Jump to content

Talk:Maya Angelou/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Great article

This is looking really great now. Congrats to all the contributors. The full referencing is particularly impressive. Is there a thought to go for FA status? So much work here represented! Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Use this tool to identify major contributors (make sure their contribs add content; some people chalk up a high edit count doing only copy editing or vandal watching). Notify them. Ask for their help. Take it to WP:PR first. Then beg for copy edits from well-known copy editors. Then maybe do WP:FAC • Ling.Nut 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Spanglej, thanks for the nice words. I've been one of the main contributors to this article, and am responsible for most of the content, research, and referencing. One of my wiki-goals is to create a Maya Angelou featured topic, and since I've consistently been the only one committed to improving her articles, it's a very long-term project. There are several steps to reaching that goal, including bringing this article to FA, but that's further along. I think that even with the substantial improvement to this article in the last year, its bio section is still sketchy. The majority of the bio info about Dr. Angelou is in her autobiographies, so I feel strongly that anyone who improves the content in her bio needs to at least have read them. To that end, I was responsible for bringing I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to FA (a great source of pride for me), and her next two autobiographies, Gather Together in My Name and Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, to GA. Singin' and Swingin' is currently in a peer review, and I think it has potential to be brought to FA as well. I've read the next book in the series, The Heart of a Woman, have done the research, and need to expand the current article. So you can see that a great deal of work needs to be done before, IMO, this article can be brought to FAC. IOW, I don't think we're ready yet, and I can guarantee that it won't pass until the bio section is fleshed out and more accurate. Please know that I will remember that you brought this up and when the time comes, it's my intention to solicit your assistance. I'm not too proud to ask for help, you know. ;) --Christine (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Lingnut, I was really just thanking Figureskatingfan for her hard work on working up the set of articles; but thank you for your input. Figureskatingfan, Please do ask for help, it's how we all move forward. I'm happy to do what I can. Your good work is out in the world! Best wishes. Spanglej (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheakspeare

File:My Heroes - Maya Angelou connected with countless people through her powerful poetry.jpg
My Heroes - Maya Angelou connected with countless people through her powerful poetry
Maya Angelou Disc2000

I can see the caption having relevency, and should be worked into the article. But does the picture of the bard belong in the Angelou article? I think not. --Tacit tatum (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, please put new sections under old ones. Secondly, the text states that Shakespeare had influenced Angelou and her writing. Personally, I think that's enough. His image is also in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, a FA, for the same reason. Perhaps we could change the text to better reflect it, or place it in a later section, but it definitely belongs in this BLP. --Christine (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The image should be removed. It detracts from the information about Angelou and appears terribly out of place. There is a tendency on Wikipedia to place free images anywhere and everywhere simply because they are free. That makes for a weak encyclopedia. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to post here rather than start a new section because I want to refer to the above editor re adding photos just because they are free and s/he may be correct about that. However, I like a lot of photos and feel that the article could use more. I added one from Obama's campaign, but looking back I see that it was here at one time and has been removed - were there some problems with it? I note a couple from the Commons that are not being used that I feel would add to the article, especially if some of the boxed quotes are not used. I also question the inclusion of the King photo which to me does not work very well for this article. Here are the photos (which can be removed from the talk page after any comments are made).
I've had such a problem with finding free, appropriate images for this article! Most of what I've removed (and there have been more than the ones you put here) were due to direction from other editors. Images are one of my weak areas on WP, so I've had trouble figuring out which ones should stay and which ones should remain, as the above discussion attests. As for the above images, the first one, even though it's in Commons, isn't free. Someone put it there from Flickr, and the owner page [1] is suspect, I believe. The second image was, at one time, the lead image for the article and I removed it simply because I didn't care for it. I can return it and place it somewhere else, though. I liked your addition of the image of MA speaking at an Obama rally, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I do like the white outfit photo very much and I think it would be good in the article.Gandydancer (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Angelou's clothes revisited

ID, dude, what is it about this "Clothes" poem, anyway? ;)

