Talk:Lynching in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Legal definition?

What is the legal definition of lynching in the US? An anarchist in the CA bay area was recently charged with attempted lynching for alledgedly trying taking a fellow anarchist out of police custody during a riot. Some have said that this is because lynching is defined as illegaly taking someone from a police officer or prison guard. Could unarresting truly be considered lynching under US law? Does anyone know more about this who can post the actual laws against lynching? I doubt the jury will convict on a bogus charge like that, they are probably only doing it to get a plea, but is this even remotely a "lynching"?(July 13 2005)

Interesting -- happened to me once at a demonstration. A cop had me in a chokehold, and people tried to pull me away by the legs. They didn't charge them with lynching, but they charged me with resisting arrest :-) I'll see if I can find any legal info. The exact statute would depend on the state. I know some, maybe all, of the CA state codes are online, but not the case law. BTW, could you sign your comments (squiggly John Hancock logo above the text window)? (Unless you're involved in the incident, and don't want to be known -- but your wikipedia identity isn't necessarily any easier to tie to your real identity than your ip.)--Bcrowell 18:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You can search the CA penal code here: [1]. Here's what it says: "405a. The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer is a lynching." A riot requires two or more people using violence or the threat of violence. Rioting plus lynching can mean three to five years in prison, so the people involved definitely need to get a lawyer.--Bcrowell 19:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I found a news article about the July 9 incident in San Francisco. Is that what you were referring to? If the reports in the press are true, these people are f***ing murderous maniacs.--Bcrowell 21:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the police are f***ing murderous maniacs. Thanks for the info. I don't really know what you read so I can't say whether or not what you read was accurate, hell I don't know cause I wasn't there, but I tend to go towards the side oft the anarchists based on history and my own personal politics. BTW, I don't have an account, I just do what I can on my own. I'd rather have as few accounts as possible online.

Are we talking about this? [2] Like you, my sympathies would normally be with the demonstrators, but yeesh -- I don't know if this is just giving a biased version of the story straight from the police, but it sure makes the accused sound like a bunch of crazed thugs.--Bcrowell 22:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the same protest but someone else was charged with lynching other than them. I didn't even know those three were charged too. This is what I read [3]. After reading both I can't say I fully support the actions, but I can't say I condemn them either. I think it's about time we take more action to end the madness that is the G8 and things like this are going to happen. It's not like they just went and beat up an officer, it was in the middle of a riot, things like that happen, usually to protestors. This time a cop got the bad end. And these stories don't even mention that the cops beat some protestors up pretty badly too. I guess only the injuries of cops matter, huh?

Tuskegee institute, which today is known as Tuskegee University, and which is the official institution that has documented Lynching since 1882, has given the following definition for Lynching: "There must be legal evidence that a person was killed. That person must have met death illegally. A group of three or more persons must have participated in the killing. The group must have acted under the pretext of service to Justice, Race, or Tradition." Anything else is just regular Murder. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material copied/moved from Lynching article's talk page

17:01, 23 Jun 2005 Bcrowell (copies, purportedly)
22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Jerzy•t (quasi-move: original struck thru)

[edit] Copies already here as of 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of some discussion from the Lynching article's talk page, which I've copied here because the relevant material is now in this article.--Bcrowell 17:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I've added several public domain images. They're very disturbing to look at, of course. I hope nobody will see this as sensationalistic, or disrespectful to the victims. I included the Waco image specifically because it was so horrific; I don't think we gain anything by letting people avoid thinking about how horrible the reality was. In the photo in the lead section, I added some explanation at the bottom of the caption so that it would have the right context, and people wouldn't conclude that the victim must have been a criminal; this could be seen as redundant, but I think it's important to provide that context, since the photo is the first thing people are going to see when they read the article. In the Waco case, my inclusion of the details of the trial (he confessed) could be seen as a justification for the lynching, but I think it's important to give all the facts. I think lynching was horrible enough without trying to give a slant to the facts.--Bcrowell 18:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found some relevant info on the page Wikipedia:Profanity: "Images, particularly photos, often have a greater impact than words. Therefore, it may be preferable not to embed possibly offensive images in articles, but rather use a [[media:image name]] link with an appropriate warning. On the other hand, if the page title already tells the reader what to expect (e.g. Erotic art in Pompeii), such a warning may be unnecessary. Censorship should be avoided, if an image adds something to an article." It seems to me that these images do add something to the article, and the title of the page does already tell the reader what to expect.--Bcrowell 18:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your pitching in to improve the article, but I'm getting concerned that it looks image-heavy. I changed the fomratting of a few to mix it up a little (all on the right looks lousy), but I'm wondering if each of the individual lynching images actually adds something substantial to the article. (Keep in mind that some of them have their own articles.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a big, important subject in U.S. history, and I think the text should be expanded, which would also have the effect of reducing the image-heaviness. Here's what I feel is the relevance of the individual images:

Lige Daniels, 1920: Shows that lynching was a socially approved thing, not something that was always done in the middle of the night by a few violent people.

Who put copyvio on this image? It's clearly public domain.

unknown victim, 1889: The only image in the article from the period of Reconstruction.
Jesse Washington, 1916: This is a hard image to look at. I think it shows the level of sadism that was involved in many of the lynchings.
Will James, Cairo, 1909: Graphically demonstrates the circus-like style of many of the lynchings. I think very few Americans realize that such a thing ever existed.
Michael Donald, 1981: Shows that lynching is not only a thing of the distant past, and was very important historically for its impact on the KKK.
Duluth, 1920: Shows that lynching wasn't just a phenomenon of the southeastern U.S.

--Bcrowell 03:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It occurred to me that I should mention one more thing. In the talk page on the closely related KKK article, there has been some discussion about whether the Klan is a terrorist organization, whether there is a good side to the Klan, and whether the Klan has been, at all times and in all its many incarnations, a violent organization. Although six images of lynchings in this article may seem like a lot, I think many people have a hard time accepting that this was a commonplace part of how America worked for a long time, and that it wasn't just restricted to the southeast during the 19th century.--Bcrowell 03:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite the fervent defense there! I don't disagree with your reasoning, I just don't think that Wikipedia is that great a place for displaying images and they should be there to illustrate the article. In this case the article is very rough around the edges...

the text should be expanded Well, yeah, that's what I was doing when you waltzed in. ;-) Seriously, I'm quite glad for the help! I had only barely done some needed reorganization (I haven't touched the terribly uneven "international" sections) and my hope was to give a broader context. For one thing I felt the entry gave very short shrift to the idea that there was a whole continuum of lynching which included African-American victims. To be perfectly honest, I'm wary of letting the article slip back into a similar POV state, which is something that could be encouraged by the shock value of a lot of images. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, as I don't have any strong counter-argument for any individual image you've added.

Since I don't want this to get at all testy, the better approach might be to resize some of the images so that they don't take over visually and fit better into the text at typical browser reading sizes. I'm thinking that my monitor and resolution are above average, so I really wonder what my mom would see in IE on her small screen! --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: I moved part of this discussion to the "Images" section instead

One tangential note: I was really struck, looking at the KKK image in full size, how much they looked like gangbangers. It could almost be the cover of a rap album -- all the more so because people today have forgotten any other KKK outfit but the white robe.--Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we're on the same wavelength here. I realize that this is the type of hot-button article where conflict between editors could easily occur, but I think we can work together here.

Reducing the size of some of the images would be fine, but I'd like to point out that the Cairo one might be hard to understand if it was reduced.

I think you're right that the article could do a better job of representing the fact that not all lynching victims were black. The Cairo lynching, for example, was actually a double lynching of two unrelated people, one black and one white. One good thing about the image of the Leo Frank newspaper article is that it shows that lynching wasn't just directed at black people. It would be interesting to know if there are any reliable statistics on the percentage of lynching victims who were black.

Yes, the organization of the article is very awkward. What would you think of spinning off the part about lynchings in the U.S. into a separate article?

I'd like to make two points about how NPOV relates to the images: (1) the postcard images were intended as propaganda in favor of lynching, so their inclusion in the article could be interpreted as representing the pro-lynching POV; (2) I've tried to provide enough context to allow the reader to understand the lynching images thoroughly, even when this meant going into the (possibly bogus) accusations against the people who were lynched.--Bcrowell 04:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Donald lynching image

I've added a photo of the 1981 Michael Donald lynching. I believe it falls within Wikipedia's guidelines for fair use, and I think it's necessary to the article, because if the article is weighted heavily toward pre-1922 images, and never shows anything within the last 50 years, people will get the comfortable feeling that lynching is a thing of the past. The Michael Donald lynching was also extremely historically important, because of the large civil judgment, which had the effect of bankrupting one of the large national Ku Klux Klan organizations, and furthering the decentralization of the Klan.--Bcrowell 20:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material moved October '05 (and comments on it)

[edit] Billie Holiday

Moved 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC) from Talk:Lynching (... actually, copied, but with the original being struck thru.)

