Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:02, 4 June 2012 [1].

---

Lynching of Jesse Washington

Lynching of Jesse Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk)

The lynching of Jesse Washington was part of a sad chapter in American history, during which hatred and mob violence reigned supreme. This lynching is unusual in that it was captured in detail by a local photographer who was on hand as the events unfolded. I believe the article is up to the featured criteria; it has received a good article review from Grapple X and a peer review from Wehwalt and Crisco 1492. Note: contains graphic content, discretion advised. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I checked out the images during the article's GA review; all of them checked out fine then and no new files have been added in the meantime. I'm about to check the article again to review the subsequent prose changes but I figured I'd note this early to save it being done twice. GRAPPLE X 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  Support. Both my own GA review and the fixes below have addressed any concerns I've had. Happy to support this one now. GRAPPLE X 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - My comments were all addressed at the peer review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander - Provided final items in my comments below are addressed.

• Wording: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas ..." - The word "attrition" may confuse some readers. If you mean decrease, use a plainer word. Is there a better wording?
  • Ok, I switched to "suppressed". Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Non sequitur: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas, local historians often avoided discussing the practice." - it is not clear to me why the latter follows from the former.
  • Rephrased a bit, hope it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Clarify: "Waco developed a reputation for racism—seen in American history textbooks—to the vexation ..." - What was seen in the textbooks? that there was racism, or merely that Waco had a reputation (unfounded?). Clarify.
  • I tried to clarify, hope it works now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Need info on modern guesses about guilt. Footnote (a) says " In 2011, Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, ...". That seems like critical material that should be in the body of the article (in the Analysis section) not in a footnote.
  • Moved out of footnotes for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Paragraph on theories of murder: The article says "George Fryer also sued the college for libel; his vehemence caused some Robinson residents to suspect that he played a part in his wife's death ...". Do any modern 2ndary sources support that theory? If so, it may be good to include a paragr in the article listing the possible scenarios of what happened to the victim.
  • I haven't seen any contemporary sources that speculate that George was guilty, I included a quote from Bernstein on the issue.
• Specify years: "The practice of lynching gradually declined, ..." - needs more specificity on the year, because the prior sentence says "The number of lynchings in the U.S. increased in the three years ..."
  • I rephrased and brought it a bit closer to the text, hope it works now.
• Need external link: The Crisis is available online, and this article should contain a link, perhaps in References section, or in External Links section, pointing the reader to the issue that contained the Waco Horror article.
  • Found a good link to the issue at Modernist Journals Project, added it as further reading. That was a great suggestion, thanks.
• Mentally handicapped? - The article says "James M. SoRelle of Baylor University notes that may have been mentally handicapped ..." - is it true that only one historian came to that conclusion? If it is the consensus of multiple historians, that fact should be in the lead; if not, leave it alone.
  • This is tricky, the source for his possibly retardation is a schoolteacher who was interviewed by Freeman. The teacher said he was unable to learn to read, most writers have assumed that he was retarded on the basis of her comments. It's not known for sure though, so now I just have an account of Freeman's interview of the teacher and her comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wording: "... have contained dubious low crowd estimates..." - I know that dubious is modifying "estimates" but maybe "dubiously low" would be better? or re-word entirely to make it plainer.
  • Yeah, I went back and forth on that a couple times, reworded the sentence in the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Capitalization of book titles: In Ref section: some book titles cap all leading letters; some only the first letter. Should be consistent.
  • Good catch, they all should be in title case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Citation needed: " ... some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." - Im guessing that the cite from the following sentence applies; but may as well include it for this sentence as well. See WP:INTEGRITY.
  • Alright, I tweaked the sentence and added a ref.
• Crisis article name: "After receiving Freeman's report, he placed an image of Washington's body on the cover of an issue of The Crisis, the NAACP's newsletter, which discussed the event.[78] In 1916, The Crisis had a circulation of about 30,000, three times the size of the NAACP's membership.[79] Du Bois popularized "Waco Horror" as a name ..." - You should include the name of the article ... was it "Waco Horror"? if so, include it and re-word this sentence.
