Talk:Harriet Tubman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Please provide a cite supporting the film Harriet was a "success"

(Note: This section was moved from User talk:Shearonink to this article talkpage.)

I removed the word success from Harriet Tubman's page regarding the film Harriet. You may not be aware, but the only published number/$s is the production cost, but that does not include marketing and distribution costs that generally can be equal to 50% of the production costs as a rule of thumb. There is no source that uses the phrase "success" which means it is original research/opinion. What is in the cites is "overperformed" and some comparisions to other biographies and films from the same production company.

So can we change success to overperformed since it's at least in a cite although I didn't check whether it was a reliable source but i'll ignore that because at least there's a cite. Otherwise I'm going to remove the word "success" again as it is only an unsourced opinion that even the film's page does not support.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, calling "Harriet" a box-office success is not my opinion, or even an opinion. It's in The Hollywood Reporter cite. And the BoxOffice Mojo cite.

Re:I am aware - look on the BoxOfficeMojo cite, both the production cost of and the overall box-office are published there - "Harriet" cost $17 million to produce and it made over $43 million. So, it made back its production costs + its expected marketing costs, $17million + $9million = $26million. The Hollywood Reporter cite that I added in my edit? Article's title is "Box Office Milestone: 'Harriet' Crosses $40 Million in the U.S.", article text goes on to say "The film, starring Cynthia Erivo as Harriet Tubman, is among the top-grossing biographical dramas of all time for specialty label Focus Features." and "Filmmaker Kasi Lemmons' Harriet crossed $40 million in ticket sales at the domestic box office on Friday, a major feat for a specialty biographical drama." and "Harriet — which earned stellar reviews and a coveted A+ CinemaScore from audiences — has almost matched the $43 million earned domestically by Fox Searchlight and Steve McQueen's Oscar-winning 12 Years a Slave following its release in 2013, not adjusted for inflation." And the THR article is dated in December 2019, before the Academy Award nominations were announced. The movie went on to earn at least an additional $3million.

So. Cites provided. Shearonink (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Success" is still not supported or stated. There is a lot of other wording that would reflect positiveness, but whether something is a success or not is an opinion and original research unless there is a specific cite that states such. Please read wp:or and wp:opinion. I have to digest it a touch as to which wording conveys what I believe you are wanting (eg, saying this is the best film from this one particular production company is not necessarily a good thing because what if everything else flopped from this one company?). Mostly what seems to be supported in cites is that for its genre it overperformed (again, that is a cited word and this can be included), but success is never mentioned and is clearly wp:or. You also need to read the wikipedia references I've mentioned because what you are doing is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

I'm trying to work together to come up with wording that doesn't violate wikipedia guidance, and I'd ask that you be a little flexible. I think we can come up with something that reflects your line of thought and also meets my desire to follow wiki guidance and not introduce an opinion. Incidentally I'm not alone believing that word needs removed as I was thanked specifically for having removed that word. So 2-1 isn't consensus, but it's a direction. Lastly, I'd like to ask you look at the actual film's wikipedia page to see how the wording is there. My reason for not wanting the word success is because it neither is stated by any cite nor does the film's page ever say it was a success.

Thanks and let's see what we can come up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on some other input I think i found a way that should meet us in the middle. The word success is in the cite, but it is attached to an important clause specifically that it's successful from that one production company. so without including that clause it overstates or misdirects the reader. It's the phrase "box office success" that I have the problem with, but i hope the wording change is agreeable. if not i'd like to ask that you not simply undo the change, but make some modification to try and meet in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR? Really. Saying that my editing choices go against wiki guidance? Really. I said what I said and I don't need you to "teach me a thing" about how to edit Wikipedia. If other editors want to continue this discussion about whether or not the provided cites back-up "box office success" they are welcome to have at it. Taking this article off of my Watchlist, I don't have the patience. Good luck. Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

First you placing a quote saying "teach me a thing" implies and suggests that I made that statement which I did not. Perhaps that's why you believe "box office success" is otherwise stated which it is not stated anywhere and I've searched. I tried in good faith to come up with something in the middle that used a reference cite and offered it as a good faith compromise, only to be attacked. I never attacked you. Lastly, if the actual wikipedia film's page does not say "box office success" anywhere, then why attribute it elsewhere as such when there are no references supporting that wording. I offered what I believe to be compromise wording that is cited and I'm guessing meets your desire to promote the film. I don't care to promote or demote the film, I just want to have cited statements. thank u.SailedtheSeas (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

$20 Bill project has been revised under the Biden Administration.

If someone could add a couple lines to the Legacy section to accommodate for the recent development, that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaltosKieron (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

50.29.100.118 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 01:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021 (2)

2601:807:8700:7660:9DA7:F3AF:3042:B7EB (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

she ate some drit

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zupotachyon (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Code Name NOT Nickname

The Underground Railroad was a secret organisation. "Moses" was not Tubman's nickname - it was her secret operational code name. Spiritual songs were an essential element of the UR secret code. E.g. When slaves in a particular area started singing "Go Down, Moses," that was a message that Harriet Tubman was in the area.