Seriously, though, I don't understand why you thought it necessary to reinsert the content, months after it was removed. I'm not going to take the trouble to go back and research when and why it was removed, but I'm fairly certain that it was done by me and that there was a valid editorial reason for it. As I said way back here, I don't think the information is valid enough to be mentioned. In addition, the two sources you use to support it as suspect. While it's permissible to use the subject's webpage, especially in a situation like this one, the Scopes article isn't reliable at all. (I'm also certain that there's a policy against using the Scopes webpage, but again, I don't want to take the time to find it.) Dude, did you think that I wouldn't notice its re-inclusion after months and months? If so, you don't know me very well, do you? Anyway, please explain yourself! ;) --Christine (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of who removed it. The conversation you linked to suggests you intended to leave it, barring others feeling it should go. If others feel it doesn't belong, I will go along with that. I think Snopes (not "Scopes") is reliable for some things, others have agreed in the past, and this would be one of them. There's no "policy" against using Snopes; the idea's just odd. And you think Angelou's own site is "suspect?" I don't understand your resistance to this. I feel that this is exactly the sort of thing WP does really well. IronDuke 12:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was User:Spanglej who removed the content, way back in November. And we actually discussed it at the time [2] and agreed that it, along with a bunch of other content, constituted WP:TRIVIA, doesn't belong in the article. That's probably why she reverted your edit, which is something she should've done. I disagree with you about the *Scopes* source (please excuse my error); I think that it isn't very reliable because the site is basically a blog about urban legends. And no, I don't think that Angelou's site is "suspect." Believe me, I've gotten into this argument before [3]. Let me tell you the end result: while it's not customary to use the subject's own webpage as a source, there are times when it's appropriate. For example, in this case because the subject herself is trustworthy. But I'll say it again: I and at least one other editor believes the "Clothes" hoax is trivia, and shouldn't be included in this article. --Christine (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes it was me that reverted the edit, because of Christine's point above - and me that supported the content removal initially. It is unsubstantiated, rumour-based, trivia that was never borne out. I'd say that if this is what WP is applauded for, then it's a sad day for WP. Apologies if I controverted WP policy by reverting without discussion (though I did cite the reason). In efforts to make the article the best it can be I still root for substantive content. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I'm outvoted, I'm outvoted. I still think it's a useful addition and Snopes (not, I say again with feeling, with a "C"), was just covered favorably in the NY Times here. Oh well. IronDuke 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry--Snopes with an "N"! I will never make that error again, believe me. ;) Seriously, though, that's an interesting article. Perhaps it would better suited for an article about Snopes or about the Mikkelsons. Now, they would be fun people to work for. --Christine (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization usage

In the past couple of days, I went through this article and changed some capitalizations. The changes were inspired by User:Moni3, who copyedited Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas in anticipation of re-submitting that article for FAC. Instead of re-creating that discussion here, I refer you to it: [4] Christine (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Christine, regarding the article you linked to, are you sure that is the real reason "Black" is capitalized and "white" is not? It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that someone wants to take a passive-aggressive swipe at Whites. 76.247.44.19 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, dear anonymous IP, the above link explains it. I've decided to follow Dr. Angelou's practice; she capitalizes Blacks and doesn't capitalize whites. Now, working on her articles here have given a great deal of insight about her, so I doubt there are any conspiracy theories on her part. I've never been able to find any explanation for her practice, but that would be a good question to ask her. Yes, I can imagine it: Someone approaching the great Maya Angelou and asking her, "Hey, you don't capitalize Whites; does that mean that you secretly hate them?" And then you'd have to fight off all her admirers for daring to be so disrespectful. It really is a ridiculous question; read just one of her books and you'd realize that. To be clear, however: no, I nor Dr. Angelou do not hate whites. We don't hate anyone, and I believe I can say that about her. Christine (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Madame or Madam?

The "Early Life" section displays this information: Angelou's second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, recounts her life from age 17 to 19. This book "depicts a single mother's slide down the social ladder into poverty and crime."[20] Angelou at times worked as a prostitute and as the madame of a brothel.

The correct word is "madam." "Madame" is a courtesy title. A "madam" is a woman who runs a brothel. You can verify this at www.dictionary.com, which lists "madame" and "madam" as often confused words.Ballroom16 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Cresix (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

award of prez medal of freedom

i think the article awards paragraph should be updated (it doesnt allow an edit) to include maya winning the Prez Medal of Freedom yesterday Feb 15, 2011. /s/ tie rell t boan joanz sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article and listed at List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou, which is linked in this article. Cresix (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I even got to watch the ceremony! President Obama can't even say Dr. Angelou's name correctly! ;) Christine (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Maya Angelou in Germany

In a television interview, Miss Angelou recounted the story of a visit to Germany where she was invited to the home of a German family. While eating dinner with them, she decided to tell them a Nazi joke because, according to her, "you can tell what people are really like by what they laugh at." The family took great offence at this and all left the room for several minutes. They then returned and told her a joke which ridiculed black people. She concluded from this experience that it proved her point. I am putting it in the discussion section because I think it says more about Maya Angelou herself than anything anyone else could say about her. Whether it should go into the main article or not is the purpose of the discussion page which is not a forum. So, to make sure I comply with the rules, I am making that clear. Do you think it should go into the main article? I don't, but you are free to disagree with me. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Angelou actually recounts that story in her fifth autobiography, All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes. If the story belongs anywhere, it belongs there. The point goes deeper than what people find funny; it was more about her behavior as a guest and her hosts' behavior towards her as their guest. One of the themes of the book is being a foreigner and alien, and how she responded to her status as one and how the hosts of the various countries she visited responded to her, especially in Africa. Regarding Angelou's bio article here, though, I'm slowly improving it as I read her books and improve the articles about them. I've been meaning to do it, but I've been distracted by real life and other articles. That's what happens when you're literally the only person to work on a project like writing and improving a group of articles. I hope to tackle this part of it in the next couple of weeks. Christine (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Napleszoo, 14 April 2011

This is a request for a simple change. I noticed the rewards section mentions that Ben Harper has honored Angelou with his song "I'll Rise", which includes words from her poem, "And Still I Rise."

Please change the name of her poem from "And Still I Rise" to "Still I Rise." While the poetry collection containing her poem is in fact titled "And Still I Rise", the poem itself is simply titled, "Still I Rise".

See table of contents in her book: http://www.amazon.com/Still-I-Rise-Maya-Angelou/dp/0394502523 Thank you for considering this minor edit.

Napleszoo (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

While returning to working on MA-articles, I've found some sources that may be useful in the future.

  • 1990 interview in The Paris Review [5]

Infobox image

The picture of Angelou in the infobox is too tiny, while there are bigger ones available and used in later parts of the article. Shouldn't this be corrected? I think the infobox of such an important article needs a bigger photo than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antrikshy (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Antrikshy, that is a very good question. The problem is that there aren't really any adequate free images of Dr. Angelou. The previous infobox image wasn't very flattering. The current image is small, but it's attractive. The solution is for her to release a portrait of her to Wikimedia; I may write her through her webpage and request it. The other options are to use the larger image that appears in the "Adulthood and early career section", but that's not a current one, or the one of her reciting her inauguration poem, or the one of her receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Obama. Or we could find another one, as long as it's free. What do you think? Christine (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
So I've thought about this for a few days, and I've come to the conclusion that Antrikshy is correct. Therefore, I've removed the little image and replaced it with the inaugural poem one. It's not current (I may still try and request an image from her), but it is the image used in her template and it's attractive. I think it's the best choice available at this point. Christine (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This has little to do with the infobox image, but it's related enough: notice that I replaced the image of Dr. A placed there by User:Spanglej with a non-free image of the cover art of her album. I did that because I've never been able to find a date for the original image, and I suspect that it's not free, anyway. I know, I know--neither is the cover art, but at least it's more acceptable since it has a rationale for using it here. Christine (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BrilliantLectures, 18 July 2011

[1]

Dr. Maya Angelou still inspires many people by visiting cities throughout the nation. Although she does not do too much traveling she is scheduled to give a lecture in Houston, TX on September 22nd. She is giving a lecture through the Houston based non-profit organization Brilliant Lecture Series. This will be her second scheduled visit to Houston through the Brilliant Lecture Series. More information can be found at [http: //www.brilliantlectures.org www.brilliantlectures.org]. BrilliantLectures (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia is not the place to place advertisements for lectures. See WP:SOAP. If we were to place every lecture that Dr. Angelou does, as great as they are, the article would be too long. This is an encyclopedia, so my answer to this request would be no. Also know that after enough time has passed so that it's certain that you'll see this response, your request will be deleted. Thank you for going through the proper procedure in making the request. That being said, I would love to attend this lecture in Houston; I've never seen her speak live before. Christine (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brandrn, 3 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I've never tried to edit a Wiki page before so hope I can do it correctly. I note that the year that Angelou returned to the US is stated as 1967. The exact time is February 19, 1965. Malcolm X was assassinated two days later, February 21, 1965. This is an important correction.Brandrn (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Brandrn

Please change: 'Angelou returned to the US in 1967' to 'Angelou returned to the US in February 1965' <ref> Manning Marable "Malcolm X, A Life of Reinvention"</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandrn (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Brandrn, thanks for your input. You're so right about the correction, which brought attention to the fact that many of the dates in this article were incorrect. Not to make any excuses, but the timelines in Angelou's autobiographies are kind of fuzzy, so that was reflected in her WP bio. I did some checking and re-checking, and I'm fairly certain the dates in the "Adulthood and early career" section are correct. As you can probably tell, this article is a mess, mostly because I've been alone in editing and maintaining it. I just finished Dr. Angelou's final autobiography, so it's my intention to use the information in it to improve this section, and then work on improving the article as a whole. Much of that depends on my attention span and time. Christine (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

misspelling

Please attend to the spelling of the word "colleagues" in the last sentence of the section entitled LATER WORKS. The existing sentence is copied and pasted here: "...and personal and professional correspondence from cooleagues such as Robert Loomis."[47] (Dominical)

Do feel free fix it any time. Span (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No kidding. Took you longer to complain about it. Christine (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

typo

"Angelou campaigned for the Democratic Partyin the 2008 presidential primaries" needs a space between "Party" and "in." I would fix it myself if I knew how. Ebpinegar (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


Article milestone

As of the last week of Dec. 2011, this article is closer to being what it should be. I've finally completed writing, copyediting, and improving the reference in the first part, the bio section, up to and including the section "Later career". This is a major accomplishment, because it was (for me) dependent upon the creation/expansion of all six of Angelou's autobiographies. This is now complete, and each of them are at least a GA, except for the final one, A Song Flung Up to Heaven, but only because it hasn't been submitted for GAC yet but will be in the coming days. Two are FAs.