  • Added another sentence with title.
• Crisis article date/month - include the month of publication.
  • Added.
• Ambiguity: "Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I.[89] Bernstein describes this effort as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years"" - What was the battle? Fund raising? or against lynching?
  • Ok, tried to clarify. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• More background: "After it became associated with violence in the 19th century, community leaders sought to change its reputation,..." - What was that 19th c reputation? For lynchings? for wild-west shoot outs? Never mind: the prior paragraph covers that.
• Grammar? - "There was a small number of anti-lynching activists ..." - Was or were? I'm not sure.
  • Sadly, I couldn't figure it out either--I rephrased to avoid the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wording - "Apologists of lynching justified the practice as a way to assert dominance over African Americans ..." - "Apologists" seems wrong here: isn't that normally used in political/religious contexts? Maybe another word like proponents or defenders or supporters would be better.
  • Ok, changed to "Supporters". Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Non sequitur: "She spoke with Fleming and the judge who presided over the trial; both argued that they did not deserve blame for the lynching. Local African Americans gave her a better reception." - Not clear how "better" relates to prior sentence.
  • Ok, tweaked a bit to avoid the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Mind reading: "The individuals in the photographs made no attempts to hide their identities, indicating that they knew that no one would be prosecuted." - Perhaps reword to indicate that that is the interpretation or assessment of analysts/historians. The voice of WP shouldn't be making conclusive statements about persons intentions/thoughts.
  • Credited the analysis to a historian. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sic link? - ""That's what I done [sic]" - Sic is linked here. Is that (the link) consistent with WP manual of style?
  • I'm going to have to check on that one, I hadn't linked it originally but it was suggested that I use the {{sic}} template at the GA review. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Date needed: "On the morning of the trial, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity:" - that 1st sentence of the Trial section needs to include the date.
  • Ok, date added. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wording: "However, descendants of Fryer have spoken out against the idea." - Probably should reword because (1) avoid beginning sentences with But or However; (2) generally should use plain past tense. Perhaps "Some descendants of Fryer objected to the proposed memorial".
  • Ok, I do tend to overuse However, I took your suggested wording. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ambiguity: "White leaders of Waco took a non-violent approach to demonstrations ..." - Were the leaders organizing the demonstrations? or responding to them?
  • Tried to clarify. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ambiguity: " Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife after she was found dead." - Could be read that he raped her (and murdered her) after she was dead. Perhaps simplify to "Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife." and later make it clear there were no eye witnesses.
  • Good catch, rephrased a bit and added a sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Conjunction: "His lawyers prepared no defense, but noted that he appeared placid in the days before the trial." - Should change "but" to "and" since the latter does not contradict the former.
  • Ok, switched to "and". Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning towards support, once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for the thorough review, I'll mark the ones that I've done for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think I have taken care of the above comments now. The sic template is the only one I'm not sure how to proceed on. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, the only remaining issue is prose quality. I'll make one more pass through the article soon and see what I can find ... in the meantime, you may want to go through the article yourself, reading each sentence out loud, and see if you can find some incremental improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wording - "and many children used their lunch hour to attend." - better as "and many children attended during their lunch hour."
• "Chronological order" - Flip 2 sentences: "Fleming traveled to Robinson on May 13 to ask residents to remain calm; his address was well received. The Times-Herald of Waco published a notice on May 12 requesting that residents let the justice system determine Washington's fate."
• Attribute thought: "the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering" - The intentions of people generally should not be stated in WP voice: attribute that to a specific source/historian or reword as "Historians concluded that ..." or similar.
• Job title: " mayor and the chief of police, although lynching was illegal in Texas. Fleming told his deputies ..." - I've forgotten who Fleming is. I suppose he is the chief of police? Probably best to restate that connection at this point in the article.
• Ambiguity: " the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American criticized the lynch mob, but spoke highly of their city. " - What city? Houston or Waco?