Change problematic wording describing her youth

A change must be made in the way those who enslaved people are described. The terms "master" and "slave" are problematic as they inherently disenfranchise the victims of slavery while alleviating guilt form the oppressors.

whipped by her various masters

In the above quote for example, the word "masters" can be replaced with "captors". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benaltair (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No - emphatically not! "Master" and "Slave" exactly reflect the relationships that existed under slavery. DO NOT RE-WRITE HISTORY THROUGH THE EYES OF MODERN SENSITIVITIES. You will distort reality. The reality is that there was time when the law allowed human beings to be property. Besides which, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the words "master" and "slave" that alleviates guilt from the oppressors. Slavery has been abolished in the United States - except as punishment for a crime - for more than 150 years. THE OPPRESSORS AND THE OPPRESSED OF SLAVERY ARE LONG DEAD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:446E:5546:DEC8:CE58 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Film

On November 1, 2019 (USA), A Film named 'Harriet' released in commemoration of Harriet Tubman directed by Kasi Lemmons. Harriet had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 10. It was theatrically released in the United States on November 1, 2019.Its release for Blu-ray and DVD sales took place on January 14, 2020. See: Harriet_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Person (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this film is already mentioned in the article, under Harriet Tubman#Film and television. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

2600:1700:1D42:F8D0:2C90:58F:DA1:225F (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

it should be 300 POPEL INSTEAD OF 70 PEOPLE RESCUED

As this source explains, documentation supports the 70 claim and not the 300. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Add Cultural Depiction Request

Someone please add that Tubman is depicted in Our Nation's 200th Birthday, The Telephone's 100th Birthday (1976) by Stanley Meltzoff for Bell System https://www.jklmuseum.com/tag/stanley-meltzoff/ 47.152.71.253 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you should add a link

In the article, under the literature section, it talks about a novel called, "A Woman Called Moses". There is a Wikipedia article about this novel, so I think you should add it. The link is here- A Woman Called Moses

(Also, sorry if there is typos in this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotSchoolSmart (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That link is to an article about the TV miniseries based on the novel. --RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Purported discovery of childhood cabin

"Harriet Tubman’s lost Maryland home found, archaeologists say" (The Washington Post, April 20, 2021) Mapsax (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Bookshop

There’s a bookstore named after her, maybe someone could mention that in the article? Here is info: https://bookshop.org/shop/harriettsbookshop

I don’t wish to make an account just for this, but somebody who already has an account could do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B016:BC65:58CB:DD8D:2763:74F6 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Having her name used on some business seems like a trivial thing to mention. Are there independent sources reporting on this? --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

I want to change the picture to my old teacher who passed aways favorite picture of Harriet Tubman. 2603:9000:9600:ADA7:79E4:B21:CCCD:1BF4 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

The information on Harriet Tubman about the times she led slaves to freedom and how many is incorrect on the Wikipedia Harriet Tubman page. She returned to the south 17 times and led 300 slaves to freedom. This information in one of many came from Biography.com Lulamae1914 (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Streets

TV show “Timeless” says Tubman had streets named for her in England or elsewhere. Can’t verify, but article says “several states”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the article. That there are streets named after her is already mentioned, as is the fictional portrayal of her in Timeless. --RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the references have some link or ISBN?

I see mostly of the references of this article may be confusing for a normal user. Just looking for the name and year on Internet (Clinton 2004, Larson 2004) doesn't seem to give a result of what the reference may be (in some cases). Shouldn't there be some link to a reliable readable online version of the book or, if not, an ISBN code? --The Typos Checker (fixed typos) 22:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The short form footnotes all match the list of Sources immediately below. This is a common format for referencing. On many articles this is done with templates that link the footnotes to the sources, but that is not required. Since the article has a mostly consistent, accepted citation style, it shouldn't be changed without a strong reason (not just personal preference) or discussion about it here on the Talk page. When I refreshed the article for TFA in 2009, I added years to the footnotes as a necessary step to distinguish multiple sources from the same author, but I didn't add templates since it wasn't required to achieve that. But I don't object to using templates (I typically do when I am writing new articles) and am happy to do so if there are no objections here. --RL0919 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally think it would be better. It makes easier searching the source for the reader, and, also, I don't think a more complex citation would be problem as to be a contra. It's just adding more info, although I know that the current citation style is also okay. --The Typos Checker (fixed typos) 20:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no objection or other comments in a month, I will start updating the article to add templates linking the refnotes to the sources. --RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What is an "enslaved person"?

I'm pretty sure there is a single word for that... Doesn't it begin with an "S"? Sla.. Slav... Slave? Shouldn't this article be written in English rather than Woketardese? If "slave" is such an offensive word, then perhaps you radical leftists should stop saying "enslaved person" because it contains the offensive word "slave" within it. Freaking morons. -- Plain English1 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So I'm pretty sure this isn't the best place to be having this discussion--and even more so that ending a post with "Freaking morons" isn't a call for discussion but low-grade troll bait--but sure, I'll bite. The relatively recent push to use the phrase "enslaved person" rather than the word "slave" as a noun, per my understanding, isn't about the word "slave" being directly offensive like many curse words, but about the linguistic framing of it. It is about making the clear distinction that slavery is a state inflicted on another person, rather than something intrinsic to their being. Someone else can correct me here if I'm wrong. Mockery (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Both "enslaved person"/"enslaved people" and "slave"/"slaves" are perfectly standard English, and both are used in the article. One interesting example is a quote from Frederick Douglass, where he used the term "enslaved people" in 1868, contrary to the impression that this term is a recent invention. In any case, the account used to start this discussion has been blocked, so further response is probably moot. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Veteran

Inclusion of civil war veteran in the article intro is STRONGly recommended. Formerly enslaved Americans regularly worked for The Union without formal recognition of service or receipt of service member pensions. Inclusion of their contribution is the bare minimum we can do to respect our veterans and minimized citizens. It is also respectful to a acknowledge a women in this role because it was rare at this time. Eafleeen (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Narcolepsy and Clarification of Health Issues

The discussion of Harriet Tubman's neurological disorder following her brain injury likely needs to be updated and clarified to include the term narcolepsy. There are a few compelling reasons for this:

• She is mentioned on the List of people with narcolepsy page, which also already has a reference cited.
• Her seizures as described are actually more consistent with the description of cataplexy. Cataplexy occurs in around 70% of people with narcolepsy and is almost unheard of outside of the disorder.
• While hypersomnia is mentioned near the beginning, it's a very generalized term that describes a symptom of many disorders. It fails to represent the debilitating nature of hypersomnia (more commonly known as excessive daytime sleepiness) associated with narcolepsy. Additionally, it may be mistaken for idiopathic hypersomnia, a similar but distinct disorder that also causes excessive daytime sleepiness.
• Harriet Tubman's hallucinations were likely hypnagogic hallucinations or hypnopompic hallucinations, another common and often misunderstood symptom of narcolepsy.
• Narcolepsy is known to occur after traumatic brain injuries, and this manifestation even has a specific term: post-traumatic narcolepsy.

— Suddenlysleepy.kana (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrospective diagnosis of long-deceased historical people is difficult at best. We could mention that narcolepsy is considered a possibility by some, which is definitely true, but confirming it as her definite condition goes beyond what the best sources agree about. A brief profile on a history website is not a strong source in comparison to respected book-length biographies, so we should not treat that source from the narcolepsy list as authoritative. --RL0919 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

Her nickname was 'Back Moses' not 'Moses'. Robinrickyferr (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:

Robinrickyferr raises an valid point. The use of the name "Black Moses" seems well attested (though not to the exclusion of "Moses") - including in some of the major references used in the article. Sernett (2007) refers to it extensively; as it seems also does Larson (2004)(see Erica Renee Edwards, Charisma and the Fictions of Black Leadership (Minnesota Univ Press, 2012) p215 "Note, for example, common references to Harriet Tubman as "Black Moses" or "Moses of her people". See Kate Clifford Larson, Bound for the promised Land....")

I do not have access to most of these references, so I hope that an editor that does, and is able to put this in context, will consider this. Davidships (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman: slave who escaped to freedom and helped other slaves to escape

Harriet Tubman was born into slavery on a plantation in the American South.Her ancestors had been brought to America from Africa during the first half of the 18th century.ln 1849 she ran away from the plantation in the middle of the night.She bravely followed the North Star to free land in Pennsylvania.As a slave, Harriet suffered many hardships.She was regularly beaten and whipped.At the age of twelve, while working in the fields, she was hit on on the head with a piece of iron and the injury affected her for the rest of her life.At the age of 25, Harriet married John Tubman,a free black American.She dreamed of going north where she would be free.But,her husband did not want to move.Harriet decided to leave her husband.she asked for the help of the Underground Railroad and decided to escape to the After her escape, Harriet soon realised how alone she was.so she decided to help her family and friends get their freedom as well.she found house work and saved money to pay for rescue trip.she became involved with the abolitionist movement.she also became an organiser of the Underground Railroad.Harriet became well known among slaves and slave owners alike. the southern slave owners did not want her to succeed and they offered a $40,000 reward for her capture However, Harriet did not stop helping other slaves gain their freedom and she never got caught 41.113.186.196 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is it always changing?

My students are getting confused messages 104.158.246.5 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the article generally, some change is typical for Wikipedia articles, especially ones on popular topics. If you mean some specific piece of information in the article, you'll need to explain more clearly. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy or distortion

One sentence in this article reads: "She sang a coded song to Mary, a trusted fellow enslaved person, that was a farewell. "I'll meet you in the morning", she intoned, "I'm bound for the promised land." If one goes to the source for that claim -- Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman by Sarah Hopkins Bradford -- and reads the account given there, it becomes clear that Tubman reportedly sang this song to a group of people -- and even to her slave owner! -- because she wanted to give "an intimation," a hint, that she was planning to escape that night. Yes, her song had more than one meaning, but that doesn't make it a coded song used by a slave to clearly send a clear message to another, trusted slave. A hint broadcast to anyone listening is not a clear, coded message to any one individual. 192.208.157.97 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the idea of "coded" is that you can put it in public, but only some people will understand it. But in any case this is anecdotal detail from a single source, so if the interpretation of the material is questionable, it can easily be removed without causing any significant harm to the article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The more I look at this section of the article, the more problems I see. For example: "... Tubman made use of the network known as the Underground Railroad. This informal but well-organized system was composed of free and enslaved Black people, white abolitionists, and other activists." In fact, the Underground Railroad was not well organized any more than the song Tubman reportedly sang was a coded message. See, for example, the National Geographic source I'm linking: "Contemporary scholarship has shown that most of those who participated in the Underground Railroad largely worked alone, rather than as part of an organized group." (https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/underground-railroad)

Similarly, a college webpage on the Underground Railroad describes it as " a semi-organized system of aiding slaves in escaping" and states: "It is clear that the Underground Railroad was neither a highly organized system with visibly defined routes and stations to assist escaping slaves, nor a system that remained in place over many years. Instead, it was a loose collection of local efforts, mostly in the North, to help fugitive blacks who began the journey from slavery to freedom." (https://www.hilbert.edu/social-justice-activists/underground-railroad)

Finally, a third source from the Indiana government pages quotes Wilbur Siebert, the early chronicler of the Underground Railroad: "It is quite apparent that the Underground Railroad was not a formal organization. ... The need of organization was not felt except in a few localities." (https://www.in.gov/history/for-educators/all-resources-for-educators/resources/underground-railroad/bury-me-in-a-free-land-the-abolitionist-movement-in-indiana-by-gwen-crenshaw/the-underground-railroad/)

I could provide many more sources attesting to the loosely structured nature of the Underground Railroad.

