Talk:John Brown (abolitionist)

Quality and cohesion
As I have been going along I have thought that it would be good to have a cohesive flow of information in logical groupings (sections). I have added some subsections, just to help me keep track of the content, but there may be a better way to group the info.

As an FYI, I know that I need to do a good read-edit review of the article to catch grammar, etc. issues. (I find it's best to do this when all the content is added, since that could change the sentences.)

The article could benefit from a review of the content to sources. I have found a couple of cases where the content at the cited sources citations did not cover the cited content. I hope that makes sense.

Are there any thoughts or concerns from anyone else to ensure the end product is good?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In progress: I am working on review and editing content by sections - and will double-check my addition of subsections and sections generally as I go. I am finding that I am doing some content to source review as I edit.


 * Perhaps the article can be nominated for a good article status after this is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If you are wondering about the lengthy questions and updates here, I have memory problems and it helps keep me on track. And, of course, I do it to communicate with readers/editors if I am getting off-track in some way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a lot of small edits, and it's hard for me to keep up with them since I only check my watchlist every few days recently, but everything I've checked so far seems reasonable. I'll probably do a read-through to look for anything weird once you're done. Thank you for taking the time to improve this article top to bottom. Juan el Demografo (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * , Sorry about the small edits. I don't have the capacity for dealing with a lot of information at once like I used to. And edit conflicts really confuse me. I'll be mindful of your comments, though, and see where I can improve.


 * Your run-through after I get done would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have finished going through the introduction through the death and burial section. The diff of my edits are here. It's a bit confusing because of all the citation edits, but perhaps it will be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

London News
The claim that Hugo's letter was "first published" in the London News is not supported by the cited source (David S. Reynolds) which states only that it was "sent ... to the London News". I am dubious that there existed a publication called London News in 1859. There were
 * London Daily News, published the letter 9 Dec p. 15 c. 6 with heading
 * We have received from Guernsey, with a request that it should appear it our columns, the following eloquent appeal from the illustrious poet of France...
 * The Illustrated London News; no match for the letter on HathiTrust
 * London Evening News was defunct by Dec 1859

The earliest publication I found on British Newspaper Archive is Morning Advertiser 8 December 1859 p. 3 c. 6 with introduction
 * To the editor of the London Advertiser
 * Sir, My father requests me to forward to you a few pages which he has written in reference to John Brown... yours, &c.,
 * Francois Victor Hugo -Guernsey, Dec. 5, 1859

The Paris correspondent of the Morning Herald noted on the 9th (p. 5 c. 4) that Hugo's French text was also published on the 8th in Paris by "both the Presse and the Opinion Nationale"

Of two 1860 reprints in the United States,
 * one in Boston by the American Anti-Slavery Society is to the editor of "The London News"
 * one in New York by Irwin P. Beadle is to the editor of "the London Star"; with a reply from Ann S. Stephens adverting to "your letter to the London Star".

If the American Anti-Slavery Society were sloppy with details they considered unimportant that might mislead later sources like Reynolds. jnestorius(talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Dates
Hugo's letter was dated 2 December. He says:
 * John Brown, condemned to die, was to have been hanged on the 2d of December—this very day. But news has just reached us. A respite has been granted to him. It is not until the 16th that he is to die.

This 1861 reprint says "But it was too late; the news of the reprieve was false". Might Hugo have invented the fake news (fake fake news?) to give more pathos to his letter?

This source says French newspapers printed the letter on 9 December "backdated for effect". François-Victor's covering letter to the Morning Advertiser was dated the 5th. Perhaps the original was on the 2nd, the English translation on the 5th. Or perhaps both were on the 5th. Would it take longer for post to get from Guernsey to London or Paris? Hugo was persona non grata in France so there might have been delays from mail inspectors or press censors.

jnestorius(talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Should W.E.B Du Bois be listed under contemporaries
Du Bois was born over 8 years after John borwn's death, they did not live alongside each other.Should he be roved form the contemporaries section Roma enjoyer (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Exponent versus proponent?
I found this line confusing until someone pointed out to me that there was a definition of exponent that I wasn't aware of.

"Brown was the leading exponent of violence in the American abolitionist movement

But I still feel like proponent would be better after reading about it here.

Anybody else think so? Is there some reason why exponent is really better that I'm not aware of? Mmarchin (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hanged not hung
"The military, prepared for an attack, lined the square where Brown was to be hung, with "the greatest array of disciplined forces ever seen in Virginia", according to Major Preston.[207]"

It should be hanged, not hung. 2A00:23C8:2D88:5101:6682:3607:2A8:8647 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I looked it up and Merriam Webster says:
 * The past tense of hang in almost all situations is hung. You hung a picture on the wall, or you hung out at the mall. Only use hanged when referring to someone being sentenced to death via hanging. Some people bristle when they hear hanged or hung used incorrectly.
 * I will change it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Math is Off?
How can he be the fourth child of his parents, when he is listed as being born in 1800 (after his older sister's birth in 1798), but the other siblings listed were born in 1802 and 1804? This does not make sense without reference to his other two older siblings, in this list of four people John was born second not fourth. 76.247.110.161 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct; thanks for bringing it up. I changed the wording to make the citations more forgivable. The note and the sources make it seem there is no authoritative source for a list of the siblings. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)