End additional Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for the thorough review (and your comments on my talk page), I think I've squared away your remaining issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Washington_hanging_side_view.jpg and similar: can you be more specific about when and where this was first published?
• File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_front_and_back.jpg: publisher/author and date for source?
• File:Freeman200.jpg: need more information. When/where was this first published? Who took the photo? What is the source?
• File:AmericaAfrica.png is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've specified the details in the images your refer to in your first point, so they should be all set: [2][3][4][5]. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the publishers and authors of the latter three points, and removed them from the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark: It looks like you removed some pictures. I think they were very important to the article, especially Freeman's. Is it possible to spend some time looking for either (a) justification/sources for those images; or (b) alternative images? Just because an image is missing a sources does not automatically mean it must be removed from the article to meet FAC: sometimes an image may be okay even if the source cannot be found. Even copyright images can be occasionally used if a fair-use rationale is available (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). I encourage you to spend some time hunting down background info on the images and seeing if you can restore them to the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark: A couple more thoughts: If you cannot find a photo of Freeman, consider a pic of Du Bois instead. Also: the postcard is public domain, and another version of it which has a Public Domain tag is File:Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg ... use the latter at least. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark: here is an image of Freeman that is in the public domain: I dont think it is in WP yet, so you'd need to upload it and crop it): http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.12470/. PS: The reason I'm pushing for this is that the FA criteria require an ample amount of illustrations, and I think the article is a bit deficient at this point. Images are available. --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the link, I uploaded that and will try to get it cropped soon. What's tripping me up with the postcard is that I can't find evidence of when it was first published. Will check some more though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Freeman image is fine. If you could find a date for first publication for the postcard (or a date for the NAACP publication), that would be great. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the postcards with that image went on sale the day after the lynching (May 16, 1916) at latest [6]. The surviving copy has a note that refers to the lynching as happening "last night". I removed the other one because I couldn't figure out when the picture of the back of the postcard was published. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "quickly sentenced to receive capital punishment" -> quickly sentenced to death
• "In Robinson, Texas, Lucy Fryer, was murdered while alone at her house " - don't need comma after Fryer
• "one of them stated that had seen" -> that he had seen
• "On the morning of May 15, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity in anticipation of the trial: the crowd nearly prevented some jurors from entering." semi-colon instead of colon, I think
• "Jury selection proceeded quickly: the defense did not challenge any selections of the prosecution." semi-colon instead of colon
• link kangaroo court
• "the jury's foreman announced a guilty verdict and a sentence of capital punishment" -> sentence of death
• "biting one man, but soon beaten into submission by the mob" -> but he was soon beaten
• "Some people from nearby rural communities, possibly including George Fryer, traveled to the city before the trial to witness the events." - The mention of George Fryer here seems out of place because the paragraph is about people coming to watch the lynching but it would be reasonable for George Fryer to be there for the trial about his wife's murder, not especally for the lynching.
• "His photographs provide rare depictions of a lynching in process" - in progress?
• "The Morning News reported the story" -> clarify that this is a Dallas paper
• "Although many Waco residents did not condemn the lynching, some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." -> Some Waco residents condemned the lynching, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University. (already clear that many did not condemn it)
• "There were no negative repercussions for Dollins or Police Chief John McNamara: although they made no attempt to stop the mob, they remained well respected in Waco" -> Mayor Dollins; colon should be semi-colon
• "By the end of the investigation, Freeman had concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband." -> Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband.
• "The NAACP had struggled financially around that time. Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I. NAACP president Joel Elias Spingarn later stated that the group's campaign placed "lynching into the public mind as something like a national problem". Bernstein describes this anti-lynching campaign as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years". - The paragraph is about the lynching, it veers off topic here as this language is just about the NAACP. Move to another paragraph or delete.
• "In 2011, Berg concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, but doubted that he raped her. The same year, Julie Armstrong of the University of South Florida argued that Washington was likely innocent of both charges. Bernstein notes that Washington's motives have never been established. She also states that his confession could have been coerced, and that the murder weapon—perhaps the strongest evidence against him—could have been planted by authorities." - It's clear that we can't really know what happened. I think the facts automatically raise these kinds of doubts/possibilities in the reader's mind. I don't think this commentary is necessary. If you decide to keep it, I think there should some mention of what their conclusions are based on. (Again, seems pretty obvious to me but if the conclusions are worth mentioning then the bases for the conclusions should be worth mentioning too.)
• "as they saw as the presence of evil in the community" -> saw him as the presence?
• "The ideas received discussion, but proved unfruitful." -> The ideas were discussed
• Several times as you're going through the facts you insert commentary. Here are some of them:

  1. "In her 2006 study of lynching, journalist Patricia Bernstein describes the city as then having a "thin veneer" of peace and respectability."