Maybe the errors of fact that I see in this section of the article lie with the non-expert author(s) of this section who overreach and make claims that simply are not supported by the sources that they identify.98.251.225.38 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

In this case the text is mostly following the cited source, Kate Larson's 2004 biography of Tubman, which describes the Underground Railroad as becoming "increasingly organized" and "more organized". But those are relative terms (more organized than what previous state?) that don't necessarily equate to "well-organized", and the question of exactly how organized it was at that specific moment doesn't seem particularly critical to what is being described. So I removed that specific phrase along with changes to address the first issue you raised above. --RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman's achievements

she almost ended slavery and helped hundreds of slaves escape. on fact about her is she was a strong fierce woman. Jomama the original (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

Under "Childhood":

There is some speculation that she may have had narcolepsy. "Narcolepsy is a chronic neurological condition that impairs the brain’s ability to regulate the sleep-wake cycle. Tubman’s sudden sleep attacks may have been due to excessive daytime sleepiness, one of the main symptoms of narcolepsy."

It can happen due to a head injury and it could explain her vivid dreams and visions.

"'… she would wake up from these sleeping spells having had visions—visions that she reported came directly from God that would tell her what to do and where to go.'

—Historian Erica Armstrong Dunba, Oprah Magazine"

Curious Observers (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Sort of done. I've added a mention of the possibility using a respectable biography as the source. Websites and popular magazines are not the kind of sources we prefer for biographical information in a featured article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Revisionism

Wayfarer7575 has recently gone through this article and purged it of a number of terms which they claim are not sufficiently "people-centred". Replacements include:

• slaves -> enslaved people
• masters/owners/slaveholders -> enslavers
• fugitives -> escapees

The replaced terms are neutral and uncontroversial, and there is no reason why we should impact the readability of the article by excising them. The concept of "people-centred language" is to a large extent flawed and unhelpful, and it does not form a part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Zacwill (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not "revisionist" to update some of this language. While I haven't heard the term "people-centred", the rationale I've heard is about recognizing the basic humanity of the people who were trafficked and enslaved. Calling someone a "master" or "owner" of another human being is not neutral. The move towards updating the language is that simply calling people "slaves" rather than synonymous phrasings such as "people who were enslaved" is that the former can imply that that is somehow their sole identity and/or natural state of being. There is fairly wide acceptance on the 'pedia for updating these terms. I support the edits, in general, but will go through and fix any typos and see about possibly varying the language a bit for flow. I strongly suggest that you do not edit war over this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The terms 'slave' and 'enslaved person' mean the same thing in English and have for a long time, so I have no particular concern about which of those terms is used. I agree that 'enslaver' is better than 'master' or 'owner', although in some contexts the legal distinction of 'owner' might be relevant. (I don't see how 'slaveholder' is any worse or better than 'enslaver'.) One term I do not like in the recent changes is 'escapee', which obscures the fact that these people were considered fugitives from the law, subject to being captured and returned even when they were is places where slavery was not practiced. --RL0919 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

In some cases I changed a term to a synonym simply to avoid repetitive text. If there were reasons to clarify legalities or similar exceptions, I left those alone. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The language is unfamiliar to many of us, but probably a positive step. We should be equally people centred and change the loaded term ‘slave trader’ to ‘merchant who dealt in slaves as well as other commodities’, Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Make that ‘merchant who traded in enslaved people and other commodities’. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to people as commodities. Calling someone a slave occasionally is acceptable, depending on context, as long as we use other phrasings as well that center their humanity. I think calling someone a slaver is fine - it's an action they are taking. From an editorial pov - for the best flow we should be using a variety of terms and not being too redundant. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article no longer meets the featured article criteria. Reference errors are uncorrected. Both the first and last paragraphs are unsourced. Revisionist language has resulted in imprecision and tortured prose. Since attempts at correction are reverted, I will not be assisting in this article's rescue. If the issues are not addressed, the article will be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Salem Chapel

I have tried to improve this article by adding the following information. Unfortunately, good faith isn’t enough. Should anyone want to tackle it, here is what I tried to contribute:

Nicknamed "Moses" section From 1851 to 1862, Tubman lived in St. Catharines, Ontario, a major terminus of the Underground Railroad and center of abolitionist work.[68][69] Refugees from the United States were told by Tubman and other conductors to make their way to St. Catharines, once they had crossed the border, and go to the Salem Chapel (earlier known as Bethel Chapel). There, community members would help them settle into a new life in Canada.[70]

Legacy section The Salem Chapel in St. Catharines, Ontario is a special place for Black Canadians. Tubman worshipped there while living in the town. The building was erected in 1855 by some of those who had escaped slavery in the United States.[70] It was designated a National Historic Site in 1999, on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.[177] Renovations are in progress and should be completed in 2023, guided by some descendants of those who found freedom in British territory. However, Tubman’s descendants live in British Columbia.[178]

• Baig, Fakiha (24 February 2023). "Ontario church that Tubman attended gets upgrades, to soon reopen for tours". The Canadian Press. Toronto. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
• Baig, Fakiha (26 February 2023). "Ontario church that Tubman attended gets upgrades, to soon reopen for tours". Times Colonist. Victoria. Retrieved 26 February 2023.

I came across another story about Tubman’s time in Canada. https://www.grunge.com/273779/the-truth-about-harriet-tubmans-connection-to-canada/ I haven’t added it because I am uncertain of the source. Perhaps there are other articles which say something about Tubman house.

BEFORE MY EDITS: In southern Ontario, the Salem Chapel BME Church was designated a National Historic Site in 1999, on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.[174] The chapel in St. Catharines, Ontario was a focus of Tubman's years in the city, when she lived nearby, in what was a major terminus of the Underground Railroad and center of abolitionist work. In Tubman's time, the chapel was known as Bethel Chapel, and was part of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, prior to a change to the British Methodist Episcopal Church in 1856.[175] Tubman herself was designated a National Historic Person after the Historic Sites and Monuments Board recommended it in 2005.[176] Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of many edits by DrKay

I respectfully request an explanation of your action on March 1, DrKay (talk · contribs). “Too many poor changes to undo one by one” is an insult to editors who have spent several hours improving the article in good faith. You have not discussed that disrespectful comment on the Talk page. By failing to deal promptly with your concerns for a 10 day period, you have affected the work of five editors— Rkieferbaum (talk · contribs), CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs), Wayfarer7575 (talk · contribs), Zacwill (talk · contribs), Humphrey Tribble (talk · contribs)— and have not even had the courtesy to address each editor. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to restore your paragraph but was unable to because there was a harv and sfn multiple target error. You can't have two references called the same thing. When you restore your paragraph, please ensure you distinguish between the two Baig 2023 references DrKay (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay:, I'm sorry but I've reverted you; you reverted too many of us with that undo. @Humphrey Tribble: please fix the citation errors DrKay lists above. While I can see wanting to adjust some of the text Humphrey Tribble added, a wholesale revert of several of us who've been discussing this here on talk is a bit much. As for the language around slavery and the humanity of those who were enslaved and trafficked, I stand by the reasons I gave above for updating the language. Simply referring to people as the "owners" of other human beings is outdated and demeaning. There's no reason to revert to that stuff. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the ‘multiple target’ reference errors; at least I think they are fixed. In the process, I noticed that reference types in this article seem to be quite a mixture. So any more adjusting is beyond my experience level. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I fully support DrKay's reversion for the reasons I outlined in my initial comment. The language of "owners" and "slaves" accurately reflects the state of affairs that existed during Tubman's lifetime and does not need to be "updated". If these terms seem demeaning to us, it's only because chattel slavery is an inherently demeaning system. It makes us uncomfortable to see human beings talked about as if they were property, but slaves were property according to US law. Obscuring this fact by messing around with language could even be interpreted as whitewashing.

Humphrey's edits may be worth keeping, but they should be made to the original, unrevised article. Zacwill (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Whitewashing would be to cover up that slavery happened, or to minimize or deny the horrors of slavery. We should accurately describe the human rights violations of slavery and human trafficking. The choice to describe someone as having been enslaved as opposed to simply defining that person as "a slave" is a psychological difference. I don't see how it in any way minimimizes the horror. I would posit that describing a human being as someone who was enslaved, captured and forced into slavery, or trafficked, centers their humanity in a way that makes what was done to them more horrific, rather than less. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

DrKay responded with the following comment in a new discussion. “This article no longer meets the featured article criteria. Reference errors are uncorrected. Both the first and last paragraphs are unsourced. Revisionist language has resulted in imprecision and tortured prose. Since attempts at correction are reverted, I will not be assisting in this article's rescue. If the issues are not addressed, the article will be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)”

When I came across new information which I thought was relevant, I wasn’t aware it required more caution than other articles. I regret my inability to modify references quickly enough to suit. (I know nothing of unsourced paragraphs or language issues.) To avoid offending further, I want to withdraw the new information. For reference, I have stored it as a discussion topic called Salem Chapel. However, I fear an attempt to reverse my edits will only complicate matters and incur further disapprobation. Consequently, I’m forced to plead that it be rolled back when the other issues have been resolved. I apologize for my inexperience. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone have Oertel

Does anyone have a copy of Oertel, or the ability to read pgs 79–81? I'm trying to reconcile the paragraph on the 1869 train car incident with the coverage in Sernett, and getting some gaps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have Oertel, and several other sources that cover this incident, and the details were definitely mangled in our article, including all of the following issues:

• This was in 1865, not 1869.
• She was in a regular car on a half-price ticket, not in a half-price section.
• The idea that she showed "government-issued papers that entitled her to ride there" seems to be a fiction manufactured from the idea that "there" was the also-fictional "half-price section".
• The conductor called additional "men" to assist him, but I did not see a source that says these were passengers. At least one source said these were other conductors; most do not specify.
• The number of men who helped varies in different sources; sometimes it is two, sometimes three. (The oldest secondary source, Bradford, says three, but she is known to exaggerate.)
• Her arm was injured but not broken. Even Bradford only says that Tubman "supposed" it was broken. What other injuries she sustained and exactly how the fight progressed varies among the sources.
• Most sources say she was taken to a smoking car, a few say a baggage car. From reading unrelated sources about 19th-century train travel, I think this confusion is because in that era the "smoking car" was also a baggage car – men who wanted to smoke tobacco would be directed to the first car behind the engine, which contained only baggage and "undesirable" passengers because the car was contaminated by fumes from the coal-burning engine.
• Sources say other passengers cursed and called for Tubman to be ejected; I did not see one that said they "shouted".
• I don't know why page 232 of Sernett is cited at the end of the paragraph. This could be a typo for 132, which is the page where this story appears in the Kindle edition. But the Kindle edition isn't the one used in most of the citations – in the edition listed in the sources, this story is on page 94, which is used in the earlier citation. So that citation seems to be mistaken either way, but I've left it for now in case someone thinks there is something relevant on page 232.

I've gone ahead and edited the passage accordingly. Some additional citations should be provided for sources that give details that aren't in Sernett, but it's bedtime so I will need to circle back on that. --RL0919 (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think 232 was cited as a failed attempt to support "Her act of defiance became a historical symbol, later cited when Rosa Parks refused to move from a bus seat in 1955." It does have content on Parks' legacy, but it's not at all about the train incident. If Oertel doesn't connect Parks with the train, we should remove the line. Thanks for the other fixes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oertel does mention the train incident and Rosa Parks in the same paragraph, but I don't believe she establishes the connection the article is claiming. Here is what she says: "Tubman might have been beaten on that train back to New York, but she was not defeated, nor was she alone in her fight to maintain her dignity and ride in a 'ladies' train car. Other well-known black women like Sojourner Truth and Ida B. Wells resisted removal from segregated streetcars and trains in the nineteenth century, almost a century before Rosa Parks most famously refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama." There is nothing in this (or any other source that I've seen) that says the Tubman incident was "cited" as a "historical symbol" at the time of Parks' arrest. I concur with removing that sentence from the article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Exaggeration: “first woman to lead an armed assault”

“Serving as a key adviser” and leading an assault are not the same thing. It isn’t credible that a black woman who held no military rank would lead an infantry regiment. It sounds to me as if Col. Montgomery was the leader of the operation. Further, “guiding steamboats” is the task of a river pilot, not the leader of the assault. Without digging into the references to review her exact role, I think the word “lead” must be qualified at the very least. Tubman’s accomplishments are significant. They don’t need to be cheapened by implying something else. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I lean toward thinking the current language is warranted, but I'm just getting my feet wet in the sources. The main citation used is Larson, and you can read it with a free OpenLibrary account at this link (starting at p. 212); it says "first woman to plan and execute an armed expedition during the Civil War" and that she "led a raid". Humphrey Tribble, whatever happens, thanks for reviewing the article with a critical eye. You may have already seen it, but a review of this article's Featured Article status has just begun, and your comments there would be welcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I fear my eye is too critical for Wikipedia, Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) I acknowledge the length of this post but I am a believe in full documentation. Recording my reasoning here saves other editors from having to repeat the time it took me to reach a conclusion.

Yes, the book says that. That seems to be Larson’s opinion at that point. But other statements in the book seem contrary.

It’s fine if the article tells readers “Larson says she led a raid” or “a reporter from the Wisconsin State Journal described her as the black woman who led the raid.”

I don’t know how Clinton and Humez describe her role. If they agree then the article can say that “modern historians consider that she planned and led the raid”. In that case, it should also state that Montgomery was NOT the leader of the raid, or at least demote him co-leader. But the military being what it is, one or the other was likely senior.

Here is how I interpret the descriptions in Larson’s book. Any errors in the wording from the book are due to my transposition. Plus what I think can be considered “own work”, of course.

The book also says that Harriet stood with Montgomery and another officer in the lead boat… with Walter Plowden, the local scout who helped direct the ships around the mines.

So her role as a “pilot“ is also questionable.

“Under Tubman‘s leadership…

she is credited with a leadership role. But I don’t think she was The Leader of the operation.

Montgomery landed with some of his black troops…

Montgomery made his way tocome but he ferry…

Montgomery ordered the whistle blown…

Montgomery sent small boats to the riverbanks

this is all about Montgomery, not Tubman.

Montgomery… urged Tubman to encourage the people to stay calm…

Tubman “sung to them“. … the people on the banks started singing… and the evacuation continued safely until Montgomery had brought away…

there is ample evidence that Tubman was a small L leader but, again, Montgomery was a co-leader at the very least.

The next day Montgomery delivered an address to them, which was followed by a speech from Tubman, “ ‘the black woman who led the raid,’ a reporter from the Wisconsin State Journal…wrote” and under whose supervision it was originated and conducted

Montgomery and his gallant band… under the guidance of a black woman

This seems to be the only support, still tenuous in my opinion, for saying that Tubman planned and led the raid. But that is weakened by the second quotation which says the raid was conducted by Montgomery under the “guidance” of Tubman. That is more what we might call a “technical advisor,” someone with special knowledge who is taken on an operation.

Tubman… dictated a letter asking if “we coloured people are entitled to some credit for that exploit, under the lead of the brave Colonel Montgomery?

From a military standpoint, it was a productive raid for Montgomery, too.…Under Montgomery’s command, Tubman perform some of “her best service…“

Here, Tubman acknowledges that Montgomery was the leader

Webster… was charged with selling Tubman sugar and also selling sugar to Plowden, Tubman’s fellow scout and spy

this calls her a scout and a spy; significant but not running the show

On June 5 Montgomery led his regiment down the coast… Tubman stayed behind

So she had no ongoing role. It was HIS regiment.

“In our late expedition up the Combahee river…Tubman had followed the regiments…probably there as a nurse and cook, but perhaps even as a scout”

… meeting Tubman at the hospital when she was assigned by Montgomery to provide nursing

clearly Montgomery was senior.

Garrison stressed Tubman‘s “value as not only a scout and spy, but also a nurse, laundress, and cook.“

not as a planner and leader

Getting paid… She was not a soldier, officially, and her on again off again role as a scout and spy made consistent payment for her services unlikely.

She wasn’t a member of the military, nor was she a member of a paramilitary organization, so how could she lead the military operation?

Finally, perhaps the article relies on Larson too much. Biographers tend to become enamoured of their subject.