Is this really relevant enough to warrant a subsection on this page? --Tothebarricades.tk 04:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why not? It's a classic song. Unsigned by 213.112.113.71 on 02:05, 8 March 2005

It is a classic song and it is very important in understanding the culutral relevance of lynching. Lyncing ran deep enough in society to become the subject of folk material, which, being folk material essentially means that it is meant to be passed on in society and not forgotten. The inclusion of this song just furthers the importance of lynching in one particular community, that being the black community of the US. Jay campbell 05:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

New Comments

The suggestion above that "Strange Fruit" is "folk material", whether carelessly misleading or simply ignorant, should not go uncontradicted. Poet Abel Meeropol, apparently economically productive as a songwriter for e.g. Sinatra, was a white New York Jewish Cold-War secret member of the Stalinist Communist Party USA, who would at least have known that his excellent cultural and social contribution adhered with his party's Moscow-approved political strategy. (How closely he was associated with his adopted sons' executed birth-parents, the atomic spy Julius Rosenberg & the at-least-complicit Ethel Rosenberg, is not known to me.)
--Jerzy•t 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two periods

This "two periods" sounds like it was copied from somewhere else originally. I never quite got how you could easily compare two periods, one a 3-year orgy of political reprisals, and the other a 60-year era of gradually declining lynching. Any ideas why that came about? It bugs me to see the 1888-1941 considered as a totality, unless we can make the reason for the division clearer. Do we need more info on the "first" period? Or should we simply play down the division and speak of chronological periods? In that case I don't think there are "two", and they certainly aren't comparably "heavy". --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the reference to two periods were the article before I started working on it. I think the first period starts roughly when the KKK started getting really violent, and ends with the Force Acts, including the Klan Act and Enforcement Act. After the lull, the second period begins around the time the Jim Crow laws came into effect. I think there's some logical basis for these time periods, since the first had to do with partisan politics and reconstruction, and the second was more about race. If the 1888-1941 period is too long, we could see if there's some natural dividing point in there. One logical point might be the founding of the second Klan in 1915; since the new Klan was anti-semitic, there is a different character to the lynchings after that, e.g., the Leo Frank lynching.--Bcrowell 22:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that text has been there awhile. I think it dates way back to a much simpler article. Now that we've (uhm, mostly you've...) expanded it considerably I don't think it makes nearly as much sense. I certainly don't think that the whole period can be considered as one "period"; there were different waves and there were probably outside factors such as the economy that figured into this. I wonder if there's an annual chart somewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've split it into 1888-1915 and 1915-1941.--Bcrowell 23:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having now looked at the edits you just did ;-) I'm still troubled. One reason I reorganized the article in the first place was to get away from a Wikipedia lowest-common-denominator approach to articles that's basically "this happened ... then that happened ... by the way, the whole thing was kinda like this ... then something else happened" where pertinent overall ideas get buried amid a chronological retelling. Honestly, that's what I don't like about the recent change. I'm more of a social-factors guy when it comes to history. ;-) You may want to chew on that for a bit; I hope you'll see why I was trying that approach to the article. My idea in adding section heads like anti-lynching movement and social characteristics was to encourage expansion of those discussions and, indeed, to have them in the TOC. I really think that direction makes the article more encyclopedic and more mature overall (and I'm thinking Featured, most of which credit would be to you). --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, one advantage of breaking it up by year is that in an anarchic environment like wikipedia, at least it lets people know unambiguously where to put their material, so things don't get disorganized. But please do feel free to go ahead and change the organization if you think you have something that works better. I'm just afraid that it might be confusing for the reader if it's not organized chronologically. For instance, lynching during Reconstruction was really a completely different thing from lynching in the 20th century. The chronological approach happens to work really well for describing all the different important events that happened in 1915 (second Klan, Frank lynching, Birth of a Nation).

