User talk:Deisenbe/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Diesenbe, while it is painful for me to edit the table on List of lynching victims in the United States, I see you have done so often. If you are interested, I've added lynching victims to Johnson County, Georgia, Milan, Georgia,El Dorado, Arkansas, Hawkinsville, Georgia,Dublin, Georgia,Vicksburg, Mississippi, and Warrenton, Georgia. None are on this list. Don't feel any obligation, but if you'd like to do it, I'd be grateful!Jacona (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Brown (abolitionist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Deisenbe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Roderick Dew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rascal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bye Bye Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audiencia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Napolean Broward and the American colonization movement
I reverted your addition of the category American colonization movement to Napolean B. Broward, as I see nothing in Broward's article indicating a connection to the American colonization movement, which had largely died away before he was an adult. - Donald Albury 17:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK! You convinced me. I put it back. Sorry about that. - Donald Albury 01:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Thanks for all the things you do on Wikipedia. Have a merry Christmas! Jacona (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
RE: Would you please tell me the rationale for this change?
Yes, sure. An user has written a content in the article according to the 2013 edition of the book, not from his translation. We don't need an IP that change it. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see the "content". Is it something specific? If not, I think the translation, besides being newer, would be more helpful to readers of the English WP. deisenbe (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Users can write an info with a reference (the small number right to a word), or they can write an info and then they include the bibliography at the final of the article, without any mark. Well, if you want to find the content, you have to go back to the article history (14 years, the article was created in 2004) and look for the specific version where it was included. It is a bit boring I think. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Washington, DC
Hey, Deisenbe. You've probably noticed the questions I've raised at your new article, District of Columbia (until 1871). As I indicate there, I have serious questions about what a new and separate article adds that can't be easily accommodated (if it isn't already present) within the existing variety of articles on Washington, DC and its history. I appreciate that the "District of Columbia" was a separate legal entity from the "City of Washington" until 1871, and that the District at first included the separately incorporated entities of Alexandria and Georgetown, but that nuance is certainly something that can be handled in a sentence in articles we've already got. Can you respond on the article Talk page so we can figure this out? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, Deisenbe, please do NOT create WP:TWODABS disambiguation pages. If there are only two topics, we use a hatnote on the primary topic page. A disambiguation page is a navigational device that should only be created if navigation can not be accomplished in a hatnote. bd2412 T 17:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of District of Columbia (until 1871) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article District of Columbia (until 1871) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/District of Columbia (until 1871) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ariconte (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Disambiguation link notification for January 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virtual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Definition of "Lynching"
I agree that someone must set a definition. Please see the paragraph I just wrote at the bottom of the talk page for the List of lynching victims in the United States article. To me (maybe because I'm a lawyer) "extrajudicial killing" means that someone is unlawfully killed after being accused or suspected of a crime. That doesn't include people randomly murdered in a riot because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. That kind of murder is a hate crime, but not universally considered to be lynching. Scribley (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Scribley: Here's the definition by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lynch)
- Here's the definition by definitikns.net: "Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people." (https://www.definitions.net/definition/lynching)
- "A lynching is an unlawful murder by an angry mob of people." (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/lynching)
- From The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, the museum of lynching: "Lynchings were violent and public acts of torture that traumatized black people throughout the country and were largely tolerated by state and federal officials. These lynchings were terrorism." (https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report/)
I think you're mistaken in saying (if I've got you correctly) that a lynching had to be specifically directed at someone, or that "lynching" and "hate crime" are mutually exclusive. A lynching can be a hate crime. Many lynchings had random targets. deisenbe (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not suggest that lynchings and hate crimes are mutually exclusive. I was saying that not every hate crime is necessarily a lynching. If every murder in this country that might have been motivated by race, ethnicity, or religion, for example, is considered a lynching (perhaps the victims of 9/11 would fit), then this list will be very long indeed. But perhaps that is exactly the purpose of the list -- I didn't start it; if you did then you would know the intent behind it. In any case, I will stop arguing and leave you to it. Scribley (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Scribley: I did start it but I don't own the concept. Nobody owns it and it apparently means different things to different people. For example some would say if there's no hanging it's not a lynching, but others, including me, say it's broader. Perhaps this bothers me less because one of the hats I wear is linguist.