I will consider whether I can contribute something to the review. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this the only source that supports the claim? It's a fairly broad assertion and personally I've seen many sources you'd think were RS get similar claims wrong. So, I'd like to see multiple sources supporting it. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Some comments from other sources (I'm giving short refs for sources already used in the article):

• Humez 2003 says, "Montgomery led the famous Combahee River Raid the following June, with Tubman’s very substantial help". Specifically, she says "Tubman directed the advance spying activities of the scouts, and together they determined where the Confederate forces had placed torpedoes. She and 'several men under her' were on the lead gunboat with Colonel Montgomery, helping to pilot the Union boats safely. She also played a central role in persuading the frightened contrabands to come aboard the alien boats."
• Clinton 2004 doesn't explicitly ascribe leadership to anyone, but in describing the planning says that "Tubman reassured [General David Hunter] that if Montgomery prepared the troops, she and her scouts would take care of the rest", and in describing the aftermath says, "Official military reports credited Montgomery with the Combahee River Raid's triumph, yet soldiers recognized this victory as Harriet Tubman's."
• Sernett 2007 gives a long historiographic account about "Tubman's reputation as 'General Tubman'", which he says is based mostly on this raid. He has several pages of quotes from various earlier sources that describe Tubman as a leader in the expedition and sometimes as the leader in rather exaggerated terms. There's no easy summary quote that I found. Overall it seems that he thinks the "General Tubman" appellation is overstated, but she did have an important role in planning and carrying out the raid.
• Oertel 2015 says "during the Civil War, she and Colonel James Montgomery led a raid up the Combahee River" and later mentions "how many accolades both Tubman and Montgomery would receive because of their leadership".
• Looking outside the sources already in the article, I found Salo, Edward (Fall 2014). "The Combahee Ferry Raid and Efforts to Preserve and Interpret the Raid". Journal of America's Military Past. 39 (3): 29–43., which says the raid "was co-led by Harriet Tubman and Col. James Montgomery".
• From Malanowski, Jamie (April 2015). "The Underappreciated and Forgotten Sites of the Civil War". Smithsonian. Vol. 46, no. 1., which says, "The mission was conceived and led, at least in part, by Harriet Tubman, which made her the first woman in U.S. history to plan and lead a military raid."
• From Chism, Kahlil (March 2005). "Harriet Tubman: Spy, Veteran, and Widow". OAH Magazine of History. Vol. 19, no. 2. pp. 47–51.: "Harriet Tubman became the first woman to lead a group of U.S. soldiers into combat during Colonel Montgomery's Combahee River campaign."

Those last two are not peer reviewed, but they are history magazines, not general interest publications. There are a lot more sources that make some mention, but they are either less relevant publications or in a context where it is unlikely the assertion would have been questioned. --RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks RL0919. Given the sourcing, do you think the current article text is supported? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to get the full current wording into the record of the discussion, it current says this in the lead: "The first woman to lead an armed expedition in the war, she guided the raid at Combahee Ferry, which liberated more than 700 slaves." Based on what I've found in the sources, this seems to be stated too categorically. It would summarize the sources better to say, "For her planning and guidance of the raid at Combahee Ferry, which liberated more than 700 slaves, some historians have credited her as the first woman to lead U.S. soldiers into combat." The corresponding text in the body should be similarly revised and expanded to explain the interpretation of her role. --RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Some" is a weasel word. Name 1 other American woman who led US soldiers into combat before Harriet Tubman. You are disputing that Harriet Tubman was the first without disputing the evidence. That's like saying, some people think RL0919 is a human being. Private Person (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming she did lead it, which is one of the points that isn't necessarily agreed to among the sources. Sernett has several paragraphs of discussion about what it means to lead a combat mission, whether she did, and if she did whether she was the first US woman to do so. One alternative for the claim, for example, is Mrs. Turchin, the wife of an officer who reportedly led his troops when he was ill in 1862. In any case, you are welcome to propose alternative wording that doesn't overstate what is in the sources. --RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Who is Mrs. Turchin? I'm interested in your sources. What you seem to be describing is not the same thing. Tubman was accepted as an actual official agent of the US Army. That is very different from the kind of civilian action you seem to be describing. Private Person (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The specific source on that point is the book Harriet Tubman: Myth, Memory, and History by Milton Sernett, a historian who specializes in African-American history. This is one of the few sources that explicitly interrogates the question of what it means to say Tubman "led" the raid and if she did, what it means to say she was the "first" woman to do something like that. I don't think anyone doubts that she is frequently described this way, but most of that is people who aren't deep specialists on the subject just repeating something that sounds impressive. We need to be looking at the sources where specialists are likely to be taking these questions seriously, and try to craft the wording of our article to reflect a consensus of the best sources. --RL0919 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your confusion about the matter, you'd probably benefit from reading this article:

https://aadl.org/node/193017

I know that Black history is not your expertise. Do know something about what you're talking. Don't make edits without knowing what you're talking about. It's history - people know it without fighting over it all the time. In other places, it's glorifiable. You're making it seem pathetic. How you can do that to a slave - no one knows. Those were the most courageous people in history. Private Person (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Above I have given a list of multiple sources, most of them books and articles written by academics, plus a couple of articles from history-focused magazines. These are the types of high-quality sources that we want to use when possible. Articles from local underground newspapers are not the best sources for us to use. There is not any recent editing of the article on this particular point. Rather, I and the other editors in this thread are discussing what would be the best representation of the views in these high-quality sources. A proposed wording for that may not be perfect, in which case there can be multiple options explored before we (hopefully) agree on what to do in the article text. None of that is "confusion"; it is a discourse in which you need to be willing to consider the possibility that what you have heard in the past is not the consensus of academic specialists on the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. "Some" in the lead is fine as long as we're clear in the body who is making those statements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

THE TRUTH ABOUT HARRIET TUBMAN'S CONNECTION TO CANADA

I came across this story about her time in Canada. https://www.grunge.com/273779/the-truth-about-harriet-tubmans-connection-to-canada/ I haven’t added it because I am uncertain of the source. Perhaps there are other articles which say something about Tubman house but I am out of research energy. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Wasn’t she born on Maryland on the south of America 🇺🇸? 77.221.98.70 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think 77.221.98.70 (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, she was born in Maryland, as it says in the article. The comment above was not suggesting that she was born in Canada. It was related to the fact that she lived there for a few years after she escaped from slavery. --RL0919 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Revolutionary

An editor has added "revolutionary" to the lead's description of Tubman. There is no content supporting this in the body text. Two sources are provided for this in the lead itself:

• One is Maryland Today – from the name, you might think this was a newspaper or magazine, but actually it is a newsletter from the University of Maryland's PR department. Such a source could be acceptable for information about when a new building was opened on campus or if a faculty member got a promotion, but it is not a reliable source for the interpretation of historical figures.
• The other source is the website of the New York State Nurses Association, a labor union for nurses. We might accept their website for self-reporting on their own activities, such as their position in a contract dispute, but they have even less claim to expertise on history than the university PR dept.

