Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Tillman/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Benjamin Tillman

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a racist, bigot and killer, who was also a senator and governor of his state, and a non-trivial figure in American history. It's necessary that this article be done, it is a story that deserved to be told better, even if not a story we care much for. Normally I say "enjoy" but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – As one of the peer reviewers. My few quibbles were dealt with there. This subject is odious, but it is Wikipedia's job to cover vile human beings as scrupulously as we do the good guys. I congratulate Wehwalt on this article: it can't have been fun to write, and it is neutral, well-balanced, and as excellently readable as we have come to expect from this source. Full marks, but can we have a fully-paid-up member of the human race next time, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 February 2015‎

I'll see what I can do in that department. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources review: The sources are all of the appropriate standard of reliability. The one format issue I can find is in ref. 133, which requires a pp. not a p. Otherwise, all in order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: I tend to share Tim's sentiments, both about the repellent character of the subject and the quality of the article that presents him to us. My detailed comments are in the peer review, and I have nothing particular to add now. There were probably more Tillmans than Greeleys around in America, in the second half of the 19th century, more's the pity. I'm glad to see that Horace has his star now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for the kind words. I've fixed the source issue, and will undertake to do someone less offensive than Tillman next time. Easy standard to meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Great article, I enjoyed reading it. I made a few minor copyedits, but nothing else stood out as needing correcting. One thing that might help: where you discuss the Farmers Alliance and the sub-treasury, it might be useful to link to the system in widespread use that the farmers were reacting against: the crop-lien system. Lawrence Goodwyn's The Populist Moment is a good source on that, if you need one. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add that in. As it is discussed, no additional source should be necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubts of Eddie Hugh

I have some doubts about the neutrality and balance of parts of this article. There is a lot of negative content (understandably), much of which comes from one source (Kantrowitz's book), and some of which contains assumptions and/or insinuations. Examples include:

• "Tillman and his men arrived too late to participate in those killings" (assumption/insinuation that they would have participated).

Yes, they would have. See Tillman 1909 if you want the gory details, but the source here is a fair summation. I'm reasonably certain that the Tillman 1909 reference is where his later biographers get info on his role in Hamburg and Ellenton.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that it's preferable to state that they would have / intended to join in, but arrived too late, rather than hint at it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Democrats were able to suppress the Republican/African-American vote, reporting a win for Hampton in Edgefield County with over 60 percent of the vote. Bolstered by this result, Hampton gained a narrow victory statewide, at least according to the official returns" (insinuation).

Tillman admitted that he and others stuffed ballot boxes. This is not a matter of historical dispute. He went into considerable detail as to how he and others did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, just state that; "reporting a win" and "at least according to" could be expressed plainly (and be more accurate by doing so; and create a more detailed impression of Tillman for most readers). EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Tillman and others had a celebratory meal at the home of the man who had pointed out which African Americans should be shot" (what was being celebrated? The insinuation/assumption is the killings.).

Yes. That is what they were celebrating. Have you examined Tillman 1909? This is again not a matter of doubt as Tillman often spoke of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, stating that in the article would clarify the point for the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Tillman's death generated a large number of tributes to him in the Senate, [...] Blease, who was angry that Tillman was being lauded, and stated that the late senator was not what he had seemed. He wrote in front of the volume, "Don't believe me, but look up his life & see."" (why not mention some of the tributes, instead of implying that they were false? Putting this in the following section might help to reduce the bias of having it at the end of a section and link it with some more positive things that are there.).

The source does not quote from the lauds. I do not think it is necessary for us to go beyond the sources in such a manner. If a reputable biographer does not feel it necessary, how do we second guess? As for Blease, given that he was a white supremacist himself, I am hesitant to put it in the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If they were stated in the Senate, I imagine that they're available somewhere, but it can be left. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The late senator's supporters and protégés lingered long in South Carolina, [...] Others who knew and at one time admired Tillman who persisted long on the South Carolina scene" ("lingered" and "persisted" have negative connotations).

I don't agree with you on this, but will modify the verbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Despite being a white supremacist, Tillman as governor initially took a strong stand against lynching" (the "despite" looks like editorializing).

