Talk:Lynching of Wilbur Little

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Did You Know" discussions (transcluded to this page)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by BTV55 (talk) and RoySmith (talk). Nominated by RoySmith (talk) at 17:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - hook is referenced to source which says "There are many stories of African-American servicemen being beaten and lynched simply for wearing their service uniforms, including Wilbur Little in Blakely, Georgia." so we need another reference to be added for the "after being discharged from the army" bit
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Mujinga (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mujinga: Added a second source which is more explicit about being discharged. The source uses the word "demobilized", but that's basically a synonym for discharged. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yup that's great, thanks RoySmith for fast response. this is now good to go and congrats to BTV55 on their first DYK. Mujinga (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, Revert, Discuss[edit]

A bold edit made by Gulbenk created these changes

I have just reverted them with the edit comment "YU may write that there is a controversial view, and cite that. But changing the article so thoroughly is something I feel to be an error"

I believe that it is perfectly valid to highlight a disagreement over the facts in the article, but not by changing the article in that manner. Such things shoudl be discussed. Fiddle Faddle 22:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent There are a number of contemporary reliable sources which say this event never happened. The local newspaper, at the very center of this "event", the Early County Times (which is still in business) wrote at the time that the allegation was a complete fabrication, and insisted that Wilbur Little was still alive, and working for a local jurist. That paper recently reprinted that story with no retraction. That is the information you just deleted. On the other hand, sources for this article are highly suspect. The Chicago Defender here:[1] which ran with this story in the black press, gets it all wrong and makes up details where desired. Little's first name is changed, be was murdered by two named white men, the local newspaper (that same Early County News which exposed the fraudulent story) confirmed and printed the gruesome facts. All made up. Finally, even this article can't get the story straight. The title indicates that he was lynched, while the text indicates that he was beaten to death. What a mess. No grave. No confirming local news story. No police report. Nothing but an original fabricated news story, and a number of modern citations hoping to jump on this sensational allegation. Modern sites like African American Experience in Athens (affiliated with the University of Georgia) reprint the fabricated article as fact. This is an interesting subject, from the standpoint of the propagation of fake news, and should probably be expanded as a cautionary tale. Gulbenk (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk, I think that you made the wrong edit for the right reasons, and I think you can make the point you have just made here in a far better manner than you did in the article. The minute one adds a heading "Fake News" with the current connotations of "News I disagree with" from the current POTUS then it makes antennae twitch. And thus mine twitched.
I know your work to be of a far higher normal standard that the edits I reverted. I have no issue of any description with the facts you have presented and the references you have presented. My disagreement was with the manner you presented them in the article.
As for the DYK, I had no idea it was even being considered until I saw the transclusion above here on this talk page. What happens to that will happen to it.
The article is only in my watch list because I was the reviewer who accepted it at AFC. I have no interest in it, just a curiosity over the contents Fiddle Faddle 23:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, lynched, to me, describes some sort of mob murder, but does not suggest a particular mechanism of death. But that is semantics, really. Maybe the article should be migrated to "Murder of..." but that is for others to judge. Fiddle Faddle 23:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, I could almost accept that reasoning. "Fake News" is a trigger. But you didn't stop there. You reverted supported text with a reliable source. What was the reasoning there? Gulbenk (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, I guess we could go into much minutiae. You are upset; I have upset you, I apologise for upsetting you. We each made judgement call. The article will be better for both of those calls. Right how it's almost 0045am here and I am going to bed. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timrent, you do a good job with very little thanks, and the occasional rant, like mine. I don't dispute that the article as originally written should have gotten a pass from AFC. No blame there. You simply can't research every detail. That is up to the rest of us. So if I implied otherwise I certainly apologize. My beef was with the revert, which was partially my fault because I changed a header to something unquestionably inflammatory. That is a red flag we've all been conditioned to react to. I mistakenly believed that the deletion of my text and source was an attempt to preserve a narrative which I currently believe is patently false (or at very least MUCH in dispute). I can see how the edit might have been collateral damage of the revert of the header change. So you are right,I was upset. And that should not have been so forcefully directed at you. The fault really lies elsewhere. I'm terribly disappointed with our encyclopedia. The one we both give so much of our time to. I guess I'm just naive in believing that peer review will catch things so outrageous as this. This article has made it into DYK, for Pete's sake. Good Monday to you. Gulbenk (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, I think the article will be far better for this extra spotlight you have shone upon it. We all edit here for fun. Please never let the fun go out of your time here. I've left a note on your talk page. Anything between us is better there than here. Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith and Mujinga The event at the center of this article has been reported as completely false. Here: [2]
Gulbenk a piece of well-meant advice for you going forward. Ditch the use of "fake news" if you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia. That buzz word phrase has been used as a political catch-phrase by one political faction and their supporters for the last 4 years, to the point where it has no more meaning than, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" It's not encyclopedic. And political articles on Wikipedia have been littered with attempted reverts using that phrase. So do yourself a favor, and find another way to express your point. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, it is a point well taken, since that is a trigger phrase. You can see in my note to Timrent, above, that I acknowledge that. Just got far too carried away when I saw this article, and how far this falsehood has been promoted. Not just with us, at DYK, but all those unblinking modern sources that repeat the lie. I think that what we do here is very important, and I hate to see the franchise diminished in this manner. I didn't help, with the inflammatory header, but at least I was right on the over-arching point of falsehood. Gulbenk (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From WT:DYK Lynching of Wilbur Little[edit]