- I do think I'm pretty well up on it.
- 9/11 isn't a lynching because it was a small group attacking a larger group; by definition that's not a lynching. It has to be a group (at least 3 but usually more) against an individual, or if against more than one, then less than the number of attackers. Some instances of police misconduct, like the Death of Freddie Gray, meet the criterion. The attackers take the law in their own hands. There has to be a desire to punish the victim(s) thought deserving with execution or nesr-execution because the legal system either will not do it at all, or would not do it as speedily as the lynchers desire. Ethnicity usually is but does not have to be a factor. deisenbe (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that explanation. I get your 9/11 reasoning, and I certainly agree with you that: "The attackers take the law in their own hands. There has to be a desire to punish the victim(s) thought deserving with execution or nesr-execution because the legal system either will not do it at all, or would not do it as speedily as the lynchers desire. Ethnicity usually is but does not have to be a factor." But the killing of Mr. Pyszko, e.g., horrible though it is, was not a lynching in the minds of some -- he wasn't killed because the assailants thought he was deserving of execution and the legal system would not do it speedily or at all. He was randomly killed because he was white and as you said was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was attending college in Detroit in 1975 and those of us who were white were warned not to go into the neighborhoods with unrest for the very reason illustrated by Mr. Pyszko's murder. But I never thought of myself in danger of "lynching" (just in danger of race-based violence). A "classic" lynching, as I understand it, is the murder of Leo Frank, or of the many African-Americans who were taken from jails and subject to extrajudicial execution. But I do understand that the definition can be wider than that. I just struggle where the line should be drawn. What if I had driven into the rioting neighborhood in 1975 and was pulled from my car and killed -- would I have been a lynching victim because of my race? What if the assailants had just wanted to steal my car and incidentally killed me in the process? Would that be a lynching? In any case, would it be possible for you to preface the "Lynching Victims in the US" article with a definition at the top of the page that would encompass the various scenarios of lynching in your understanding? That would help focus it for future additions to the list. Scribley (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
... and if you haven't consulted it yet, I think you will find a lot of interesting info about lynching victims in the US over time and in different locations on this website: http://www.monroeworktoday.org/explore Scribley (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Confederate monuments and memorials in South Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wade Hampton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)- I've blocked both you and Awardmaniac for 24 hours for edit warring across multiple articles related to Michael Jackson. My standard offer for any first time edit warring block is that any admin is free to unblock you before then if you agree to 0RR on any page on Wikipedia for the next 72 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I will agree not to revert any page for 72 hours. deisenbe (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cool, I've unblocked. Be more careful in the future. 3RR isn't a right, and I blocked both of the accounts because there was edit warring going on at multiple articles, so I felt it was needed to stop it. Anyway, happy editing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I will agree not to revert any page for 72 hours. deisenbe (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
John Shillady
Hi! I have long wanted to see an article on John Shillady. A quick search shows he already appears in 99 wikipedia articles ([1]). I see you've started one on his lynching in Texas. I think he's worthy of an article, on which "the lynching of" should probably be a section, with a redirect page pointing to it. Do you agree? If you start the article, I'm sure I will contribute in the coming days, I've been across many, many sources.Jacona (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please tell ne how you did that search. Also, how did you find it in my sandbox?
- I'm reluctant to have the lynching as a part of a larger article, as that makes the lynching seem just a chapter. An article starting with "Lynching of..." makes a point. This was the most important event of his life and of his work for NAACP, abd what killed him. His work before that would be introduction. But I don't have a closed mind on it. Start writing and let's see what you come up with. deisenbe (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think his life's work was extremely significant...if I had the energy right now, what I'd do is write both articles and link to lynching of with a {{main article|lynching of}} or a redirect to a section...As far as the search, key in
"site:en.wikipedia.org" "john shillady" OR "john r. shillady"
- (no caps in the search strings, if you use mixed case it will assume you really, really want the mixed case)
- At some point, I think you asked me to collaborate on something in your sandbox, at which point I added it to my watchlist. If this creeps you out, I will be happy to remove it. In all likelihood it can foster cooperation. Feel free to put something in my sandbox, it has a keep-out notice, but I'll add a list of respected collaborators and put your name on it. You're among a few editors whose work recently has been somewhat congruent with mine. Jacona (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome to monitor my Sandbox. It's flattering. No one else does, to my knowledge.
