Rosey, I get what your saying but I still disagree with you. I don't think it's necassary to profile ALL of the previous Oscar winners, regardless of whether or not they cleared the path, because it's not relevant to the articles subject. It's just not. It wasn't an article about the history of the Oscars, or Black Oscar winners in general; the article was talking about the Oscars since 2002. You can spin it however you want but Whoopi and Cuba and all the other black Oscar winner actors that weren't mentioned are not relevant to the context of the article so I don't believe that it would have been necassary to mention them.
I also disagree that Hattie and and Washington are on the same playing field because her win was for best supporting female actress and his was for best male lead actor. The same with Halle and Portier. She won for best female lead and him for best male lead many years prior to that. None of them are even in the same category so you can't say that they are in thier own playing field. The only comparison would be Washington and Portier, which if memory serves was a comparison made in the article so that's a moot point anyway. IF Whoppi were to be mentioned at all, IMO, it would be in the context of mentioning Hattie as the first black actress to ever win an Oscar and how Whoppi followed her 50 years later in the same category. But, that is still out of context of the article because again, the article was talking about the Oscars since 2002 when two black actors won for leading roles and how it's changed or not changed that much as far as "diversity" since THEN. So, mentioning Whoopie is completely irrelevant since her Oscar was over 20 years ago. Mentioning Mo'nique however is completely appropriate because she's won an Oscar since then and has been one of the only Black actors to win one since that historical moment in 2002. THAT is one of the points that the article was trying to make.
I am sorry but no matter how many ways people try to spin it, Whoopi has NO ground for argument here.