Moved from WT:DYK
 – diff

This article was recently nominated, and approved. I don't think that it is in Prep. I believe that there may be significant errors in the article, and ask that you hold up on sending this to the main page until that can be sorted out. Error: There are numerous modern citations supporting the points laid out in the article. But I believe that they are based, in turn, on false reports contemporary to the "event". I think we have an echo chamber, repeating the same false allegations. A local newspaper (which is still in business today) at the very center of the "event" was used as a "source" for the contemporary reporting by a Chicago publication. Trouble is, the local newspaper said the event (and their supposed article detailing the event) never happened, and very forcefully labeled the Chicago reporting as false. More discussion on that at the article Talk page. So, if DYK can hold up on promoting this article until the facts can be sorted out, it would be appreciated. At worst, the nomination loses a little time in the queue, and I lose credibility. At best, we save Wikipedia from promoting and highlighting a patent falsehood. If the latter is proven, this article may still appear on DYK in another form, one which speaks to the method by which false information is repeated and embedded in the collective knowledge. Gulbenk (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and Mujinga: Pinging nominator and reviewer. It has not yet been promoted, — Maile (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maile66. I also sent them this: [3] Gulbenk (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, @BTV55: I have seen enough contemporary WP:RS to convince me that this is real. It is certainly true that there were contemporaneous media reports which labeled it a hoax, but we have a large number of good, believable, ostensibly reliable, modern sources which state this as fact. The modern sources include books published by major academic presses, highly respected national newspapers, and peer-reviewed journals. It would take WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence to make me believe the sources which claim it's a hoax. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On March 25, 2015, the newspaper of record for Early County, located at the very heart of the "event" that supposedly took place, published a lengthy explanation of why the Wilbur Little "murder" is a complete falsehood. That article: [4] . You can choose not to believe it. You can believe that the people at that small town Georgia newspaper are liars. And that everyone in that town and everyone in that county are conspirators in a cover-up. But you also have to overlook that the "first source" (The Chicago Defender) got so many things wrong (including basing their report on the Early County News, which didn't reported Wilbur Little's death). And then there is that opinion piece at the New York Times, repeating (in part) this falsehood. So I think this is a case where the Early County News takes the Grey Lady to the woodshed. Sometimes David gets lucky, and Goliath takes a hit.Gulbenk (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who reviewed the DYK nom, I don't have much to add here. The sources used in the article appear reliable to me, if more reliable sources can be found to say it was a hoax then we can re-evaluate I suppose. Will follow with interest! Mujinga (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga, With the aspects that Gulbenk has raised I suspect that there may be an even more interesting DYK forthcoming based upon the conflicting press reports. Obviously this depends upon carefully cited edits to the article. Care has to be taken not to create an accidental synthesis from the sources, though
I'm the AFC reviewer who accepted it in its initial state, which was my sole interest in the article and why it remained on my watchlist Fiddle Faddle 10:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, We describe Newspaper of record as, "a major newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative". Surely, that doesn't describe the Early County News, which is a weekly paper, circulation about 11,000, self-described as "Your Hometown Newspaper". That's about as far from a newspaper of record you can get. I've added one sentence to Lynching of Wilbur Little, noting the existence of the ECN article. I think that's about as far as we can go. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper of record can also be a legal term, at least in my state, which designates the largest or most widely circulated publication within a given jurisdiction, for the purpose of legal notices. Akin to "legal organ". The Early County News is the largest fish in a very small pond. Gulbenk (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, I've done some more research and found a PhD thesis which discusses the event. I've added that source to the article. At this point, it's clear that two things are true: 1) The lynching happened, and 2) There were attempts by the southern press at the time to deny it. It's time to move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, This is not a legal notice. Yes, I'm aware of that meaning of newspaper of record. That sense covers things like, "Joe Random has applied for a zoning variance to build a garage on his property". That's not what we're talking about here. If you are seriously claiming that the lynching never occurred, based on those reports from local small-town papers of the day vs the preponderance of evidence from much higher quality sources, then you're well into WP:FRINGE territory. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I disagree with you completely. Every source you cite points back to the original article in the Chicago Defender, a deeply flawed story that confuses two separate events, and then fabricates the rest. All of your other sources postdate the Defender, and none of them undertake a separate investigation of the facts. They simply repeat what the Defender said. On the other hand, we have a number of publications (contemporary to theDefender article), which immediately print articles stating that the event never happened. Chief among those is the newspaper from the very town and county where this "event" was suppose to take place. At the time of the Chicago Defender article it labels the story a complete fabrication. In 2015, that same newspaper revisits the story, and points out, in a detailed explanation, that the Chicago story is a libelous fabrication.
In 1919, a Chicago newspaper serving the black community there printed a sensational story about a black returning serviceman in Georgia who was murdered for simply wearing his uniform. The story was a fabrication, but too sensational to ignore. So, over the years, that fabricated story has been repeated numerous times by those wishing to perpetuate the narrative. Each citing the original fabricated story, or each other. A perfect echo chamber. A number of those who have repeated the fabrication have enough credibility to qualify as citations at Wikipedia. That is our achilles heel. Our structure allows fabrications like this to exist, and to be promoted, so long as otherwise credible sources perpetrate the falsehood. We should have some sort of safety valve to prevent that. The fact that this article is still up on Wikipedia, and has made it all the way to DYK, is shameful. Gulbenk (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved this talk thread from DYK to here, where it really belongs. I don't know if the lynching happened or didn't, but I see the denials started in a different century. I also know that lynchings were covered up, or never went to trial, prior to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. Maybe the old ones are still covered up. I don't know. But I do know that the two of you disagreeing over this, have made this a notable subject for a Wikipedia article. Whatever happens at DYK, or whatever is argued here, I have no doubt that this is a notable subject that needs to be included in Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 thank you for assisting with the move, and for your neutrality. I will state, however, that a few of your facts are wrong. The denials started within weeks of the first published reports in 1919. The strenuous denial, along with supporting facts by the local newspaper (Early County News) prompted the NAACP to send an investigator to the site. That investigator reported back to the NAACP, in 1919, that the lynching didn't appear to have happened, and recommended that they drop references to the purported event. Certainly there were cover-ups, back in the day, but I've never heard of one where the "dead" man is still alive and working for a judge, and the NAACP opens an investigation and finds nothing wrong. Gulbenk (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk You misunderstood my statement, " ... the denials started in a different century". The lynching and the denials were in a "different century" than we are living now. Meaning, the denials didn't just start in the 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know, sometimes I'm a bit thick. Thanks. Gulbenk (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What should the article be called?[edit]