So where do we go from here? The rest of the article is woefully inadequate, so the next step, I believe, is to improve and rewrite them. This article is long, so I anticipate creating several forked articles, and then summarizing them in separate sections here. At least one of the sections, "Angelou's works", already does that; it links to the List of Maya Angelou works, which also needs work and should eventually go to FLC. Currently, the other sections aren't comprehensive, so I anticipate using the sources I've accessed to improve them and take them to new article space.

On a personal note, I'm greatly humbled by the opportunity to honor Dr. Angelou by improving this article, something she greatly deserves. I'm honored that I've been able to do it, and am grateful for how much I've learned from her since my first edit, almost at the beginning of my WP editing career, way back in Sept. 2007. It's come a long way since then, and I'm very proud. Hopefully, it won't take as long to get it to FAC! Christine (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done and congrats Christine for all your hard work. Onwards and upwards! Span (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: As of today 3/15/2012, this article is as complete as it's ever going to be. What I mean is that in addition to the milestone above, it is now comprehensive for its subject, at least in my (the main editor of this article) estimation. If anyone else can think of other sections and/or information to add, please bring it up here.

I've just completed a final personal copyedit, but especially for an article of this size and scope, it needs more eyes and additional copyeditors. I have some editors in mind to ask to do just that, but if anyone else wants a try, please go ahead. If you do so, I request that you answer the following questions:

Is this article too long, or is it adequate for the size and scope of its subject?
If the answer to the above is that it's too long, should we create new, forked articles? If so, what sections should be forked?
Is this article comprehensive enough? If not, what should be added?
What images should be added?

Thank you for any and all assistance. My eventual goal, of course, is FAC, to which I'll submit this article after the copyediting is finished. As I state above, this marks a huge accomplishment for me personally and an important step in Maya Angelou articles on WP. When and/or if this article become FA, the next step is improving the rest of her articles, and submitting it for a good topic or featured topic. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • She is highly respected as a spokesperson for Black people and women, and her works have been seen as representative and as a defense of Black culture. - I found the wording of this sentence in the lead to be slightly awkward. Wadewitz (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly why I need the ce help. I changed it to: She is highly respected as a spokesperson of Black people and women, and her works have been considered a defense of Black culture because I think that the "representative" part is implicit in the "spokesperson" part. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it needs a fair amount of ce. As for length, yes it is very long and involved - perhaps more than the average reader would want to know. On the other hand, you have a fairly long and detailed lede that may do just fine for the person only interested in a short bio. In some ways the article seems a little jerky and jumpy and a "hard read" - but actually that may be due to the fact that she did so much and knew so many well-known people. Trying to read it with a critical eye, again and again I would think, "Well that could be left out...", only to find that "that" information was needed to connect to what followed... So I am left feeling a little critical of the article and yet I have no ideas about how to improve it. Or even if my criticisms are valid. It seems a shame that more people don't read and offer input for this important article that you have put so much work into. There should be a place in Wikipedia where one could make a request for people with specific interests that would be willing to offer suggestions. In my experience here there is very little interest in both Black and Native American-related articles. Incidentally, I googled her son and found that he wrote a very well-received novel. About the boxed quotes, I thought that it may be related to a paucity of photos. Gandydancer (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Gandy, I've already expressed by gratitude with your input on your talk page; it's very welcome. Yes, part of the reason this is such a complicated article is that the subject is complicated. Perhaps we need to separate the bio into more sections; that may resolve the difficulty in reading it. There was so much about MA's life that could've been included, but she did write six autobiographies, so if readers want to know more, they can either read them or the WP articles about them. I really think that everything that's included is necessary, but that's just one editor's opinion. If you cite the areas you're talking about, we can discuss. It looks like we'll indeed have to create some forked articles after all. I was leading that way, but wanted some input first. So I will work on that in the coming weeks. Yes you're correct about the lack of Black articles; it's just one more demonstration of the systematic bias that I think that this article and all MA-related articles improve, even just a little bit. I'm proud of that, and of my small part in it. Anyone who helps should be as well. And yes you're also right about the lack of free photos; that's the other input needed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2012

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missbutterpecan (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, not sure what you're requesting. This article already mentions several times that Dr. Angelou was nominated for a Pulitzer. Please explain, and please sign your posts. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