- I see I put something in yours, which I'd forgotten. I'm very forgetful.
- In case you missed it, you might want to see National Conference on Lynching. deisenbe (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macon, Mississippi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illinois News Network (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Micronations and microstates
Hi,
You appear to have confused microstates and micronations in some of your categorisation.
A micronation is a small "state" that formally claims sovereignty but is ignored by the international community. These are normally the project of a single individual, and are create for frivolous reasons, and in general do not exercise any real control the territory they claim. An example would be the Kingdom of Lovely.
A microstate is a legitimate sovereign state that is very small. These tend to be internationally recognised and accepted as sovereign states, e.g. San Marino and the Vatican City. These exercise real control over their territory - neither San Marino or the Vatican is part of Italy - it's just that that territory isn't very large.
It is important to distinguish the two, because calling a micronation a microstate implies that the micronation is legitimately a state, and calling a microstate a micronation implies that a microstate is not legitimately a state. And that's an WP:NPOV problem. Kahastok talk 11:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had forgotten that.
- Can you direct me to the discussion, which I read once, of why there are no microstate categories? I may want to reopen that. deisenbe (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not aware of that discussion. I imagine an objection might be that it's not always obvious where the boundary between a microstate and a non-microstate is - but I don't really deal with categories much, so I wouldn't know whether that be significant to the discussion. Kahastok talk 22:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've e-mailed you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| The coverage of American history on Wikipedia is significantly better because of your research and writing. By creating or improving myriad articles ranging from Moses Jacob Ezekiel in recent weeks,[2] to bigger efforts like Negro Fort or biographies of interesting characters and places like Addison Mizner and Mineshaft, you've illuminated fascinating and important stories and facts. And you've done it with very little controversy. On behalf of Wikipedia readers, "Keep up the good work!" Mobi Ditch (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for February 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Bucchino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Flirtations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Croton / Dutch place names in New York (state)
Hello. I noticed you "added Category:Dutch place names in New York (state) using HotCat)" in an edit to the Croton-on-Hudson, New York article, and likewise to an edit to the Croton River article. I infer that you're claiming "Croton" is a Dutch place name. Do you have a citation for that claim? There is apocryphal documentation that early Dutch settlers called the mouth of the river "Croton", but allegedly adapted from an Indian's name rather than a Dutch place. Even that attribution, some two centuries after the fact, is unconfirmed. DocRuby (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- You know a lot more about it than I do, so I'll take it out. Sorry. deisenbe (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
John Brown (abolitionist)
Read Timbuctoo, New York, please.
Template:Michael Jackson - reverted
Hi, I have reverted your edit to the template {{Michael Jackson}} to restore visibility of the section 'Related', which has been there before (Special:Diff/887399513). Please wait with adding new groups until the underlying {{Navbox musical artist}} handles more than 20 lists, or use some grouping (e.g., as I proposed in {{Michael Jackson/sandbox}}). --CiaPan (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I tried to make what you did live but for some reason can't. I can't find the problem. Please do so, thanks. deisenbe (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Non-existent categories
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Corfu, New York, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before saving a change. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
1920 Duluth lynchings
Thanks for your interest in this article. My edit contained an error, in that it should have said despite the lack of significant physical evidence. The error did require a correction, but a straight revert is not the best way to handle that. It simply restores another, previous, error. It all has to do with the types and amounts of evidence. Evidence is a fairly broad category, involving a number of things including statements, testimony, objects, and (in this case) physical examinations. The article incorrectly said that there was a lack of evidence. What I think this alludes to is inconclusive evidence of rape upon physical examination of the female victim. This is a form of physical evidence. But there would have been other forms of physical evidence (clothes, etc) and the statements of the two youths (another form of evidence). To know the extent of the evidence one would have to read the trial transcript or at least a detailed account of the proceedings. But the article itself provides support for the fact that some evidence was presented. A lack of evidence would result in a dismissal, even if the authorities wrongly arrested the suspects on a whim. So the statement that there was a lack of evidence is, on its face, untrue. The fact that at least one form of significant physical evidence (signs of a rape) could not be shown, casts a degree of doubt into the process, and I think that is what the sentence was trying to convey. So I think the correct wording should have been, and hopefully will be, Despite the lack of significant physical evidence, seven men were indicted for rape. Gulbenk (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Gloria Victis
I got a notification that you thanked me for an edit. If you are interested in this topic, perhaps you can tell me if User:Vchimpanzee/Gloria Victis (Confederate memorial) would be considered notable. The fact that it was moved from one major city to another before arriving in this small town makes this likely. And yes, it would be monument once moved to mainspace. I made a mistake.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I think Leeser was too early to be considered an Orthodox rabbi. How many other rabbis whose articles are in that category died before 1870?