I know I catalysed this by accepting a very simple stub and by reverting an edit, setting up the BRD discussion, but I never expected this astoundingly positive result out of that pair of tiny actions. There have been disagreements, naturally, but this is the true spirit of the Wisdom of Crowds, and I want to express my thanks to each who has edited, commented, criticised, and shaken this into the shape it is in now.

Moving forward, what should the correct name of the article become? Was it a lynching, a murder, or a hoax? Can we determine that from sources or would that be Synthesis? If it has to be left without anyone knowing, "Controversy surrounding the reported lynching of Wilbur Little" seems unwieldy. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, It would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE theories to conclude that this is a hoax. The preponderance of WP:RS accept it as fact. Against that, we basically have one local newspaper. Earlier in one of the related threads, Gulbenk suggested that to believe this is a hoax would be to "believe that the people at that small town Georgia newspaper are liars". To be blunt, yes, I believe that a bunch of white men in 1919 rural Georgia would lie about the lynching of a black man.
As for "lynching" vs "murder", a lynching is a type of murder. Reading several definitions, the common factors are mob violence, racially motivated, and extra-judicial action.[1][2][3] The term applies here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, If we are fair, the majority of people of whatever ethnicity would lie abut killing another person, whatever their ethnicity
If we discount 'hoax' does 'controversy' remain? My interest is in a correct eventual title. I have no thoughts on what it ought to be. We may have it already, or we may not. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, I know I'm repeating myself, but putting "controversy" in the title would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE theory. The article has already gotten to the point where more than half the text is FRINGE. That doesn't make it right. It just means that somebody is dedicated to pushing their WP:POV. What WP:RS do we have showing that this didn't happen? I refute the idea that the Early County Times is a WP:RS, so other than that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith this shows the benefit of asking the question, and seeing the answer on the talk page. It shows that it has been discussed with conclusions being considered. It was worth your repeating yourself, because your clarification, previously implicit, is now explicit. Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith / Timtrent User RoySmith does his best to downplay the strength of evidence in support of a hoax, while taking a swap at the honesty of white people as a side comment. The truth of this matter is that we have the home town paper stating emphatically, at the time of the "event" that it is a hoax, and demanding a retraction from papers which printed/reprinted the original story. Then the paper asserts that Wilbur Little is still alive, and working for a local attorney. All pretty unusual stuff for a cover-up. But it doesn't stop there. We have a third party investigation. The NAACP sends an investigator down to Blakely, who finds no evidence of wrongdoing. The NAACP investigator recommends that the organization drop allegations of a lynching. Then we have a 2015 article from the same Early County News, explaining the genesis of the story, and surmising that the Chicago Defender took the basic elements of another case and fabricated them into this unusual story of hateful revenge upon a poor returning soldier, for people like RoySmith who want to believe. A Florida State University professor of history, admits in his cited dissertation that papers like the Defender "imagined" aspects of their stories when details were lacking. Oh, and we have a 1920 census report showing "Wilbur Smith" of the Blakely area still very much alive.
So I suggest this middle ground: rename the article Reported Lynching of Wilbur Smith (which is true on the face of it). Then allow me to further develop the disclosures which point to this whole thing being a complete fabrication. That would require small changes to the first several paragraphs, changing them from a statement of fact to the quoted statements of the respective publications Defender and Crisis. I would be happy to also preserve the several creditable sources cited by RoySmith, while point out their mutual dependence on the stories written by the Defender and Crisis. This would end up being a cautionary tale about fear mongering and how misinformation can find its way into the collective knowledge. That is almost certainly NOT what user RoySmith wants, but it is precisely where the unraveling facts lead us. Gulbenk (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, Now that sets out each of your stalls. How do we distill the eventual outcome from those interesting positions? Fiddle Faddle 16:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there's no certainty this happened. This was 1919 in a rural area. There wasn't the ubiquitous recording of every detail of daily life that happens today. And it's certainly true that all the modern sources are based on their reading of the original reports. That's what makes them WP:SECONDARY sources, but it also means that the "echo chamber" idea is not entirely without merit. Is it likely that the Early County Times was biased in favor of the town's white residents? Of course. Is it likely that the NAACP was biased in favor of showing that a black man was lynched? Equally likely. But, it is the job of secondary sources to examine the WP:PRIMARY evidence and evaluate which of those to believe.

Can a secondary source make a mistake or be biased? Of course they can. But, that's why we evaluate secondary sources to determine which ones we think are reliable. In general, we consider major newspapers to be reliable. Likewise, books published by large academic presses. And peer-review journals. And PhD theses. All of these have editorial processes in place to fact-check. And, universally, the reliable secondary sources that have been located have stated that this happened.

Could some of them have gotten it wrong? Sure, but that's not likely, and even less likely that they would have all gotten it wrong. So, it's reasonable to provide some amount of coverage of the hoax theory, but only in proportion to how much credence we put in it. Which is very little.

So, can we at least begin with a change of article name to Reported Lynching of Wilbur Smith, and hammer out the other details after that? Gulbenk (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, RoySmith, I choose not to vote. I see my part in this as trying to create an environment in which editors can agree.
I think this is not the time for WP:BOLD, and that a consensus needs to build over time. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent. The name I have suggested is factual and neutral. A Lynching was indeed reported. It is not all that WP:BOLD to choose a neutral title. I would suggest that it is a great deal more "bold" to maintain a name which states (as fact) an event which is very much in question. Gulbenk (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, I'll save time and just state that I'm oppopsed to the proposed title change. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on reading the discussion so far, I'm opposed too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "LYNCHING | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary". dictionary.cambridge.org. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
  2. ^ "Definition of LYNCH". merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
  3. ^ "lynching | Definition, History, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 28 July 2020.