Perhaps others like all those boxed quotes but I find them a distraction. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

They're there because of my difficulty with finding free and appropriate images, as I state above. I can remove the Oprah quotebox because of your addition of MA speaking at the Obama rally, and that might help. My thinking was to use quoteboxes like images, to break up the text. Some of them I favor keeping, but if anyone can find images, we can talk about what to do about the quoteboxes. It makes sense to me that an article about a writer should have lots of quotes from said writer. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder about this paragraph in the opening: Evidence suggests that Angelou is partially descended from the Mende people of West Africa.[8][note 1] A 2008 PBS documentary found that Angelou's...... Angelou described Lee as "that poor little Black girl, physically and mentally bruised."[9]

Perhaps it would be better to place this info down in Family or Identity. This is one example of what seems a little jerky/jumpy to me. It seems to jerk me from 1850 to present with no good reason.

I think it's important that we include some information about MA's ancestry, since the information's available. The reason I didn't include information about it in the other sections is because it was included here. Actually, it "jerks" from 1850, to her grandmother's background, to the 1930s, when MA was a child. When the ancestral info on a subject is available, it should be used, I think. How does other BLPs handle this? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I love the info and think it's great for the article. It's just that to me it seems out of place at the opening of her article and I doubt that any bio would start with it. But, like all of my criticisms it may be just me... If it seems correct to you to place it there that's my suggestion - unless another person comes along and agrees with me. Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Next I come to this:

In what editor Claudia Johnson called "an astonishing exception"[11] to the harsh economics of African Americans of the time, Angelou's grandmother prospered financially during the Great Depression and World War II because the general store she owned sold needed basic commodities and because "she made wise and honest investments".[4][note 2]

This is what seems to me to be an example of too many names to keep track of. The name "Claudia Johnson" enters and I'm not sure who she is and if I need to try to remember her name, so as to speak. Must her name be mentioned?

You're right, of course, so I removed the phrase mentioning the editor. I think the confusing part is the fact that the editor's name is "Johnson", which also happens to be MA's family name. Hopefully, cutting it helps, and I won't get dinged for including the quote without an in-line attribution. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I thought of that... AFAIK, the name is not required when the quote is used. Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems sort of dropped in out of the blue:

Three weeks after completing school, she gave birth to her son, Clyde, who also became a poet.[21] At the end of Angelou's third autobiography, Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, her son changed his name to "Guy Johnson".[22]

I'd skip everything past "birth to her son"--you can talk about his name and name change later. How old was she when her son was born?

I would've thought that her age was obvious, since it was three weeks after graduating. Obviously not, so I added the phrase, "at the age of 17". I put the name change info in a note; I didn't think it fit in later references to Guy. Does that help clarify? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
So sorry - when I asked the age she was it was an aside question and not to suggest it was confusing. I'd still hold off the info about her son till later, but again that may be just me... Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop here and see if you or anyone else has any comments so far. As I'm sure you know, it is hard to criticize another's work when I have no special talent for it. It is just my impression which could be wrong. Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're doing just fine. You've been very helpful thus far. Continue, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ADULTHOOD: This sentence She studied African dance with Trinidadian dancer Pearl Primus, and her new husband and son moved with her to New York City, but they returned to San Francisco a year later.[29] should not have two widely separated facts. Does the move to NY even need a mention?

Actually, they moved to NYC so that MA could study with Primus. I thought it was important to include because those who know about Primus know he was centered in NYC. But it was unclear, so I changed it to: Angelou, her new husband, and son moved to New York City so that she could study African dance with Trinidadian dancer Pearl Primus, but they returned to San Francisco a year later.[29] Is it clearer now? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here: After meeting and hearing civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. speak in 1960, she and Killens organized "the legendary"[36] Cabaret for Freedom to benefit the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and was named SCLC's Northern Coordinator. According to Hagen, her contributions to civil rights as a fundraiser and SCLC organizer were successful and "eminently effective".[37 Who is Hagen...or could that sentence be skipped? Gandydancer (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hagen is one of my sources. One of the challenges of this article is references to these scholars, and identifying them completely the first time they're mentioned. This is one of those situations. Thanks for the catch; I suspect there are others, which I'll appreciate folks pointing out to me. Perhaps it won't be such a big issues once the forked articles are created; I'll start that process now. Again, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as I read the article I was aware of the difficulty that you faced as you put it together. That's why I cringe every time I make a complaint! It is good we can work on it together like good friends. I will read further and see what else I see. Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe in helping each other improve articles; it makes for a better and richer encyclopedia, and it helps us editors grow as writers. We need to not be so insecure as to not accept feedback and evaluation openly. That's true in RL too, you know. Looking forward to further feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks somewhat like a mini version of peer review. Why not go all the way and submit the article for an official peer review? It always help to get more eyeballs, more crania, on the task. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I kinda like to do things informally, at least to start. I like to ask some of my "cronies" here and see what happens, mostly to avoid the backlog. I haven't had much luck thus far, other than Gandydancer, so I probably will take it to PR as you suggest. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The backlog is ugly but if people jump in and offer their opinions I think the objectivity will be greater than with one's cronies. :)
Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Christine, I made a few changes in the next section. As usual, feel free to revert anything I do. I am sorry that Ryanwould has not responded to the request for a copy edit. Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem, just support for Binks' advice that I submit this to PR. Which I will do, probably by tonight. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