  2. "Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University posits that the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering."

  3. "Berg believes that their willingness to be photographed indicates that they knew that no one would be prosecuted for Washington's death."

  4. "Bernstein states that it is "highly unlikely" that George Fryer played a role in Lucy's murder, but notes that there is the "shadow of a possibility" that he bore some guilt."

1,2,3 are pretty obvious, I don't think we need the commentary, and I found it distracting. #4 - "shadow of possibility" - pretty vague and I assume the writer means he bore some guilt because he mistreated Washington. That is mentioned elsewhere, so I don't think that is helpful either. If you decide to keep the information, I think it would work better in the "Analysis and legacy" section rather than interspersed with the facts because it would be less distracting and it would keep the commentator's introduction and what they said all in one section. By the time I was to that last section, I found myself thinking "who is Berg", "who is Hale".

While a WP article should not make editorial comments in the encyclopedia's voice, it is entirely appropriate for the article to reflect the opinions of notable commentators and analysts. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers this issue, and requires that the commentator/analyst be identified whenever the article contains speculation or interpretation that is not entirely objective. The way the article names the source (Hale, Berg) could perhaps be improved. --Noleander (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the "Murder and arrest" section, a lot of the information is qualified by the word "may". It ends up sounding like speculation and doesn't really tell the reader anything. If there's no basis for really making a statement - Onlookers estimated the crowd numbered 15,000; There were reports a child initially lit the fire - then I think it should not be included. The motivations of Fleming and Dollins especially sound like speculation. Is there some verifiable basis for these statements? If not, they should be removed.

Ditto. "May" speculation is okay as long as Reliable Sources are responsible (and identified). --Noleander (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

BlueBonnet 02:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've made the changes you've suggested, with the exception of linking Kangaroo court (see the MOS instructions on linking.) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If I can butt in ... BlueBonnet has asked for my feedback. I think your comments are outstanding ... I'm excited we've got a new reviewer with such good taste! On both the "commentary" points and the "may" point, you see these calls going both ways at FAC ... which may not be helpful, but ... you asked :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the useful & informative material from Bernstien & Berg sources. Those are outstanding sources: reliable, secondary, and scholarly. Historical articles are supposed to contain interpretive assessments, provided they are clearly identified as interpretations or speculations. Some of this material is in a section titled 'Analysis and legacy", and that section title indicates the analytical nature of the material; other instances of the material clearly identify the historian in the sentence (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). The only reason to remove such analytical material would be if the sources were biased or unreliable, which is not the case here. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the reinsertion, I was too hasty in removing those. I might put a couple remarks into footnotes for flow, but, yeah, that should be in there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note to delegates: BlueBonnet does not plan on offering a support or oppose for this nomination: [7]. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• request for info
  • "Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband". Any idea what kind of harsh treatment? Any verification? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The source I cited simply says "According to an NAACP report by white suffragist Elizabeth Freeman, the attack was an example of an enraged employee striking out in anger at an overbearing boss". There might be some more detail in another source, though, I'll see what I can turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, in the original NAACP publication it states that Lucy Fryer "scolded him for beating the mules" immediately before he attacked her, I assume that's what Apel was referring to in what I quoted above. I've tweaked the sentence a little. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support had my say at the peer review and my concerns were satisfactorily addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stepping up to peer review, I know it wasn't pleasant, but you helped a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Mark, has this article had a spotcheck of sources during its various reviews? If not I'll look at what I can do myself later today, unless someone else volunteers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, it has not been spotchecked, thanks for offering to do so, that would be great. Also, I can email you the three journal articles if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, found a bit in GoogleBooks -- just a couple of relatively minor inconsistencies:
    • Bernstein: FNs 12, 18, 98, 111 -- all okay.
    • DuRocher:
      • FNs 30, 41 -- both okay.
      • FN 35 -- You mention "the crowd numbered over 10,000 at its peak", source says 15,000.
      • FN 47 -- You mention "images of adolescents, some as young as fourteen", source says twelve to fourteen.
    • BTW, I notice that the page number(s) for FN 28 are missing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the spotcheck, I brought the 35 and 47 closer to the sources and fixed the template for 28. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That's fine. While waiting I also checked FNs 76 and 114 -- both accurate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.