Cherrypicking from sources[edit]

@Gulbenk: you added material which talks about the NAACP's reinvestigation. Unfortunately, you carefully picked from the source the material which supported the point you wanted to make. You included the part where NAACP investigator, Monroe Work, "advocated dismissing the allegations." What you skipped was the immediately following material where Work provided no justification for his conclusion, and that eventually the NAACP published the original report and included Little's lynching in their annual summary. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So did it happen, or not?[edit]

This is in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1, which means it'll be on the main page Aug 9, and I still can't tell from reading the article whether this happened or not. —valereee (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, As I see it, the preponderance of WP:RS accept that it happened. There are some sources, which I consider to be both biased and unreliable, which claim it did not. Unfortunately, the majority of the article is now devoted to what I consider a WP:FRINGE theory.
I've been trying not to get dragged into an edit war on this. But, yeah, it's a problem. It's my hope that additional uninvolved editors will work on this. I think we should mention the hoax claims, but not devote half the article to them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I'm in agreement. The hoax claims need a decent portion, but the other material is of greater significance, and needs proportional space. The problem is that other editors have shied away at the moment. Fiddle Faddle 17:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should we pull it from the prep for now to give more time? —valereee (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am noting for the record that I reviewed the discussion above before promoting, and promoted anyways. I've been asked to voluntarily pull the hook and will not do so. If anyone wishes to appeal, the proper venue to do so would be to bring the matter to Wikipedia talk:Did you know. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the timeline should be considered. Our article states that Little returned to Blakely County on April 10th. That was 5 days after the Emancipator reported that Cliff Hughes had been robbed and murdered, and also five days after the Chicago Defender reported Little being murdered by a racist mob. Further, our article states that it was several days after April 10 (when he returned home) before Little was actually murdered. If all this is true, it presents an unresolvable dilemma. We know the publication date of the Defender article (the same date that the Emancipator was reporting Cliff Hughes' murder), does that make Little's date of return wrong? Perhaps. But even if that is true (and I don't see a source for it), we have to ponder the completely opposed aspects of a town which would resort to mob rule to ruthlessly murder a black war veteran out of simple racism and meanness (and cover up the whole thing), then turn around less than a month later and work within the legal system to sentence a white man to life in prison for killing another black veteran (while documenting the whole thing) out of simple color-blind justice. Gulbenk (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith would you be so kind as to point us to a source where we can read page one of The Chicago Defender (which you cite), or send an image of that publication (no longer copyright protected). It seems like this whole article hangs its hat on that specific source (others only repeat what the Defender stated). So we need to SEE the original allegation. Gulbenk (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, That citation was added by BTV55. I have looked, but have been unable to locate a copy on line. It does, however, appear to have been reprinted in its entirely by the Early County News. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found another reprint here. It's still not the original, but given two different reprints of exactly the same text, it's reasonable to accept it as an accurate copy. The date discrepancy is an open question. Clearly, both dates cannot be correct. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here is yet another clipping of the Chicago Defender article, except that the wording is not quite the same and it's dated April 10. I'm still looking for the original Defender article, but so far, no luck. For all I know, there were two different versions published on different days, but that's just speculation.
So, we're right back where we were. The primary sources are a mess, and present conflicting stories. So, we need to rely on the secondary sources, weighting them by how reliable each one probably is, for our best estimation of what really happened. And, we need to include coverage of the conflicting stories told by the primary sources, with appropriate weighting to how credible they are. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found it! To make a long story short, the version of Proquest that's supplied via the Wikipedia Library doesn't have access to the Chicago Defender database, but my NYPL account got me the document. The image of the original Defender article is essentially identical to the Berkshire Eagle reprint, with the exception that the dateline is April 4th, the headline is: '"Stay-at-Homes" Object to Presence of Khaki -- Mob Acts', and the byline is "(By Century News Service)". I'll update the citation in the article to point to the Proquest archive. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read the image wrong. The "stay at homes" bit is a sub-head. The full headline above that is difficult to read, but looks like, "Army Uniform Cost [illegible] Soldier his Life". And while the printed dateline is April 4, the date on the paper is April 5th. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for digging that up. Except the secondary sources all go back to the article in the Defender. The Crisis citation is just a stub, and says nothing more than it happened. Later, it appears that the story mutated into a burning/hanging with additional details thrown in. But absolutely no indication of where they got that information. The one reliable source with research is the FSU professor who dug up the NAACP microfilm archive. He defaults to "it happened" but gives no reasoning for that position, except that it is what the NAACP decided (after their investigator - who has some impressive credentials - said it didn't appear to have happened). So, aside from the FSU guy, you have everyone else repeating the original story (to some degree or another) which is admittedly messed up. Do you think you might at least consider that the Defender saw the articles in the Early County News (murder mystery) and the Emancipator (death of a black soldier, found in Early County), and just cobbled the rest together? Where they got Wilbert Little's name is the last part of this puzzle. Did someone in Chicago know Little? Or did Little have a part in this story? I'm still working on that. The 1920 census records are the last nail in the coffin, but the remark about original research is correct, so I'll have to find other evidence of Little being alive after April 4th. Gulbenk (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The headline matches. So that confirms the Defender story contents and date. I looked up Century News Service. It was a wire service that connected the black newspapers of the day to each other, and to breaking news of interest to that community. So it seems possible that the Emancipator story was placed on the wire, and picked up in Chicago.... since they don't claim any credit for originating the story (with a byline). That is an interesting detail. Gulbenk (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another lead is this: The Atlanta Constitution - Saturday, April 5, 1919 Page 9. Do you have access to that? It could be an echo of the Defender article, or it may be something about Cliff Hughes. Or something else related to this story. Worth finding out. Same date. Gulbenk (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk NYPL claims it's available in "ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Atlanta Constitution (1868-1945)", but when I click through the link, I get, "The requested publication was not found". -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, thanks for trying. I'm in Atlanta. So I'm pretty sure I can find it either at the state archives, or in a library microfilm file. Only, it's just a bit difficult at the moment... Gulbenk (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still new to this interface, so please excuse any protocol/etiquette errors. I have three screen-clipped images of the Chicago Defender article of April 5, 1919 re Wilbur Little. I accessed the article through Proquest via the New York Public Library. I cannot figure out how to present these to the editors, as the images upload on this page requires ownership of copyright and the alternative links take me off the page. Help? BTV55 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC) BTV55[reply]