It would be cool to shoot for an FA level of quality on this, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to submit it as an FA, because I'm a little worried about how people would react to the images. Someone published a book of the lynching postcards a few years back, and there was apparently quite a nasty backlash against him, and it was a crushing personal blow to him.--Bcrowell 03:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added some thematic labels to the chronological section headings, and I've also put in some subsections for the postwar part. Dunno if that helps. The present organization is nothing I'm really wedded to, just what I came up with when I was surgically removing the U.S. stuff from the generic lynching article.--Bcrowell 03:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New organization

OK, I took a stab at organizing it more by topics. --Bcrowell 05:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What can I say but well done? I really think this is a better way to go. In relation to your other comment, I obviously can't keep up with you (or your print sources), but I also find even the small amount of time that I spend on this article (and a few related others) to be wrenching. Reading the details of an individual lynching, with a name and history attached, and the certainty that the lynch mob itself is made up of human individuals who probably considered themselves pretty highly, just bends my mind something fierce. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It's really depressing. BTW, there are probably some places in the newly reorganized article where we could use some better transition sentences between paragraphs, etc., if you feel like going through it.--Bcrowell 15:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why "lynch"?

[edit] removed part

", or more likely for Captain William Lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, who practiced lynching circa 1780. The use of lynching as a method to maintain the social order was referred to as lynch law; at this time lynchings as executions were rare. After the war, as the nation expanded so did the practice of lynching, and lynching gradually became more brutal." From looking at Oxford Press reference materials and Britannica, we should not consider William Lynch anywhere near credit as a candidate for this distinction. I will be in the library looking into this Monday.

lots of issues | leave me a message 11:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Lynching

I moved this from the another of the three articles

The term "lynching" is believed to come from Charles Lynch, whose vigilance committee, an irregular court, tried and punished petty criminals and supporters of the British during the U.S. Revolutionary War.

The term has also been referenced as being derived from William Lynch giver of the William Lynch Speech: The Making of a Slave--A speech by the British-born, Carribean plantation owner that visited Virginia to describe how best to "break" and control slaves. The controversial speech has been cited numerous times by Louis Farrakhan et al.

It's too much detail for the international article; someone should decide how and whether to fold it into this talk page's article.
--Jerzy•t 23:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The proposal to merge Lynch law hasn't generated any further discussion since Oct. 13. I'm going to delete the merge template from this article. I think Lynch law should simply be deleted and made into a redirect to this article; it doesn't seem to contain any material that's not in this article at this point.--Bcrowell 23:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] prevalence of torture

Cspalletta has added some text about the prevalence of torture in lynchings. A recent revision read: "Most lynchings terminated with a hanging but prior to the final act victims were commonly tortured prior to being killed by such methods as beating, burning, stabbing, sexual mutilation and eye-gouging." I changed "commonly" to "sometimes," and asked if there was any source to verify that it was common. Cspalletta reverted the text and supplied a reference to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_4_33/ai_59024886, but that reference only discusses theatrical representations of lynching, not historical data.--Bcrowell 15:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If you would read the first paragraph of my cross-reference you will see that it discusses the historical reality beyond such plays, in these terms:

"For the purposes of this study, lynching means the racially motivated murder of black individuals (primarily black men) by white mobs with no repercussions for the perpetrators. Victims of lynchings were hung, beaten, burned, or stabbed to death; they were commonly tortured and/or castrated before they were killed. This particular version of lynching developed during Reconstruction and became a systematic feature and official indicator of black-white race relations until the 1950s.[2]"

and it gives it's own cross-reference:

(2.) The history of this particular form of lynching is well-documented. For general studies, see Raper; Tolnay and Beck; Ginzburg; Wells-Barnett; White; Cutler; and Zangrando. For 1920s magazine and newspaper commentary, see Du Bois, "We Are a Nation of Murderers."

If you have read any accounts of life in the South by African Americans born circa 1900, for example Chester Himes, or Richard Wright, you will have seen that the blacks themselves were in no doubt as to the sexual component of lynching (even apart from victims accused of sexual misconduct) and that it typically involved sexual mutilation and torture. These aspects of lynching are also referred to in the Billie Holliday song "Strange Fruit". I don't consider these things "proof" as such, but they do have a certain moral weight.

Please note that the paragraph in which I made my edits is one that deals specifically with white-on-black lynching. I don't claim that the same practices were prevalent in other types of lynching. Generally white men were lynched for accusations of serious crime. A black man could be lynched for accusations of crime but also just for having a 'bad attitude', fraternizing with white women, standing up for his legal rights, being 'disrespectful' to white men and so forth. Different motivations for the crime of lynching could produce different practices.

