Talk:Sam Forster

Deletion of context, and resumé style content

@Violetpennington, it doesn't make sense to call the deletion of some 600+ bits 'restoring necessary biographical context that was previously deleted,' especially when the 'biographical context' is subjective praise of Sam Forster's writing. Likewise, removing further context from 'seven shoulders' makes no sense, seeing as nothing deleted was subjective or inflammatory. ~2026-59551-6 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-59551-6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree. @Violetpennington, @Musa Adebayo, and @~2026-10711-49 have been repeatedly removing mentions of blackface and replacing them with promotional-sounding language that I don't think follows WP:NPOV. Several reliable sources have discussed the book and have focused on the controversy around the use of blackface. These sources also all use the term "blackface." To avoid participating in an edit war, I've stopped reverting the changes, but I've added a POV notice at the top. Cadddr (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The neutrality issue at hand here seems to be the substitution of 'disguised as a black man' or similar langauge to evade the term Blackface. But a spade is a spade... It is not subjective to call disguising oneself as a Black person the donning of Blackface, even if the ends are journalistic.

Similarly, @Violetpennington and @Musa Adebayo repeatedly reverted the introductory section back to "Forster is known for his immersive, avant garde literary style — and for being one of few modern writers to have significant profiles in mainstream political journalism, war reporting, and alternative literature," but this is merely subjective and promotional. Given the number of sources cited—even to establish unrelated early career things—which discuss his use of Blackface, it is safe to say that including mention of Seven Shoulders in the introductory section of this article makes sense, and is not subjective. This person achieved a degree of media attention because of this book! Why would that not be included front and centre, but some subjective resumé language would be? ~2026-59551-6 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe @Violetpenningtonand @Musa Adebayo are correct. Given the breadth of Forster's career, it makes much more sense to simply include a paragraph in the introduction noting he has a distinctive (and indeed avant garde) literary style. The fact that he has written for major national outlets and experience reporting in multiple war zones seems more biographically relevant than criticism of one of his books. It makes more sense to keep specific references to Seven Shoulders in the Seven Shoulders section of the article. Moreover, it seems like the term "Blackface" is being weaponized here to politicize the article of a relatively mainstream journalist. Wikipedia's own definition of blackface is: "the practice of light-skinned performers using burned cork, shoe polish, or theatrical makeup to portray a caricature of dark-skinned people, e.g. African-Americans on stage or in entertainment." There's clearly no evidence that Forster was engaged in any sort of theatrical performance designed to mock or entertain, as the term "blackface" suggests. As a matter of fact, there appears to be no images of Forster in the disguise at all. Regardless of what you think of Forster as a writer, that clearly was not what he was doing. One of the article's current sources even references a statement from Forster where he says, "some people have been accusing this of merely being a publicity stunt and a cash-grab, which is not the case. I’ve turned down many major media requests over the past few days from outlets and shows that wanted to have me on in exchange for the right to publish images. As I say in the book, I don’t believe that would add anything constructive to the discourse, even if it would generate more attention. I understand how images of that sort can be painful, and I’m not a malicious person." It's also useful to consider the fact that neither Ray Sprigle, nor John Howard Griffin are described as using "blackface" in their respective articles — and their books are the closest analogues to Seven Shoulders. I appreciate that many people may see Forster as controversial, but I think it's important to describe him and his work with clarity. SydneyAtkins (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — SydneyAtkins (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sockpuppet of Violetpennington (talk • contribs). Cadddr (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he had ill intent either, but I'm not sure that's relevant to how we should describe the incident on Wikipedia. Forster himself uses the term "journalistic blackface" to describe what he did, and "blackface" is also the term that reliable sources use. (I'm open to avoiding the term "blackface" in the introductory section, but I definitely think it needs to be included in the article body.) Regardless of the wording, I think the controversy should be in mentioned in the introductory section, since, for better or worse, it seems to be one of the biggest things he's known for in reliable sources. Wikipedia should reflect what he's most known for, not try to influence what he's known for. As you said, I think his reporting in war zones should be mentioned in the introductory section too.

I don't think we should keep the current second paragraph unless we can find at least one reliable source directly supporting it. Even if someone does find such a source, I think the wording should be toned down to be less promotional. Cadddr (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this, @Cadddr, and think that the term Blackface is here merely descriptive. What product is used to darken one's face cannot be a defining factor on whether someone is in Blackface or not. Likewise, much time has passed since journalists in the 40s and 60s donned blackface in the course of their investigations, and it is probably an oversight not to list it as such on their pages.

Simiarly, I think including this 'controversy' in clear langauge in the introduction is responsible and fair, given the number of reliable sources which use the same language! So perhaps a compromise in that regard would be something along the lines of "self-described 'journalistic blackface'"... ~2026-59551-6 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@violtetpennington , @Musa Adebayo and @SydneyAtkins are correct. Blackface has a clear description, as detailed on Wikipedia's own article. Forster's work does not align with that description. The fact that media figures erroneously attached that term to his work does not change this basic reality. @~2026-59551-6 is arguing that the broadly accepted definition of Blackface be strategically reconstructed in order to preserve a critical framing on this article. They are also arguing that an entire genre of Civil rights-era literature should be fundamentally reinterpreted in order to keep an inflammatory, descriptively inaccurate term in this article. It is totally fair to note that Forster's work is controversial, but Wikipedia's neutrality principle obviously precludes using a term as politically charged as "blackface" — particularly in the introduction. Zuby03 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — Zuby03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Most of the accounts involved in this dispute have now been blocked for sockpuppetry, so at least for now, I'm going to assume consensus for removing the promotional material and including the word "blackface." Cadddr (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources