Talk:Hubert Harrison

POV and promotionalism?
This whole page feels like a promotion by a relative or somebody else with a vested interest. Uucp (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The page has been heavily edited by Perjef, who is evidently Harrison's biographer Jeffrey B. Perry. The user has inserted a great deal of self-promotion for his work. Seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:COI. Offenbach (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.Perjef (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Offenbach has apparently misleadingly altered the Offenbach comment of 03.17 25 December 2008. That original offering ”outed” me, complained that I contributed too much to the Hubert Harrison page (I note Offenbach has never made a contribution to the factual content of the page), and was part of an effort to censor the Harrison page on generalities because Offenbach “agreed” that he or she did not like how the page “feels.” I think if Offenbach has a new comment to add it should be entered (and timed and dated) as a new comment. I think it is important that in Wikipedia comments, as in Wikipedia pages, we pay attention to factual accuracy. I repeat my previous comment—- “The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.” I don’t think the Hubert Harrison page should be censored based on Offenbach’s “outing,” feelings, or misleadingly altered comment above.Perjef (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I altered my comment after familiarizing myself with WP:OUTING so as to avoid any inappropriate dissemination of personal information. The policy suggests that any posting of personal information should be immediately reverted, and so that is what motivated my edit. I extend my apologies to Perjef for the original post, which was intended only to establish a potential violation of WP:COI.

The factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here. Rather, as laid out in WP:COI, the question is whether the self-citation in the article is excessive. It seems excessive, for instance, to include lines such as "Jeffrey B. Perry offers a series of talks on Harrison, which are listed online." I think that WP:COI concerns could be allayed by removing such "material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor." Offenbach (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Offenbach claims to have “altered” the initial Offenbach outing comment “after familiarizing myself with WP:OUTING so as to avoid any inappropriate dissemination of personal information.” I think this indicates one of the major problems with what has gone on. Offenbach should not have been so quick to “out,” so quick to “censor,” and so quick to “alter.” I think if more thinking would have been done in the first place many problems could have been avoided.

I think Offenbach improperly outed and improperly censored and I think that which was altered should have been reverted, or returned to a former state (no censoring and no outing), with a properly dated and timed comment indicating what was done.

If Offenbach would have proceeded with more caution Offenbach might have read in WP:COI that “When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline.”

What should have been done? I think that Offenbach should have started with an assumption of good faith on my part. I think that Offenbach’s behavior does not suggest an assumption of good faith. I think that Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists”; that “Editing in an area in which. . . one has. . . expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest” and, most importantly, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor.” I think if Offenbach would have proceeded in this way it would have been in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Offenbach acknowledges that “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Let me repeat that, “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Nevertheless, Offenbach jumped to a censoring tactic without any discussion with the author. I don’t think this was the correct way to proceed.

Offenbach offers as an explanation for the quick jump to censoring that the “self-citation in the article. . . seems excessive.” “Seems excessive”--that is a pretty illusory standard for imposing censorship. Is Offenbach familiar with the literature in the field? If so, why not enter some citations that Offenbach thinks are necessary ? (In fact, Offenbach was quick to censor an article to which Offenbach never contributed). I am familiar with the literature in the field and I think the works cited stand. Again, Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists” and should not have moved to censoring without discussion.

Regarding the talks about Harrison -- they are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) “a pretty clear” conflict of interest. I would like to see more such citations about other listings of talks by others on Harrison. I think that Offenbach is way off base on this.

The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate and makes a contribution It cites sources where people can get more information on Harrison. If Offenbach has more to add, good. But don’t censor the article for listing what is out there.

I think that Offenbach should remove the censor template. I think that the outing and the censoring are not in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Then, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia.” I also think that Offenbach should realize that “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.”

My suggestion--Offenbach should remove the censor template that Offenbach imposed on the page and if Offenbach wants to discuss the page we can--and we can use existing Wikipedia channels if necessary.

Again, I think that the censor template should be removed --in the best interests of Wikipedia. Perjef (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't censored anything in the article. I have affixed the COI template, which is not a "censor template" but a notice that discussion of a potential WP:COI situation is going on. When the discussion is resolved, the template can be removed.

Once again, my concern is not about factuality but self-promotion. I certainly have no intention to harass or censor Perjef, but simply to alert more experienced editors to the situation in the hopes that they can resolve it. Offenbach (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

To censor as I was using it (and using it correctly) is to stifle free expression. The censor template that I very clearly referred to was the COI template that Offenbach posted on the top of the Harrison page, before even discussing any issue with me. As I previously quoted from Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest-“The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor. . . Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or a ban.” Offenbach used a COI allegation and engaged in outing – this was harassing me and Offenbach attempted to get me to delete something – a reference to talks on Harrison--that I thought should be in the Harrison page for people who were interested in learning more about Harrison. As I have repeatedly stated, I think Harrison is important. I do not think that the way Offenback proceeded was right and I do not think it was in the best interest of Wikipedia.

I note that another editor entered the page, raised the question “on what basis is this a COI?” and took down the COI template Offenbach had put up. Quite frankly, I think Offenbach should have taken it down. If Offenbach has any concrete contributions to make to the content of the Harrison page I would encourage Offenbach to do so. Offenbach hasn’t contributed to the content so far. Perjef (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At 21:58 27 December 2008 Gordonofcartoon placed a COI template on a Hubert Harrison page that was COI template-free. Gordonofcartoon did this without any discussion with me despite citing me in a statement Gordonofcarton made. As I previously quoted from Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest-“The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor. . . Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or a ban.” I do not think that Gordonofcartoons’s placing of a COI template on the Harrison article is in the best interest of Wikipedia, especially since Gordoncartoon did not cite one specific on the Harrison page when taking this action. Perjef (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thus far, when one cuts through all the words of the COI template-placers the only specific about Harrison page content that has been objected to was Offenbach’s concern about a reference to talks on Harrison. I responded that talks “are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) “a pretty clear” conflict of interest.” Perjef (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Liposuction
Any thoughts on further condensation? I've added a linkfarm tag to the external links, as there seem be some just countersinking what has already been stated. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation
I've added the tag, as the referencing needs improvement. Apart from diffuse reference to A Hubert Harrison Reader, much of the article fails to identify the source of statements. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Links Busted
The bibliography in which every line purportedly links looks strange. Many of those purported links are broken (American Atheists) and I would get rid of that stuff, for starters.

The thing is a little overly long and could REALLY use a 1 or 2 line summary of who the man was at the VERY top. Very few people clicking the link are going to wade through that entire article... Even if one were to summarize that he was a "radical black nationalist thinker and writer" who lived from A to B and did C, that would be fine.

I think the "conflict of interest" tag is HIGHLY overblown.

Good book, by the way, Dr. Perry.

--tim

Carrite (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead needs to be shortened
I agree the lead needs to be shortened, particularly (no more than 3 paragraphs) and probably entire article can use more editing to make it more concise. List of life events should be on separate page or better worked into narrative.--Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation check
''One questionable account from the 1920s, which contained a number of inaccuracies, suggested that Harrison's father owned a substantial estate. Harrison's biographer, however, found no such landholding and writes that "there is no indication that Adolphus, a laborer his entire life, ever owned, or even rented, land.

Pardon? This citation - p41 - is just a general discussion of social/employment conditions in the West Indies of the period. It says nothing about Adolphus Harrison. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In my copy of the book on p. 41 at the end of the top paragraph there is the following sentence -- ". . . there is no indciation that Adolphus, a laborer his entire adult life, ever owned, or even rented, land." I believe this is what we are talking about. This was inserted to correct any suggestion that Adolphus was a large land-holder. He was born enslaved and, as the citation indicates, there is no indication that he ever owned or rented land. -- perjef —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, got it: the two citations in one ref, and the link to the wrong page were confusing. I've altered the Winston James to point to the page 123 it cites. That bit about the account being "questionable" etc comes across as countersinking; it's sufficient to say that his biographer has found otherwise. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hubert Harrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050113051939/http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/300.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/300.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050116074439/http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/301.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/301.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511134023/http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/351.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/351.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512083124/http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2004/Jan-Feb/brv_Jan-Feb04.htm to http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2004/Jan-Feb/brv_Jan-Feb04.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511134030/http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/350.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/Vol.11/html/350.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203090631/http://www.briconline.org/bcat/pcorner/winston/web_movies/Perry.rm to http://www.briconline.org/bcat/pcorner/winston/web_movies/Perry.rm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hubert Harrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222123346/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13910-6/hubert-harrison/excerpt to http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13910-6/hubert-harrison/excerpt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129015742/http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmprint.php?ArtID=511 to http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmprint.php?ArtID=511
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106101421/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/inniss_4_4.html to http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/inniss_4_4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017190922/http://sdonline.org/34/jeffrey_perry.htm to http://www.sdonline.org/34/jeffrey_perry.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article_archive?id=200826
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092841/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13910-6/hubert-harrison/reviews to http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13910-6/hubert-harrison/reviews
 * Added tag to http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article_archive?id=193889
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609052405/http://theneworldreview.blog.com/5027746/ to http://theneworldreview.blog.com/5027746/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608191205/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/54/munro.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/54/munro.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017190922/http://sdonline.org/34/jeffrey_perry.htm to http://www.sdonline.org/34/jeffrey_perry.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222092841/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13910-6/hubert-harrison/reviews to http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13910-6/hubert-harrison/reviews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

German translation
I have started today to translate this thing here into German and I tend to agree with a lot of the harsh criticism voiced above on this page. So far a lot of poorly written stuff, very poorly lifted from well written Stalinist gibberish (it seems online available on "Black Perspectives") by his biographer Jeffrey B. Perry; (will have to learn a bit about Harrison first, before going on). John Hope Franklin (a left-wing historian) does not mention Hubert Harrison at all in his "From Slavery to Freedom"; this seems to be unjust; but, I think it is a bit silly to pretend that Harrison was a more brilliant mind (and more important black leader?) than Booker T. Washington or even W. E. B. DuBois, as Perry sometimes seeems to do.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Reads like a political tract
The politics has taken over. The man is lost. Objectivity, fairness, humanity not there. I understand; we're creating a hagiography here.47.232.145.208 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)