In the course of this article's current FAC, I was advised by a reviewer to go through this article and make sure that all the assertions made in this article were correctly supported by its sources. I agreed to do it, even though it's an arduous task and not my favorite part of content editing. In the midst of the source check, I discovered, to my shock, a published source that has plagiarized an earlier version of this article, in its entirety. Anyone who has been around this project for a while has had the experience of seeing their words elsewhere, usually on webpages that at least cite their source as from WP. This was the first time in over five years of active content editing in this project that I've seen this kind of blatant copyright violations, in an actual printed book. I wrote User:Sue Gardner, and her assistant Phillippe Beaudette responded to me and educated me in regards to what Wikimedia does in these situations: contact their lawyers. I thought that I'd record it here; look for future updates as they occur. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

New pics added

In response to issues raised at the FAC, I took two images found by Christine and reduced their resolution, uploaded them, provided fair use rationales, and added them into the article. I am not a Maya Angelou expert, so the draft text I used for captions should be reviewed and improved. Also, additional material about the Miss Calypso album should be added to the article. There is a third pic that also looks very valuable: the Purple Onion pic; let me know if my help is needed getting that one prepared. --Noleander (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When I get a chance I will bring in some text from the CD booklet insert of Miss Calypso which includes some of its historiography. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nole. The images you added are great. I staggered their placement and changed the caption of the Baldwin image, because he only helped her through the one period of depression, the one before she wrote Caged Bird. I don't think we need the Purple Onion image here; I wonder if it would be better in Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, another FA that could use more images. Regarding the album: I'm not sure that your addition about it fits here. There's nothing in this article about reviews of the many things she's done. I think that the information should be in an article about Miss Calypso. Hey, someone should create the article! It really needs to happen, anyway. Nole, go for it: if it's long enough, you'll even get DYK credit! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the article needs either the Purple Onion or the Miss Calypso image: a pic of her in here late 1950s heyday. If you think MissCalypso is not quite right, that is fine, but I think the Purple Onion should go in. Let me know if you want to go that route, and I can degrade the image and upload it. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
We need to pick one or the other, I think. We don't want this article cluttered with too many images. I'll go ahead and create a userspace draft so we can work on the new article as we can, and put the info you added over there. I think that the album cover, the Onion image, and the template image of Angelou performing her inaugural poem should all go there. And then you can add the info from the album's liner notes there, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: userspace draft created: User:Figureskatingfan/''Miss Calypso". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I scanned some stuff, so now the Miss Calypso liner notes can be accessed on Google docs. Here are three links: Miss Calypso track list, 1957 album liner notes by Hal Spector, and 1995 CD liner notes by Chuck Foster, including a bit of commentary on the 1957 liner notes. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, Binks! Thanks. I added the above to the draft's talk page, for easier access. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 November 2012

Please change :"In 1951, Angelou married Greek electrician, former sailor, and aspiring musician Enistasious (Tosh) Angelos"to "In 1951, Angelou married Greek electrician, former sailor, and aspiring musician Anastasios (Tosh) Angelos" because this is the correct spelling of his name. 78.145.208.72 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Provide a source. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

New category for American Inaugural poets

Created a new category for American Inaugural poets. Please add Maya Angelou as she was the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgh71 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Also added category to Robert Frost, as he was the first. It was pretty easy. Next time, figure out how to do it yourself. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Occupations

Was Angelou really a prostitute?! I have never heard any evidence of it, and in interviews I've heard, she has made a point, for example, of saying that she occasionally danced at a "strip joint" where she sang, but she never stripped. Has she mentioned prostitution in her autobiographies?98.170.214.134 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she was. Every claim in this article is supported by a reliable source. And yes, Angelou talks frankly about this part of her life in lots of interviews and in her second autobiography Gather Together in My Name. It's also discussed in Maya Angelou: A Glorious Celebration, published after her 80th birthday. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
If every claim in this article was supported by a reliable source, there would be a citation to one that explains how a "grand jury" made any findings regarding the paternity of her mother, as is described in the article. Grand juries do issue indictments, as described in the article, but then they are done. They don't go on to make factual findings of guilt or innocence, let alone findings that are contrary to the indictment that they have just handed down.Steveozone (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
See ref 81, which supports all the claims made preceding it. I don't pretend to know much about the law, but that's how the source puts it. How do you suggest that we correct it? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

and

In the first paragraph, I found this:

She has published six autobiographies, five books of essays, several books of poetry, and is credited with a list of [etc., etc.]

