Talk:Ida B. Wells

Wells or Wells-Barnett

I see "Wells" as well as "Wells-Barnett" as the way that this person is referred to as. I believe it should be one or the other throughout the article. Also, I know all the needed redirects already exist around her name variation, but shouldn't the article title itself also carry the same as whatever is decided upon as the last name convention to use throughout? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the title should carry through the rest of the work. Much biographical and scholarly work refer to her as "Wells." It's especially confusing because of the name of the white grocer Barrett it "The lynching at The Curve in Memphis" section. I am going to change it. Eliza HCF22 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The more frequently found name is Wells. The hyphenate form Wells-Barnett appears in fewer books, though it may be argued that these few are more scholarly. My take on the issue is that the simpler name is more common, answering WP:COMMONNAME quite nicely. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Eliza HCF22, what REALLY needs to happen here is that your professor makes themselves known to us and give you and your classmates guidance--and maybe gain some more experience in editing Wikipedia also. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The opening

Does anyone else think the opening to this article is written in a style that violates W:NPOV? A few examples:

"Wells exposed lynching as a barbaric practice". This is emotive language, a subjective value judgement. This is not to say that lynching is defensible, but the use of "barbaric" in this context is inappropriate editorializing.

"used by whites in the South to intimidate and oppress African Americans who created economic and political competition—and a subsequent threat of loss of power—for whites". No source is provided for this claim, which is again written in a very unencyclopedic and polemical style. It's also unfalsifiable - it's a claim about the psychological motivations behind the actions in question, something that can certainly be theorized about, but not stated as if it were objective fact.

I suggest that this article be rewritten to more appropriately reflect the tone expected of a Wikipedia article. - Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If you look beyond the lead, you will find that there are plenty of sources for this claim. NPOV does not mean avoiding judgements. Rather, it means following the judgements present in mainstream secondary sources. The lead, as far as I can see, accurately summarizes the body of the article, which in turn follows the mainstream secondary sources. Generalrelative (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. So because you can find a secondary source that describes lynching as "barbaric", this means that using the phrase in the body of the article (while not linking directly to said secondary source) doesn't constitute editorializing? - Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, if that were what the vast majority of sources said then yes, we would use the term. I did edit that out though (see my recent edits). I was more responding to your second point, where the analysis seems perfectly mainstream –– and indeed, quite bland –– to me. In any case, here it is more pertinent to attribute this as Wells' view, so I've added that as well. The basic takeaway here should be that Wikipedia follows the mainstream secondary sources, even when editors strongly disagree with what those sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Having read your revised version of the lead, it's perfect. To clarify my second point, I wasn't objecting to it being included in the article (as you said, it's not a particularly controversial take), just that it should have been more clear that it was Wells' view being paraphrased. Thanks! - Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no neutral world in which lynching is not brutal -- neutral does not mean, sugarcoat nor, 'don't say thing the way they are'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Look at the article's history again. I added the word "brutal" in response to Dickinson's remark, and they replied that they thought the revision was "perfect". We're all in agreement here. Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: The problem with this edit is one of WP:TONE and WP:YESPOV. The article reads as less persuasive rather than more when it uses inappropriate language like "demonstrate" when what we really mean is "argue". Ida B. Wells was a trailblazing intellectual and thought leader. We should treat her like one, which means there is no need to embellish her actual accomplishments with WP:PEACOCK language. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No. She demonstrated with facts that's why she wrote long form journalism on it. In no way is that peacock or a tone issue, it's what she demonstrated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

As calling it brutal is fair, as is summarizing her evidence that it was meant as terrorism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

By all means, summarize the evidence! But that is not what you did. Generalrelative (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, I did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Where in this edit did you summarize the evidence? Generalrelative (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The reference to her long form journalism is at the beginning of the paragraph, and she demonstrated with her long explications of the facts and circumstances that it was used for terrorism (hardly surprising for socialized public murder). Also, the context is in a society where African Americans had been enslaved and were trying now to make some progress, so keeping Blacks down with acts violence is what was happening. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Wells presented plenty of evidence! I was asking where you presented evidence in your recent edit, as you insisted just above. The article could benefit from more specifics for sure, but it's not helpful (nor permitted by policy) for editors to draw conclusions not cited to reliable secondary sources. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The text summarizes her writings, the prior version I changed poorly summarized her writings (with extra words and without needed context) and used language not quite honest, 'terror' describes it much more accurately. And leads are not the place for details, they are the place for summary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd certainly be open to changing "intimidate" to "terrorize" there. Generalrelative (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Then what do you object to, she described 'and' analyzed, not as it was, 'but also'; she wrote to "demonstrate" her points, so that's just the way it was; and she wrote about the recent history of whites and blacks including "slavery" and why rising black's in the eyes of whites threatened the social order -- all just the way it was, and their means of keeping it the way it was, was through the terror of violence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's my version:

Wells exposed the brutality of lynching, but also analyzed its sociology, arguing that it was used by Whites in the South to intimidate African Americans because they represented economic and political competition—and thus a threat of loss of power—for Whites.

And here's yours:

Wells exposed the brutality of lynching, and analyzed its sociology, demonstrating that Whites used lynching in the South to terrorize because African Americans up from slavery represented economic and political competition—and thus a threat of loss of power—for Whites.

1) My main objection is that, per WP:YESPOV, we need to avoid stating opinions as facts. Asserting that she "demonstrated" something for which a high burden of proof exists would require multiple solid secondary sources. If such sources can be presented, then I would be all for it, but I do not see them. Absent such sourcing, we should use the more neutral "argue". See also the guideline WP:SAY.
2) I will also note that the phrase up from slavery does not appear to be grammatical.
In any case, since we agree that "terrorize" is a more fitting term than "intimidate" here, I would suggest this compromise language:

Wells exposed the brutality of lynching, but also analyzed its sociology, arguing that it was used by Whites in the South to terrorize African Americans because they represented economic and political competition—and thus a threat of loss of power—for Whites.

Generalrelative (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong about 'demonstrating', that is what she did. I will nonetheless go with 'argue', even though it is poor writing.

I will not go along with 'but also' as it needs to be 'and'

'Whites used lynching' they were not passive about it.

Slavery gives context but and yes she was up from slavery, in no way is that hidden, but we can drop it off for now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool. It's fine if we have differing ideas about what words mean and what good writing looks like. But to be clear: no one has argued that Whites were "passive" about lynching. I'll add the compromise language (with active voice and "and" rather than "but also") and remove the post from NPOVN if this is resolved. Generalrelative (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Since this conversation appears to have come to loggerheads, I've invited others to weigh in at NPOVN. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Split The Red Record (pamphlet)

The section in the article discussing this is quote long. I suggest shortening it while copying the existing content into a new dedicated article. It's pretty clear that the pamphlet has stand-alone notability. A good source for further expansion: [1]/[2], or [3]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I disagree. I don't see the need to break it off into a separate article. Its notability is tied to Wells and the section's length is fine as it stands. So it should not be split.

Eric Schucht (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)