Orthodox Judaism originated as a reactionary movement against Reform Judaism. It didn't exist before there was a Reform movement against which to have a reaction.
In the United States, the Reform movement didn't really get started until just before the Civil War. There was an attempt in the 1850s by one of the leading reformers to reach a consensus with Leeser. See Reform Judaism#America and Classical Reform.
Also, please see WP:CAT#Articles: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If Leeser's article doesn't mention Orthodox Judaism, it doesn't belong in a category about Orthodox Judaism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Leeser has been called Orthodox in RS. For some reason I can't link to journals, but if you Google isasc Leeser orthodox and look at the psu.edu journal for example it calls him Orthodox. I also seem to recall him calling himself or perhaps his magazine orthodox but I'm not sure. Regardless, he is called Orthodox and he was probably what we can consider the first Orthodox rabbi in the USA. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sir Joseph. I had relied too much on Encyclopaedia Judaica, which simply refers to Leeser as an opponent of reform and "the foremost traditionalist leader for three decades" but never calls him Orthodox. When I searched for sources, I found many that describe Leeser as the first American Orthodox rabbi.
- Apologies, Deisenbe. I will add a sourced sentence or two about that description and restore Leeser to the category. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Also, if you want more sources and a good read, I would recommend, "American Judaism" by Jonathan Sarna. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, Deisenbe. I will add a sourced sentence or two about that description and restore Leeser to the category. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- You (pl.) might like to look at Jacob Ezekiel, which I recently posted. He was a Jewish community leader in Richmond and the Secretary-Treasurer of Hebrew Union College, what we would call a college registrar, for decades. deisenbe (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Springfield, Missouri
I see you added Springfield, Missouri to Category:Sundown towns in Missouri. Do you have a source for this? As far as I know Springfield has always had a permanent black population. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- What the article says: “But the extrajudicial murders were part of a pattern of discrimination, repeated violence and intimidation of African Americans in this city and southwest Missouri from 1894 to 1909, in an attempt to expel them from the region.... In the 21st century, African Americans constitute a very small minority in Springfield. deisenbe (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt reply. I see lynchings and the usual abhorrent racism, but nothing about banning African Americans after dark. The very small minority seems to confirm that it wasn’t a sundown town. That’s a pretty serious allegation to make without a source so unless you have one that specifically names Springfield a sundown town I wouldn't claim it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sundown towns did not necessarily focus on "after dark". "Sundown towns, also known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States that practice a form of segregation -- historically by enforcing restrictions excluding people not white via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence." deisenbe (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I see that, my mistake, still I think a source explicitly naming Springfield as a sundown town is needed or else it’s WP:OR. Springfield has never been “all-white” so your definition excludes it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sundown towns did not necessarily focus on "after dark". "Sundown towns, also known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States that practice a form of segregation -- historically by enforcing restrictions excluding people not white via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence." deisenbe (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt reply. I see lynchings and the usual abhorrent racism, but nothing about banning African Americans after dark. The very small minority seems to confirm that it wasn’t a sundown town. That’s a pretty serious allegation to make without a source so unless you have one that specifically names Springfield a sundown town I wouldn't claim it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)