to insert the cute WHO thing, if you have a "who" include it and stick the words back in. Carptrash (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait, who added that? Because that is some blatant weasel wording right there. Rjrya395 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter who added it, just that it doesn't get back in. Carptrash (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Foundational Black American" vs "African American"

A user has made multiple attempts to change instances of "African American" to "Foundational Black American". It has been undone by several different editors. I've undone the change again, back to the original state pending discussion.

It's not a term I have heard before, but I don't claim to be knowledgeable about African American culture. The user in question seems to be attempting to exclude recent Black immigrants from consideration. Is there any evidence that Foundational Black American is a term that we should be using in this context? Meters (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a term that is widely used. We don't even have an article explaining what it is. If it becomes widely used, eventually we should use it - but certainly not now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Foundational Black American is a redirect to African Americans#Terminology dispute, but it is not even listed there. In short, it is also not a term recognized on Wikipedia.

I searched the Internet for its use and origin at the time of the disruption: there is some use of the term. The first page suggests that there are About 75,400 results, but there were not even 100 uses of it in total (click on page 8 and you'll see Page 8 of 80 results). Most are associated with Tariq Nasheed. Until it sees wider use, including an article on Wikipedia or one of its English-language sister projects, I see no reason to include it this article as it would be an WP:EASTEREGG. In other words, if a reader wanted to know what the topic was about and they clicked on the link, they would not be able to read anything about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the editor who was blocked, Kingdavi1993 (talk · contribs), has had the block expire three days ago, but they have not returned to edit anywhere on the project. My repeated requests to discuss it or get an article created related the term were ignored, and instead baseless insinuations that I was a racists or a vandal for not allowing the disruptive edits from remaining in-place were made. I do not expect that the editor will be returning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music 209

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 October 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ademi890, Sanjuuuurattu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sanjuuuurattu (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)