Hello BTV55! Thank you for trying. An image would be nice, but not required at this point, now that RoySmith has linked us to the several sources which confirm the text and date of the April 5 Defender article. I'm in the process of running down an Atlanta Constitution article, from that same date, which may shed more light on the subject. Like your situation, that has presented some technical issues, but not insurmountable. Gulbenk (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk, I finally got the right access to Proquest. The article in question is titled, "Alleged Murderer is Ware Co. Escape". Proquest forbids "further reproduction", so I'll just summarize the content.
It's one paragraph, dateline "Waycross, Ga, April 4 - (Special.)" (but appears in the April 5th issue). The gist is that one of the men arrested in Blakely for the killing of a negro driver in Dothan, gave a false name. Rather than Avant Williamson, from Tarpon Springs, Florida, he is actually Nolan Williamson, who escaped from the Ware county jail a month earlier. The rest is just details of his escape. Nothing that connects this to Wilbur Little in any way.
The article refers to Wesley Robinson as his "companion". Unclear if that means the other person involved in the Dothan murder, or a co-escapee. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS:
But that's probably only useful if you have Proquest access. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, this appears to be some of the same information printed in the Emancipator, the same day, and the Early County News a day or so later. Does the article mention Cliff Hughes by name, or the fact that he was a returned soldier, in uniform? And is there a news service acknowledgment at the top of the article (or just "Special")? I have a request in for a copy through my county library, but they are understaffed and slow to fill requests at the moment. I believe this is the genesis of the Wilbur Little article in the Chicago Defender since the news about the dead black soldier (Cliff Hughes) was on the wire service the same day that the Defender printed the Wilbur Little story. Still at a loss to figure out where the Defender got Wilbur Little's name. If the wire report picked up by the Atlanta Constitution didn't list a name, maybe the Defender had a file of (recently discharged?) black soldiers with home towns. If Little was the only one from Blakely/Early County, it would be easy to assumed that the body was his. Gulbenk (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, I reproduced the dateline in full; there is no mention of a news service. There is no mention of Cliff Hughes. There is no mention of anybody being a soldier, or in uniform. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk see https://www.fold3.com/document/92861614/. Maybe you could sign up for the free trial subscription? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the snippet is old enough to have expired into the public domain, ProQuest has no legal grounds to restrict reproduction. The article is as follows:

