Talk:Bailey v. Alabama

landmark case?
Any sources? Any particular reason this is listed under landmark cases? Lack of information, grammar, etc. Needs to be cleaned up badly! --Racei 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The source is New International Encyclopedia which was first published about 1902 in New York City. Another edition was published after the Supreme Court case of 1911, which makes the second edition the source of the information.  The second edition was printed around 1914 to 1917.


 * Every time that the Federal Government destroys the laws of one of the States, it produces a "landmark case." Alonzo Bailey and Dred Scott were weaklings caught in the ongoing struggle between the central government and the individual States.  TooPotato 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a strange definition of "landmark case", and I'm not sure what it means to "destroy" a law -- declare unconstitutional? in part? or only in whole? reinterpret? "Destroy" suggests some confusion about statutory interpretation and constitutional law.


 * As for whether this is a "landmark case", a single assessment of a case, done when it was only three years old, is not a very good source. Landmark is a historical assessment of the lasting significance and impact of a case. This case has only been cited 14 times in total -- a remarkably tiny number for a 100-year-old US Supreme Court case, and making it probably one of the least-cited US Supreme Court cases. Some other criteria or citation for "landmark status" would be helpful -- a discussion of the peonage laws, for instance. --lquilter 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the only reason this decision is deemed "landmark" is that it is included in a few law school casebooks. I haven't taken the time to read the full decisions, so I can't add much to the article yet. This article still needs a lot of work. I'll see what I can do this week on it. Andyparkerson 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Negro" and "African American"
There appears to be some confusion over the use of the term "negro". Naming conventions (identity) makes it clear that "African American" is the appropriate term. (1) Under "Self=identification" it says use the terminology the entity or group prefers; "negro" is not the preferred term today for African Americans. (2) Under "Be specific" it says use adjectives not nouns; "negro" was being used in the article as a noun. (3) Under "Ethnic and national identities" it says to "avoid outdated terms when describing people"; "negro" is outdated. --lquilter 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. If someone wants to make a case for "negro," I welcome the discussion. Simply reverting "AA" to "negro" and calling it vandalism is not discussion. If you want it to say "negro," make a case here for it. Defend your stance. Andyparkerson 08:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User 70.23.*.* continues to revert with no discussion other than unsupported assertions in edit summaries. The fact that "negro" was the contemporary term does not mean that it is the appropriate term to use in the article. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) which states not to use "outdated terms". Throughout wikipedia we use contemporary (meaning our contemporary) English; not the spelling or terminology of the relevant period of time. --lquilter 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from being highly misleading, the term "African American" only came into wide use by the media, followed by educators, and then among the middle and upper classes following pressure that exerted, beginning circa 1989, by a small group of political figures, such as Jesse Jackson (many activists prefer the term "African"). It is not even clear that most American blacks prefer this term, but just as intimidation was used, in order to impose it, intimidation is today used against anyone who would question its popularity.


 * (Considering that as currently used, the term "African American" refers to someone who has never set foot in Africa, what are we to call people who actually have lived in both places? We can't say "African American," even though they are the only people with a legitimate claim to the title, since the term has been corrupted, and listeners would thus assume we were speaking of someone who'd lived his entire life in the States. And if you talk to real Africans, as I have, you'll find them contemptuous of the term.)


 * From the early-to-mid-1970s, pressure was exerted by certain political figures to use the term "black." Millions of black Americans, as well as millions of their white fellow citizens still use this term (the use of "African-American" is often a class marker, among blacks and whites alike). Prior to the imposition of the term "black," ordinary blacks and whites alike used the term "colored" in polite conversation; the press, politicians, and the upper classes used the term "Negro," which prior to a pressure campaign launched circa 1903 by W.E.B. DuBois, was written "negro," just as "white" was and still is written.


 * Bailey v. Alabama is a 99-year-old case. To use a term that was imposed, beginning circa 1989, to describe the plaintiff, does violence to historical understanding, suggesting as it does that the term was in use in 1908, and indeed, that it was always in use.
 * 70.23.199.239 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Supreme Court decisions (majority and minority), the term "negro" is used once, and "black" is used twice. If you wanted to use the terminology prevalant at the time of the decision, a better case could be made for "black" than "negro." Of course there is no good reason why we should use a term prevalent at the time. While Bailey v. Alabama might be a 99 year old case, Wikipedia is not a 99 year old encyclopedia. It is therefore proper and correct to use current terminology and language. Otherwise any article on the Pyramids of Egypt would be written in hieroglyphics, any article on Beowulf would be written in Middle English, and any article on the Cherokee Nation would be rife with the plight of the "savages." Andyparkerson 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this article, which bears on my statement above. I added the boldfaced type, to help the reader see my (and Thulani Davis’) point.

“Maybe Joyner was so concerned because, in 2000, he became partners with Gates and McDonald's in a deal to sell black history booklets with the purchase of a meal. A tie-in with Scholastic produced a teacher's curriculum guide, sent to nearly 18,000 high schools, distributed by Coca-Cola. McDonald's announced at the time that both Joyner and Gates were serving as national spokesmen for the promotion….