Fair enough. Introductory phrase struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "taken action to prevent such murders, they still occurred, with no one being prosecuted for them" (more editorializing: if no-one was prosecuted, they weren't murders).

I disagree, but will change to "killings".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "With Tillman as governor, "the former Red-shirt faced the mob as head of state."" (another bit of Kantrowitz that is more snide than informative).

As is developed throughout the section, Tillman had a conflict because of his former role as Red Shirt. This is developed throughout the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But why end the para with it? The fact (former Red Shirt, governor of state) is self-evident from what's been stated earlier; all that's added by including the quotation here is an editorial comment to counter the possibility of a positive tinge emerging from the description of BT's lynching stance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest: a greater variety of sources; some hedging in places by stating whose interpretation is being presented; and giving information plainly to allow the reader to reach a conclusion, rather than leading the reader to a particular conclusion/impression through insinuations.

Unless there are comprehensive sources on Tillman that are being overlooked, I don't see what I am supposed to do about the matter. Tillman has only the biographers set forth. Everything is footnoted. Over two dozen sources are used, including many recent and scholarly articles. I am afraid that to a certain extent, we must take Tillman as we find him. If you note, the first two reviewers seem to be holding their mouths and running in the direction of the toilet because of how fair I am being to Tillman. I will ask them if they wish to comment further in light of your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Some other things encountered:

• Source 2 takes me to a login screen.

Subscription tag added.

• There's "African American", "African-American", "the African American" and "black" used; avoiding the second one is the current preference, I believe.

That is when used as an adjective, and the article is consistent in that regard. Note the article title, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd spotted a non-adjectival use, but all fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Red Shirts and Reconstruction" is a heading, but there's no description of what/who red shirts were.

Fixed.

• "Tillman proved an adept farmer" is contradicted by "after two marginal years, the 1868 crop was destroyed by caterpillars" and "Tillman's losses in the agricultural depression of 1883–1898".

Even an adept farmer may suffer problems like that, Remember, the Florida problem occurred when Tillman was 18-20, and the language you quote is later. As for his losses, well, given the nationwide economic problems, losses are not entirely surprising. In spite of the losses, Tillman made himself a wealthy man through farming.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "today Clemson University". Better to avoid "today", as it may change.

I've changed it to "later", though I think it unnecessary. If Clemson University's name changed, I suspect our good editors would go through and change every reference to Clemson.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Charleston News and Courier". Should all of that be in italics?

That is the source.

• "Even most Conservatives would not support a bolt from the party". "Bolt" has several, diverse meanings. Using a different word would help.

That is a proper political term, which I've used in FA's before, see William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. I do not feel the article goes out of its way to use jargon, nor is there ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I had to look it up. "The act of suddenly breaking away; breaking away from a political party (U.S. colloq.)" says the OED. Fine if the US colloq bit is not regarded as a barrier in this instance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "With the race given control of one of South Carolina's seven congressional districts". I don't understand this; is "race" the correct word?

The legislature gerrymandered as many black voters as it could into a single district. This is made clear in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit slow. "the race" = "the African American". Going from the definite article form (rather than the plural form) to "the race" threw me. Fine if no-one else hesitated over it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought this awkward, as well, perhaps born of a desire not to repeat the same words too often? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "blacks".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Inauguration and legislative control" section. The indented quote is shorter than the preceding one that is not indented.

That is true, but the second quote is where he gets down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll go beyond that, but it's what I offer for now. EddieHugh (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. The bottom line is, you think I'm being unfair to Tillman by such words as "murders". I disagree. No modern source on Tillman is as dispassionate as you would have. Lynching was wrong, and all sources make this clear. Failure to do so in this article would leave me open to charges of being a racist. This is the balance, and I think it fairly respects the sources, of which there are nearly thirty. I assure you, some of the sources are far from dispassionate about Tillman. What more can I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm using NPOV, impartial tone: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized" and, from the same page, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Of course lynching was wrong, but how that and other things are presented also must be considered. Reminders to the reader that BT was bad, words that hint at negativity, insinuations rather than plain statements... these actually weaken the strength of the presented evidence 'against' BT: just present what there is and BT's actions will speak for themselves, without leading or commenting being required! EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a PhD thesis, "Benjamin Ryan Tillman: the South Carolina Years, 1847-1894"; and a book by Eubanks, "Ben Tillman's Baby: The Dispensary System of South Carolina, 1892-1915": any use? EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dispensary system probably not. I am searching for online access to the thesis, it is not at a library within 280 miles of me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not seem to be available online. Given that it is cited by other sources such as Kantrowitz and the ANB, it is something that would be nice to have but I don't consider it necessary. And I checked academic sources through my George Mason University access.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read this article carefully twice – at peer review and then for the present FAC. It seems to me that Wehwalt has been scrupulously neutral throughout. The suggestion that we mustn't say "murder" if nobody has been convicted cannot be entertained even fleetingly. Wikipedia has an entire article on "unsolved murders", which would be a contradiction in terms if we accepted the novel premise that without a conviction a killing is not a murder. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun as "The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being", and that is manifestly what we are considering here. As to the other points, I am not altogether in agreement with some of the concessions Wehwalt has made in response, but they have not materially damaged the neutrality of the article, which remains impeccable, in my view, and I do not press the point. – Tim riley talk 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting – I used the same definition as my starting point! It's a legal reality that, if there's no conviction for murder, then there's been no murder. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In English law (on which I believe American law is based) the exact opposite is the truth. Nobody can be tried for a crime until it has first been demonstrated that the crime has been committed. See Corpus delicti. But perhaps Tillman or his compatriots changed all that in the United States. – Tim riley talk 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Even following that line, it would be necessary to discover if murder was established at the time, to look at the definition of murder at the time, etc., etc. Much simpler to use the accurate "killings" rather than the assumption-based "murders". My key point remains the leading in how the information is presented, rather than what is presented. On the "murders" part again, "there were claims that the black victim had raped" is in the next sentence. "murders" leads the reader in one direction, which is reinforced by "claims", which is reinforced by the subsequent and (presumably) non-specific "though studies have shown that". All of this content (the what) could be presented (the how) plainly, without leading. I'd hope that part of the collective goal here is to present the life of a saintly pacifist in the same way as the life of a Tillman – that is, leaving the reader to interpret the content to the maximum extent possible, instead of having to interpret the presentation. The changes made so far help towards that end. EddieHugh (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're being too picky on the murder matter, but if you're generally content, let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I add:

• A bit more on his family would be appropriate for a biography (apologies if it's already there). For instance, he had a son who died in 1950.
  • I'd be interested in this, too, if sources exist. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• The intro (p. xxvi) to the 2002 edition of Simkins' books states that BT's powers were much reduced by strokes in 1908 and 1910. I don't think this is included at the moment.

I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "but a greater price was paid, electorally and in lives, by the African American". The same author's words were "a most costly price" in the intro mentioned in my point immediately above; does source 2 justify "a greater price"?

Yes, "While he energized the mass of rural white voters to challenge the aristocratic rule of the state by the Bourbon Democrats, he did so at the expense of the state's African Americans." combined with the discussion further above in the article about 1876. I've added the cite from Simkins to more fully justify it.

• There's a proposal to rename Tillman Hall at Clemson University. I'm not sure of the most recent status of this, but it might be a good idea to monitor it and update the article if/when it does change. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Turned down by the trustees a couple of weeks ago after an endorsement by the faculty senate. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• • EddieHugh, this is a useful critique, but I think Wehwalt has gone far enough in making the article neutral. It's always difficult with an odious subject, but I think what's presented in the article mirrors the modern scholarly consensus. You'd be hard-pressed to find any historian alive today who disagrees that Tillman participated in violence and electoral fraud against his black neighbors. I agreed with a couple of your points, as I noted above, but I think to do much more would tip from neutrality into false equivalency. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a tendency today on Wikipedia to call any adjective, any descriptive statement, to be POV. I do not agree with that. We have to take people as they are, warts and all. I think I've gone quite a long way in answering EddieHugh's concerns, with some of which I agreed, some of which I did not and I may reconsider one or two (killings for murder). I think that in substance, I've addressed the concerns. I would ask EddieHugh to acknowledge that in general, the matters that he has brought up have been addressed, or if not, at least seriously considered and reasons given.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have struck out my initial comment on balance, which has been satisfactorily dealt with. To me, the neutrality problem remains, in part. Please see my what versus how comment, above. To stress again, it's not the content that lacks neutrality, but the words that are used to present that content. "claims" and "though", for instance, have been used here to imply, rather than state. Compare something such as 'black people claimed in the first half of the 20th century that they were not mentally inferior to white people, though studies had shown that they scored lower in tests of intelligence'. The content is accurate, but how it is presented (the italicized parts) leads the reader in a particular direction (in this instance, pointing towards what I assume we would find objectionable). My argument is that how we feel about the content/topic/person is irrelevant and that the words we choose should not lead, either to what we find objectionable or to what we find acceptable. EddieHugh (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. While I am happy to work with you on individual instances, I think your intervention has already cleared up any questionable matters. I believe that this article is fair to Tillman. It is factual, and I took pains to avoid casting judgment on Tillman outside the legacy section. I present the 1890 race no differently than I presented, say, Joseph B. Foraker's gubernatorial runs (to use a colleague of Tillman in the Senate). If there are individual instances, I will be happy to work with you on that. But I do believe in the fairness of this article. I do thank you for your review and for feeling strongly about your position. I do believe the best results come from challenges to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. A well-balanced article, and neutral to the point of being painful in places (possibly too much, but don't chnage it on the basis of me!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. This sort of article does tend to get one into a reviewer fork.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say in you preamble to this review, Tillman was a racist, bigot and killer – and he gloried in these "achievements". To quibble over whether he was a murderer or merely a killer is pedantry. The article seems to me to be admirably restrained in its portrait of this dreadful man; it presents him as the sources do, and there is no need for you to go any further, in the interests of supposed neutrality, in looking for any balancing gloss. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use the "upright" parameter for images that are wider than they are tall
• File:1890SCGovResults.png: is this based on a pre-existing map? What is the source for this data?
• File:Von_engelken.png: confused by date given - this is dated to 1916 but struck 1898? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Fixed 2) Removed, as Gamecock's election maps seem to be slowly getting deleted and he's not around to defend them, and 3) Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "... was an American politician of the Democratic Party who was Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...": What do you think of this? "... was a Democratic Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...". That tells us he's American.

Thanks, but I think it would be best to just drop the "American".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Back in a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'll stop there for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing what you could do.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Continuing.
• Gary asked, "what white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench"?: If the ? doesn't come right after "wench" in the quote, then saucy wench ...?" is arguably better.

Well ... it's an odd passage. "Eugene Gary, Tillman's running mate in the 1890 campaign, spoke frequently about the need to protect white women from the sexual threat allegedly posed by black men. Gary advocated the segregation of railroad cars, demanding to know "[w]hat white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench." Tillman's white opponents even worried about being outflanked as proponents of this protective, manly white supremacy: a white anti-Tillman audience in Columbia responded to Gary's speech by shouting, "Come off that Tillman ticket.... You ought to be with us."" So almost certainly it is a complete sentence but the question mark is not given in the quote, which is why I put it outside. I suppose I could have put it in brackets.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, my solution won't work. - Dank (push to talk)

• Okay, fine edits Wehwalt, we're almost done. The only one that's a problem for me is restoring "Charleston's cherished The Citadel" ... South Carolinians drop the "The" there, and that would work for me, or the workaround I used, or just dropping "Charleston's cherished" would work too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just drop the "cherished"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "arranged for McLaurin ... to not be re-elected": I'm not sure what that means.

It is complicated, but what it amounts to is that Tillman put in the party rules that candidates had to support the entire Democratic platform (most of which Tillman had written). McLaurin bucked the party line on the question of American territorial expansion, so he could not in good faith sign that he supported the national platform, and so could not run in the primary.

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Excellent writing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The only comment I would make to the coordinators is that reasonable minds can differ as to how to approach a person like Tillman, and I think there's consensus that my approach is a valid one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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