Talk:negro spiritual

negro spiritual
It's negro: + spiritual:: delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to [[spiritual]] or Spiritual (music). DCDuring TALK 16:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, at least not with our current definitions. My imagination would not make (offensive term for black) + (African-American folk song or a song in that style) to (genre of African American song, usually with a Christian text, and sung a cappella with no harmony). --Hekaheka 01:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hekaheke. Not easily understood from its component parts.--Dmol 10:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If any multi-word term is given a definition that is either wrong or "complete" (read "encyclopedic" or over-specified) enough, that meaning could be deemed opaque. The question is whether that is the meaning of the word in use by non-specialists for relatively context-free usage or whether specialized users use the word in the same way. I'll by happy to submit this to a separate RfV.
 * Also, the subtleties of non/offensiveness are not well reflected in [[negro]]. Not every multi-word entry built from terms inadequately defined at Wiktionary should be an entry. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am reasonably sure that we can find evidence that the term is applied to spirituals sung "with accompaniment" and "in harmony", so those elements of the definition are wrong. Further I suspect that spiritual: is the right home for the "Christian text" portion of the definition. As we proceed down this path, I suspect we would be led to a NISoP definition. But maybe this just shows that we are more like a collection of glossaries than a general-purpose print dictionary in terms of inclusion/exclusion. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (and improve negro and spiritual) per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken a run at spiritual. I dread tackling the context tags and usage notes for and other terms in that reference/epithet complex. Perhaps Google NGram can bring some objectivity to it. DCDuring TALK  00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. (It's in the OED.) < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of the sum of partsness of this term. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I was going to vote keep as it is such a well-known phrase. But I looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary of Music (online) and it just says "See spiritual". So, I suppose we ought to delete it, or maybe keep it as a redirect. SemperBlotto 08:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But that seems to simply imply it's a synonym and the definition isn't worth repeating. The same way we use . --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, spiritual: simply means negro spiritual:. There was no other kind of spiritual to which the adjective negro: was appended. Both terms appear simultaneously. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hunh??? DCDuring TALK 15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that in some cases "negro" is intended as a pejorative epithet. One can also find.
 * Other groupings of spirituals are, , and even . Each emphasizes a different aspect of the history of the music or reflects a different stance toward it.
 * There are other flavors of spirituals as well, such as can be found at and.
 * Another term used is gospel spirituals. Other terms also emphasize the Christian aspect: and . DCDuring TALK  15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did these other spirituals also develop into gospel music, or was it specifically the negro spiritual? In other words, is the negro spiritual a distinct genre? Wikipedia would seem to say no, that the term spiritual has been applied elsewhere but that it has not been recognized except in the African American context. DAVilla 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is idiomatic, it is a genre of music.Gtroy 18:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

kept, no consensus for deletion -- Liliana • 18:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)