It is standard to write "A, B, C, D, and E" rather than "A and B and C and D and E", and accordingly, one would write

She has published six autobiographies, five books of essays, and several books of poetry,

But this sentence says in effect

She has published six autobiographies; and
She has published five books of essays; and
She has published several books of poetry; and
She has published is credited with a list of [etc., etc.]

The last item is not part of the same list, obviously. In elementary school I was taught that that sort of structure is incorrect. And what I was taught makes sense, for reasons I hope are made clear by what I wrote above. I altered the sentence to say

She has published six autobiographies, five books of essays, and several books of poetry, and is credited with a list of [etc., etc.]

(In the past couple of years I have with increasing frequency seen this done by respectable people, to the point where it's beginning to seem as if it's not just an oversight, but rather this simple point must no longer be taught. However, this remains: It makes sense.) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, okay, thanks for the grammar lesson. And thanks for the correction. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Congrats Christine! Gandydancer (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to everyone who helped. Having a TFA wasn't as traumatic as I expected, with only 8 edits and almost 44,000 views on April 4. [7] According to this [8], I don't have to be ashamed that I watched this last night [9]. Ah, it's nice to have something in common with President Obama! ;) And of course she supports gun rights; it makes sense if you know anything about her and her history. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of recent edit

I removed the edit about Guy Johnson because it's cited to this website which appears to be self-published. Featured article criteria requires the best quality scholarly sources and consistent formatting of sources. The edit adheres to neither. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, but over at the talk page of the editor who made the edit in question. I agree, of course, since I was the one who made the initial reversion, and for the reasons I stated in the edit summary. Thanks, TT. Angelou certainly doesn't need validation of her son also being a poet for it to be mentioned over and over again, just as the article doesn't need to mention more than once that her mother was the first African-American woman merchant marine. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning once, though, right? I think it's interesting that he followed her path. Literally, 3 words. Can you find a way to put them in? Also, why not fix instead of reverting? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It's suitably "interesting" if somebody other than Johnson himself publishes a comment about the influence. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
How about this: mentioned on page 1 [10] --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
But guys, it's already mentioned here. See note 4, which is suitably and reliably sourced--the Gillespie book, which is more reliable than the above source, and in many more words than three. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Fine - so why not just bubble part of it up to article space - no-one will be looking for that info in a note about his accident. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Because it's not very important, and because it seemed to be the best place for it. It doesn't really belong in any other mention of Guy. And anyway, you originally had it in a note, too. A better solution, I think, would be to create a new article about him, although you might get some complaints about his notoriety. Or perhaps not, who knows? This is Wikipedia we're talking about, doncha know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2013

This entry inaccurately describes Angelou as a National Book Award finalist. Ms. Angelou has not received any National Book Award nominations or awards. However, she was a judge in the category of Biography and Autobiography in 1978. To verify this correction, please visit www.nationalbookfoundation.org for a complete list of NBA winners and finalists.

Thank you! 64.128.53.142 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: The article doesn't describe her as a finalist; it says she was a nominee, and that's easily verifiable. I'm not sure how the article could make that clearer without specifying that she wasn't a finalist, which I don't think would be a very good idea. Others may disagree. Incidentally, the url for the National Book Foundation is nationalbook.org, and here is the link for the page showing the finalists for 1970. (It doesn't list nominees.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for listing the url for the National Book Foundation incorrectly; I am a new employee of the Foundation. But I assure you we have combed through our archives and could find no record of Maya Angelou being nominated for the award. Or any other authors. Only the selected Finalists. Further, Ms. Angelou does not refer to herself as a nominee on her website. What is your source of information for citing her as a nominee? If you have a verifiable source, I think it's important to footnote it. Please feel free to call our office if you need further information.

64.128.53.142 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It can be argued that the source this article cites (Moyer) isn't the most reliable. There are other sources that state the same thing, but I suspect their source is this article. The nomination also isn't included in List of honors received by Maya Angelou. For those reasons, I support removing it here. Unnamed Foundation employee: Do you have an on-line database of nominees? If you did, it would help us, not only for this situation, but also for similar articles. I suggest that you read WP: COI, which talks about having a conflict of interest. You've done the right thing making this request in this way, but it's good information for you and your organization to have. Also, I suggest that even when making this kind of request, that you create an account and then identify yourself as an employee of the Foundation. Thanks for your input, and for helping us improve Wikipedia. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That's good advice about WP:COI and creating an account. WIthout knowing what specifically constitutes a "nomination" for the award, it's really impossible to determine whether the absence of Ms. Angelou's name (or any other name) in the Foundation's archives indicates that there was no nomination. The nomination process varies among literary awards, and in some cases records may not be kept of the initial names before they're culled to determine the finalists. I'm thinking that to be definitively resolved this may end up requiring an OTRS ticket from a representative of Ms. Angelou's.
In my response above, I said her nominee status was easily verifiable, and the IP asked for my sources. Here are a few:
and, most alarmingly,
I don't think that all of the above sources got their allegedly erroneous information from Wikipedia.
For the record, in case anyone else is moved to Google it, PBS and The Baltimore Sun get it wrong and say she won the award, which is troubling, to say the least. We can discount those, but it looks as if the NBF has some other contacts to make vis-à-vis corrections. Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

edit request: change "confess" to "told"

In the 2nd paragraph under Early Years, it says that she "confessed" that she had been raped to her brother. How about changing the verb to a more neutral "told"? Dictionaries generally define "confess" to mean stating that one has done something wrong, and a more objective tone could be used. Ccwikiedit (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. The wording can still be improved, though Ensignricky Talk 00:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"she is respected"

Does the sentences that states that Angelou is respected as a spokesperson for Black people need a citation? Toodle007 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Toodle (love your username), it depends on which time it's mentioned in the article. As per WP:LEADCITE, it isn't necessary to cite sources in the lead unless it's a direct quote or it's a statement that can be challenged. The statement, which appears again later on, in the "Influence" subsection, is supported by ref 106. There can be an argument that the statement can be challenged, so I'm not unopposed to inserting it in the lead, although I personally don't think it's necessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Best known for autobiography over poetry?

This article's statement that "Angelou is best known for her autobiographies, but she is also an established poet" seems to me to be highly debatable. I would posit that most younger Americans only know Angelou as a poet, her publication history notwithstanding. Her poetry is widely quoted in the media, her autobiographies, little if at all. I'm not taking it upon myself to delete the statement, but I think the point that Angelou has authored both types of works can be made in a less subjective way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.74.240 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point, but the sources support that she's better known for her autobiographies. I haven't found any source that supports your assertion. With the publication this year of her most recent autobiography, which has been a best-seller, there has been a lot of attention to all her books in the press, and Caged Bird has always been popular. If you can find a source that supports your statement, go ahead and add it. That being said, though, how would you state it less subjectively? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of the Greek name

(In response to this edit). Are there any sources? Angelou looks to me like a perfectly legitimate Greek name (in fact, I know somebody whose name is Evangelou).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I just added the source, probably as you were saving your comment. Believe me, this has been discussed. [11]. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"After her marriage to the Greek sailor, Anastasios Angelopulos, she too must have realized that there is some sort of value in a name as she kept his name, albeit shortened it to Angelou, creating a timeless and unique identity for herself." Desiree Michael123.211.211.153 (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014

Please change Dr. Angelou's former list of professions from "pimp and prostitute" to "Calypso dancer."

Details: Please consider editing the first paragraph of Dr. Maya Angelou's page. Out of respect for Dr. Angelou, could you please consider removing her list of occupations as "pimp, prostitute [...]?" She identifies herself as a former Calypso dancer, which is what she truly was at heart. Thanks so much and have a wonderful day. Rosespiritflower (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what the problem is. The sentence in question has a long list of Dr. Angelou's former occupations, including the fact that she was a nightclub performer. Later in the article, it describes her time as a calypso performer. She's not embarrassed about her venture into the dark side of life, and in her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, she's very clear about it. In the article about Gather Together, and elsewhere in articles about her here, it's very clear about her reasoning to include the information in that book and others, despite her misgivings about how it would be received by the public. One of the reasons she has disclosed it publicly is because she knows that she's an example of how one can rise above even a stint in the life of a prostitute. If she's not ashamed of it, why should we, and why shouldn't the article about her reflect that? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
After thinking about this for a little while, and looking at what we've done on other Angelou articles, I've reconsidered. I suspect that the problem expressed above, which has been expressed by others, is with the fact that the pimp/prostitute occupation is listed first, which can be considered disrespectful and perhaps even incendiary. I think that the way I changed it resolves the issue, without taking out the mention of Dr. Angelou's short involvement in this particular occupation. I hope that it satisfies the issue. Thanks to Rosespiritflower for inspiring the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
yeah that's better. I think her time as a prostitute was rather short, and leading with that was a bit unsettling. I think putting it in context - eg she did a lot of jobs in her life - is much better.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: It looks to me like this request has been withdrawn and I'm deactivating the template above and closing this request as such. If I've misread the situation, feel free to set |ans= or |answered= to |ans=no and explain why you've reopened the request with details of the consensual request. Thank you for your interest in editing the English Wikipedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 02:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http ://www.brilliantlectures.org
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maya_Angelou/Archive_3&oldid=1146377396"