Does anyone have better sources to support this description? RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• • I haven't seen any good ones. Unless they pop up soon, I do intend to revert the addition of "revolutionary". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the lack of further response for a week, I assume should we move forward on this? --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You assumed right! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Citations and inflation

RL0919, could you place all of the "equivalent to" citations inside the parens? Eg

• Because they were hired out, Eliza Brodess probably did not recognize their absence as an escape attempt for some time. Two weeks later, she posted a runaway notice in the Cambridge Democrat, offering a reward of up to US$100 each (equivalent to $3,520 in 2022) for their capture and return to slavery.[44][54]
  • Because they were hired out, Eliza Brodess probably did not recognize their absence as an escape attempt for some time. Two weeks later, she posted a runaway notice in the Cambridge Democrat, offering a reward of up to US$100 each (equivalent to $3,520 in 2022[44]) for their capture and return to slavery.[54]

Or I could make those changes as I simultaneously use a harvid to fix the Federal Reserve citation to include the publisher (tricky to do). Pls let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

All moved as requested. --RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Great; and fixed the missing publisher by using a ref = harvid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

§Legacy inclusion criteria

Per some feedback at the Featured article review, I'm thinking we'll be better off if we can have some consensus on what should be included in the Legacy section. RL0919 has proposed including only works where the creator or the work itself are notable. I'm in favor. Any other thoughts/proposals? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The notability bar on Wikipedia is very low, and I fear that won't be enough. For an example of all the notable cruft I've kept out of Tourette syndrome over the years, see Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome; it's all notable. If you start naming individuals or works or places only based on notability, it's endless. I don't yet have suggestions for how to contain that cruft in this case; will follow to see if anyone has ideas I can endorse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Oof. My only other thoughts is "mentioned in a book or journal article about Tubman", but it's pretty restrictive and non-responsive to new, major works. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You may be on to something; a "new, major work" would eventually be mentioned in a book or journal article ... but what if we add something like internationally recognized news source like The New York Times, the BBC, and similar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have worked on articles where this sort of thing was an issue, but in this case I think the concern is premature. The actual amount of artistic content about her is far less than the example above, probably because Harriet Tubman is not a condition that any random actor can mimic. There has been one notable theatrical movie about her since the invention of movies. --RL0919 (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, all that understood, but still. One thing we did at J K Rowling was take a hard look at the most recent, highest quality (journal) sources. In this case, we have Hobson 2022, and Larson 2022. They should be (?) summarizing the most important parts of her legacy; if older sources are needed for other items, do we need them in this overview article (as opposed to the sub-article)? Regarding new legacy items post-2022 book or journal publications, the only 2023 source is this -- not the highest quality source, and to forestall future problems, we might replace it with something like NPR. In other words, is it possible to include in Legacy generally that which Hobson and Larson include (recognizing there may be sporadic exceptions, to be discussed), and then hold strict to highest quality sources on post-2022 additions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Unsure what this NYT "Newsletter" is ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

After "sleeping on it" as they say, I still don't see any immediate need for a standard stricter than "the artist or work mentioned must be notable", perhaps combined with "we don't usually provide extended details". Even that will need to be policed, because most people who come to add things won't ever look at the Talk page. But it is easy to explain and unless there is a significant increase in the amount of cultural product about Tubman, it should keep the expansion very limited. The thing that bloated the section before was the greater level of detail given about individual items and the inclusion of non-notable ones. And we can revisit the standard in the future if the number of notable examples does become excessive. --RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Occupation

There are two major occupations that are not listed for Mrs. Tubman. Slave and conductor on the underground railroad. I looked up the term occupation it does not define the terms of servitude in the realms of forced or unforced labor. Even if you choose not to include conductor on the UGRR that's a glossing of history. You say she is known for bringing slaves to freedom. She did exactly that with support of William Still and the UGRR 2600:1002:B04C:F02C:B0E3:8B6B:692:9893 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about what is in the infobox. "Slave" is a status, not an occupation. In theory we could list some of the work she was ordered to do during her enslavement, but these are incompletely documented and I would say not important enough to include in the infobox. The occupation listing in the box is not intended to include every insignificant menial job a person did in their lifetime. On the other hand, her efforts with the Underground Railroad are definitely important. The question there would be whether this series of unpaid rescue projects should be considered an "occupation". --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Harriet Tubman lead 700+ slaves to freedom, NOT 70 this article is stating. That is incorrect, misleading and false information. 2601:249:8081:96D0:2CAD:1C06:DDA6:9033 (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The number given in the article is based on modern academic sources, which also explain that the early biographies of Tubman exaggerated the numbers. If you want to change it, please show high-quality modern sources supporting the higher number. --RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Under American Civil War, 'began' is repeated. "More immediately, enslaved people near Union positions began began escaping in large numbers." Edit request to remove one 'began.' 2sun (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)