“Gates has long been quietly referred to as the Booker T. Washington of our time. Not because it's an easy tag, but because he functions in the academic world exactly as Washington did on an even larger stage 100 years ago. Washington, the most famous Negro of his day, got a phone call any time one of his brothers was on the way up. He could make or break opportunities and was so powerful that even DuBois sought his good graces early on in his career.”

Thulani Davis, “Spinning Race at Harvard The Business Behind the Gates-West Power Play,” Village Voice, January 16-22, 2002.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0203/davis.php

Thulani Davis, a prominent investigative reporter at the Village Voice, which is hardly known as a bastion of backwardness, typically uses “black” (she uses “African-American” only once in the story in question) in referring to contemporary blacks, but switches to “Negro,” in discussing the case of Booker T. Washington and his era, which was the era of Bailey v. Alabama.

Regarding Andyparkerson's statement from earlier today, "black" was not typical usage for the time. And his statement employs a false analogy regarding Egyptian hieroglyphics. As for Middle English, an encylopedia article on Beowulf that did not use some Middle English would be highly suspect, as would an article on literature in any other language or dialect that was written entirely in contemporary English (or rather, the contemporary English that certain people in certain venues are able to impose on the rest of us). And yes, to be credible, an encyclopedia article on the ancient pyramids must include examples of Egyptian hieroglyphics. 70.23.199.239 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good for Thulani Davis. She is free to do whatever she wishes to do at the Village Voice. There is a big difference between an encyclopedia and an alternative weekly. To say that because it occurs in one that it is fit for the other is rediculous. As for "black" not being typical usage, the Supreme Court decisions use it more than the word "negro" (twice vs. once). As this is an article on a Supreme Court decision, that should be proof enough for "black" being typical usage in this context. But again typical usage, contemporaneous usage, prevalent usage, doesn't matter at all. You are not using examples of contemporaneous language to prove some point. You are trying to substitute outdated words for modern ones. The naming conventions laid out at Wikipedia say that the encyclopdia should use whatever word or phrase is currently accepted. "Negro" is not currently accepted. "African American," and to a lesser extent "black," is. Andyparkerson 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * “There is a big difference between an encyclopedia and an alternative weekly.”


 * The Village Voice was founded over 50 years ago as an alternative newspaper. It ceased being alternative, and became establishment media over 20 years ago. (In the mid-1990s, even the Voice scoffed, when it was given an “alternative media” award.) Today, the <I>Village Voice</I> is no more an alternative weekly than <I>Wikipedia</I> is an encyclopedia.


 * “As for ‘black’ not being typical usage, the Supreme Court decisions use it more than the word ‘negro’ (twice vs. once). As this is an article on a Supreme Court decision, that should be proof enough for "black" being typical usage in this context.”


 * Wrong. It is a simple matter of fact that “black” was not typical usage in this context. In no real encyclopedia would one read a paragraph like the one above.


 * Plus, you contradicted yourself. You argued that typical usage from the time supports your point, but then insisted that I may not use typical usage from the time. Heads you win, tails I lose. Encyclopedic research is not based on contradictions and political expediency.


 * As for “whatever word or phrase is currently accepted,” the fact that the media and academia, who combined make up less than one percent of Americans, insist on “African American,” is hardly decisive in determining what is “currently accepted.”
 * 70.23.199.239 04:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So the Village Voice is not an alternative weekly because you say it's not? You should edit that Wikipedia entry on it then and remove statement that it is. Also head over to Alternative weekly and remove references to the Village Voice.


 * Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia because you say it's not? You need to talk to Jimbo Wales about changing all references, and redrafting a new mission statement on what exactly you think Wikipedia should be.


 * "Black" was not typical usage because you say it wasn't? I've cited a reference where people living in the time used "black man" more than "negro". You claim that people living in the time never used black at all. The only reference you cite was an article written in 2002, which shows that at least one person in 2002 use the word "negro." Hardly damning evidence.


 * "African American" is not currently accepted because you say it isn't? I would love to see the research showing that less than 1% of Americans use the term "African American." Moreover, I would really love to see your research that a majority of Americans use the term "negro". That's the crux of your argument: that the appropriate word be "negro."


 * Cite your references. Show your proof. Back up your statements. Andyparkerson 14:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would not love to see on this talk page whatever "evidence" 70.23.* could manage to trump up for her points. For purposes of this article we should not be making points about language that was used in the early 20th century, nor the political reasoning behind language moves today, nor any of the other bizarre tangents that 70.23.* raised.   The only critical points are from Naming conventions (identity) which makes it clear that "African American" is the appropriate term.  (1) Under "Self=identification" it says use the terminology the entity or group prefers; "negro" is not the preferred term today for African Americans.  (2) Under "Be specific" it says use adjectives not nouns; "negro" was being used in the article as a noun. (3) Under "Ethnic and national identities" it says to "avoid outdated terms when describing people"; "negro" is outdated. Between "negro" and "African American" it is clear that "African American" is the preferred term according to Wikipedia guidelines.  --lquilter 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

edit-skirmishing over case dates?
There have been numerous edits changing this case's dates in the text and infobox. I'm not sure why the vast interest in going back and forth between 1908 and 1911 -- it's one or the other, and it's a verifiable fact. Were there two cases causing the confusion? --lquilter 13:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)