Talk:Lynching of George Ward

"Black" vs "black"
The original version of this article had used the capitalized "Black" per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Peoples_and_their_languages ... given that that's how the article started, I would vote that it return to that usage. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to revert to Black instead of black. Although this style choice emerged recently, there is a good bit of support for this practice from major editorial presses: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php; https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/time-to-capitalize-blackand-white/613159/; https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462. HISTAM (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)HISTAM


 * I take from the quoted Wikipedia Manual of Style that lower case for black and white are more appropriate for the way they are used in this article:
 * Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white).[h] The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort (Asian–Pacific, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White demographic categories).  Dwkaminski (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This is from the Columbia Journalism Review position I linked to above, and this is what I would like to follow for this article: "At the Columbia Journalism Review, we capitalize Black, and not white, when referring to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms. For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists." Would you be ok with following this for this article? I don't see any harm in capitalizing Black and not capitalizing white, and it follows the important lead of what people who are Black would like to see happen and doesn't follow the lead of white supremacists who would like to see white capitalized. 174.202.34.239 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)HISTAM

Pictures
Why are there two pictures of the same historical marker? It seems like gilding the lily. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I added the second since it was a straight on view that allowed the details to be read. I didn't want to replace the initial one but feel free to if you feel strongly.  Dwkaminski (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I put the initial picture up and would like it to stay because it gives a sense of the historic place where the event happened. And I like the addition of the second one because as noted above it allows people to read the text itself. HISTAM (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)HISTAM

Details of the lynching in the lead
Hi @Dwkaminski thanks for mentioning MOS:LEAD in your restoration of the "gruesome" details of the lynching. As I see it, the "controversy" in this article are the facts that Ward was lynched, that those who did this were not charged, and that he was not memorialized for a long time. How he was lynched is not a controversy or even the main point of the article. Those details might attract some readers to learn more, but they're a distraction from main focus of the article in the lead. I'd support removing them. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How he was lynched may not be a controversy, but the article is about Ward's lynching—so a summary of those events is entirely appropriate in the lead. Retswerb (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Is An American Hometown a reliable source?
This book does not cite its sources. The review of this book that appeared in Fall 2011 in Ohio Valley History (pages 95-96) states that “However, [the author’s] rose-colored vision of the past and lack of source citations will make it difficult for readers to separate fact from fiction as he draws heavily from the murky waters of memory and speculation.” I would like to propose that we remove references from this book from this page because of its lack of reliability. HISTAM (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)HISTAM


 * I was looking at WP:RS to see if there was something there that addressed this. I agree that the book is a popularization of primary sources without critical appraisal and without citations. Perhaps, this is a discussion to have on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ... although, honestly, I've never discussed something there. I support removing the source. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The book is published by Indiana University Press which strikes me as reliable. I would not support removing the source. Is there something in particular from the reference that has you concerned? Dwkaminski (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your replies! I’ve sent an email to one of the editors at Indiana University Press to see if we can find out more about the Quarry Books imprint that this one is a part of. It is very unusual for a peer reviewed work of history not to cite its sources which is why I am concerned about the accuracy of the statements drawn from this source. I’ll report back when I learn more but I suspect it may take a little time. HISTAM (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, all. Sorry for the delay. Summer slipped away from me! I heard back from an editor at IU press who wrote: “As this book is part of our regional trade list and not subject to scholarly peer review, it should not be used to back up a claim on its own without corroboration from other sources.”
 * What do folks think? HISTAM (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a scholarly peer reviewed book and it does not have citations, I also support removing it as a source. While it meets the Wikipedia source standard of "published," it does not meet the standard of "reliable." JacknRuby (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the many poorly sourced pages I have seen and unreliable websites listed as resources - I find it incredulous that we are debating removing a source from a reliable publisher such as the Indiana University Press. The material is also supported by other sources.  Please highlight if there are particular items from this publication that you want removed from the wikipedia page. Dwkaminski (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think "other articles are also poorly sourced" is a good argument for relying upon this particular source, when valid criticisms have been raised. It seems both academic reviewers and its own press are telling us not to rely on it, the latter of which makes particularly odd if your only argument is that the book comes from a reliable publisher. If the material can be supported by other sources, then... great! Let's depend on those sources and not this one. Dominic·t 22:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on "other sources are also poorly sourced". However, I do not believe "not subject to scholarly peer review" is a valid criticism of the source and believe it should be maintained as a reference.  WP:SOURCEDEF states "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process". I do not know or work for Indiana University Press, but I would assume good faith that they have a reliable publication process.  It does NOT say "must be peer reviewed" or "must cite it's sources".  Dwkaminski (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)