Waycross, Ga. April 4.―(Special). The fact has developed that one of the two young white men arrested at Blakely a few days ago charged with killing a negro whom they had hired at Dothan to drive them over the country in a Ford car, is not Avant Williamson, of Tarpon Springs, Fla., as he represented himself to be, but is one of the three men who cut their way to freedom from the Ware county jail about a month ago and his real name is Nolan Williamson. He was placed in jail here for safe keeping, having been charged with murder in Pierce county. He with two others, one a moonshiner and the other charged with murder, cut the bars of the jail cell and escaped. It is supposed that he returned to his home near Blackshear and from there, with his companion, Wesley Robinson, made their way across the state, with the result that he will have to answer to another charge of murder.
— Atlanta Constitution, 1919-04-05, page 9, "ALLEGED MURDERER IS WARE CO. ESCAPE"

Vahurzpu (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Vahurzpu and RoySmith for that information. So far, this is the only mention of the Cliff Hughes murder, outside of Dothan and Blakley. This must have also been news in Waycross, but I haven't seen an article from that city yet. Still searching. Gulbenk (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[5] may be of use, though it suggests that getting the necessary information will probably require bugging university librarians. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 10th[edit]

Per the above discussion, I did some more research. The April 10th date comes from Richardson, Allissa (January 2016). "The Platform: How Pullman porters used railways to engage in networked journalism", but as noted above, that date is almost certainly incorrect, so I've removed it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Century News Service?[edit]

@Gulbenk: what were you able to find about the Century News Service? I see a number of mentions of them (for example, here), but nothing about them. It sounds like an interesting topic to write an article about, if we could find enough information. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, yes, that is one of the references I found, when looking into the Century News Service. It is one of several, all of which mention CNS in context with one of several black newspapers. I haven't come across one of the "white" newspapers with a byline referencing CNS. That is one of the things I wanted to pursue, when I find that April 5th article in the Atlanta Constitution. I'm guessing that article is about Cliff Hughes. If so, I'm curious if they give credit to the Emancipator or CNS (like Defender did). I doubt it is either. Century News Service would make a good Wikipedia article, but a tough one to research. Other entities with that exact name, or something similar like 21st Century News Service. So lots of clutter to wade through on that. Gulbenk (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing issues[edit]

@Gulbenk: The "A different victim, a different crime" section is a mess as far as referencing goes. Could you please go through it sentence by sentence and ensure that every stated fact is supported by the cited reference? Some specifics I noted:

  • The first two sentences refer to an article in the EC Times, but there's no citation to that article.
  • It's stated that Cliff Hughes was a "black uniformed serviceman", but I can't find anything that says he was wearing a uniform when he was murdered.
  • The March 25th item, "The meanest little town..." in the EC News is totally useless as a WP:RS. It is something written 96 years after the events and itself cites no sources for its conclusions. It's basically an editorial.
  • It's stated that Hughes was sentenced by a white judge. I can't find anything that supports that.
  • But, more than that, I have not seen anything reliable that ties the Hughes murder to Wilbur Little. There's only the statement in "Genesis and Nemesis of a Lynching Story": The only ground for starting such a slander of our city that I can think of is that a negro soldier from Alabama from found dead in Early country... which is pure speculation from an undoubtedly biased source. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:

  • Your edit of 13:55, July 28 2020 removed those references, so perhaps you will put them back.
  • "The escape route of Williamson and Robinson took them to Alabama where they encountered the young soldier in uniform."[1]
  • Had to laugh about your suggestion that anything the Early County News wrote 96 years after the fact shouldn't be used. Does that mean that all of your 21st century and late 20th century references should also not be used?
  • If you think Early County had a black judge in 1919, then it would cast even more doubt on this whole affair. Really, are you just having a bit of fun here?
  • "Genesis and Nemisis" comes from a reliable source, and I am well within our citation standards for using it.

Gulbenk (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk, My edit of 13:55, July 28 2020 just condensed sequences of the same reference on multiple sentences into a single citation. In your version, there were 8 sentences in a row that were cited to reference #3. My change was a purely stylistic change. WP:CITEFOOT says, it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. So, I removed the intermediate citations and condensed them all to a single citation at the end of the paragraph. You made a bunch of subsequent edits to that paragraph, inserting material which was cited to various other sources. So, the single citation at the end of the paragraph is no longer correct.
If there's no WP:RS that says the judge was white, then we can't say that. Doing so is WP:OR.
There's no way "The meanest little town…" meets our WP:RS requirements. I've posted this on WP:RSN. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, the judge wasn't black, and you question the fact that he was white. What color would you have him? Gulbenk (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, I don't know. Native American? Pacific Islander? Asian? Do I honestly think Georgia had any Pacific Islander judges in 1919? No, I don't. But it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is if there's a WP:RS which says so. If there's no WP:RS which states it, and you're relying on your own deduction of what it must have been, that's pretty much the definition of WP:OR.
As another example of WP:OR, you state above, regarding Century News Service, It was a wire service that connected the black newspapers of the day to each other, and to breaking news of interest to that community. What WP:RS said that? As far as I can tell, you saw Century News Service as bylines on several articles in what you believe to be black newspapers, and assumed the rest. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but we don't deal with reasonable assumptions, we deal with facts which are supported by statements in reliable secondary sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith are you actually serious? The quoted remark about Century News Service was in a discussion between the two of us. It was not incorporated into an article. Are you now attempting to regulate private opinions? PLEASE point me to the Wikipedia prohibition against free expression of ideas in personal discussions. Gulbenk (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gulbenk: As User:RoySmith said one has to rely on what secondary sources say, and trying to analyze oneself further information and incorporate said information in the article constitutes Wikipedia:Original research which ENwiki does not allow. Anyway the FSU document you showed me is a PhD thesis so I think it should count as a reliable source. Just be sure to follow what published sources say. You can summarize and restate the information from the relevant parts of the PhD thesis; WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: If you are speaking specifically to the issue of "white" judge, no problem. That is so minor, that removing it doesn't constitute an issue with me. In or out, it does not compromise the paragraph. But if you are referring to the paragraph that RoySmith deleted in its entirety (which is the larger topic of this discussion) then one must ask: Assuming for the moment that every newspaper using its own sources/reporters (and not a news wire) is a primary source, then we still have WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. But the paragraph that user RoySmith blanked was done under the pretext of being unreliable, rather than using the primary source argument. Since the newspaper has not been deemed unreliable, are we now saying that paragraph should be deleted because it is deemed a primary source? My reading of Wikipedia guidelines does not prohibit the use of primary sources, provided they are not used to support the entire article, and no attempt is made by the user to interpret or analyze the primary. Just straight forward attribution to the source, such as "Joe Blow said", as one would do when sourcing an editorial. I have done that. So finally, if I understand your statement above, you are saying that the newspaper (not the Wikipedia user) engaged in Original Research? I just don't see support for that thinking, or if such a thing is even possible. Please elaborate, so that I can understand why you support RoySmith in his effort to blank an entire paragraph of referenced text. Gulbenk (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gulbenk: The question is whether the publication Early County Times in its current state is equipped to do fact checking of a very contentious claim (It's good to know the articles which the Early County Times refers to exist and are there, but the analysis is entirely from the modern Early County Times article). If say The New York Times had published the same article there would be less hesitancy to use it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe, The facts which Early County News states, which are backed up by the Emancipator and The Atlanta Constitution are permitted material. The analysis which you believe cannot be rendered impartially by the ECN can still be used in the same context as we use with many editorial expressions of opinion, as a statement of the publication and not in the voice of Wikipedia. The blanking of that entire paragraph of sourced material is not an act of proper editorial discretion. It eliminates information of an opposing view, which Wikipedia readers should be free to read and decide for themselves. I would hope that, like the article originator (who is a journalist) you could agree with that. Gulbenk (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gulbenk, The "opposing view" has been given sufficient treatment. The lede and "Lynching" section total 315 words (using wordcounter.net). The "Claims of hoax" section is 292. We're devoting almost half the article to the minority viewpoint.
Readers are still "free to read and decide for themselves". We've provided a broad summary of the opposing view, and there's links to all the articles we've talked about here, including both of the ECN items. Readers can follow up with those as they see fit. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must add that whether something is "permitted material" is contextual based on the claim itself. If it's uncontroversial local history no problem. If it's a contentious claim there is often a preference for higher caliber sourcing. I can show examples if one likes. As for the second statement, indeed Wikipedia:Weight applies to facts as well, and 40% of the article text to a minority viewpoint is a lot (WEIGHT has further details on this). WhisperToMe (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gilbert, Tony (March 25, 2015). "The meanest little town…: A lingering humiliation from 96 years ago". Early County News. Blakely, Georgia. Retrieved 27 July 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

References[edit]

This article confuses me, going by the intro the lynching really happend.

But reading the article it's just citing newspaper articles and/or opinions, both pro and contra.

So how does the writer of the article know(*) it really happend ? He doesn't tell his readers, or I must be missing the clue.


(*) Wikipedia is all about facts that can be checked isn't it ?

84.31.19.155 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@84.31.19.155: There's a discussion earlier in the talk page about this: there is an op-ed in a county newspaper disputing that this happened and a part of a PhD thesis that discusses this. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lynching_of_Wilbur_Little&oldid=1216835120"