Googling on "~castrate ~lynch" produces thousands of results. I am quite certain I can produce documentation to satisfy you, when I have time to do it. Cspalletta 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi -- I skimmed the (long) article, and didn't notice the part you were referring to, but can you come up with something specific that's not a reference to a reference? I'm not debating that there was often a strong sexual element to lynchings, and I also agree with pretty much all of your other statements here on the talk page. I would just like to see some cold, hard facts to support a statement that torture was present in, say, a majority of white on black lynchings. I'm not sure if the relevant data even exist. I think a big primary source is reports from coroner's juries, which were usually a farce, and probably wouldn't say anything about whether the body showed signs of torture.--Bcrowell 02:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Race Riot

It should be noted that the "young man" accused of throwing rocks at Eugene Williams was most likely a member of the Ragen's Colts street gang, the dominant Chicago "political club", as were many of the instigators. Given the amount of corruption in the city at the time, it's unlikely the police officer would have charged them in any case. 64.12.116.11 04:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If it "should be noted", can you provide a citation to that effect? "Most likely" isn't something we like to do here at Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

While the Ragen's Colts article does mention the gang's involvement (which is included in the source), Robert Jay Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime doesn't mention the name of the man (or weither he was indeed a gang member). However, several Ragen's Colts members were present (as were charges they may have started the incident). MadMax 22:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watch the page for anon edits

Some anon just arbitrarily put copyvio tags on all the postcards. They are obviously PD due to age. My guess this was an attempt at vandalism or to hide the postcard pictures.--Jaysbro 19:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The folowing discussion is from my own talk page:

Several of the lynching images that you have posted are not in the public domain. They have been copied out of the book Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America (copyright 1999). These images need to be removed from the wikipedia. We (James Allen / John Littlefield) do not allow these images to be displayed on the web. We have not grated permisstion to any web posting other than our website withoutsanctary.org which identifies all images as copyrighted. I am tagging the images with copyvio. If you have questions we can be contacted via our website withoutsanctuary.org. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.30.36.26 (talk • contribs)

Did you own the copyright to those images when you put them in the book, or were they in the public domain at that time? You must provide proof of copyright for the images. Merely using images in a copyrighted work does not constitute copyright of the images. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi 24.30.36.26 -- All the images are from before 1922. Accurate reproductions of them are therefore public domain in the U.S. I also have no way of knowing who you are, as you haven't even made a claim as to your identity.--Bcrowell 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The anon only seems to have added a copyvio tag to Image:Lynching-of-will-james.jpg, and did not bother by following up with an explanation on the copyright problems page. At this point, we don't even know who the anon claims to be. In any case the photo is from 1909, so it's PD. Complete nonsense. I've removed the copyvio tag, and have explained my reasoning on the image's talk page.--Bcrowell 23:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to reduce my time spent on WP to zero, and I'm emptying out my watchlist. If other people could add Image:Lynching-of-will-james.jpg to their watchlists and keep an eye out for this copyvio troll, that would be great.--Bcrowell 03:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you claim that my original post regarding copyright violations were anonymous. I've signed up for an ID and as my original post indicated, I am John Littlefield one of the co-owners of the Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America photo collection. Although I appreciate the Wikipedia project, I'm not a contributor and this is the first time that I had to address the use images on Wikipedia. After this post I will go to the copyright problems page. I would appreciate it if you take this seriously because it is a serious issue. I am very serious about getting these images removed. The book Without Sanctuary was published in 1999. The images posted on the Wikipedia have been scanned out of our book Without Sanctuary. If you go to our website withoutsanctuary.org there is a link to a useful website regarding copyrights. In order for you to claim public domain you must own (or have access to) the original photograph. I recommend the article written by a copyright lawyer at http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html it states "in the event of a legal dispute, you should retain in a safe place a copy of the PD work you referenced or worked from." If you read this article I suggest paying close attention to the example of Shakespear's Hamlet and the Folger's library. If you did not scan these photos out of the book personally, you need to be prepared to defend where you got these photos. Preferably you would reference your sources, at a minimum to protect Wikipedia.

No, you're simply misinformed about copyright. An accurate reproduction of a PD two-dimensional image is not copyrightable; it's PD, just like the original.--Bcrowell 05:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need to move New York Draft Riots

The paragraph on the New York Draft Riots needs to be moved out of the Reconstruction section as that occurred in 1863, during the Civil War.Bruce E Baker 13:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture- Birth of a Nation

Is lynching not a huge part of the movie Birth of a Nation? Should something about that be added to the popular culture section?

[edit] Italians Lynched in New Orleans

Why is there nothing about the lynching of eleven Italians in New Orleans, one of the largest mass lynchings in US history? In fact, Italians were frequently lynched all over the South and in some Northern areas, too. As such a large number of Italians were lynched, I think there should be some mention of this.

Because nobody thaught of it, or had enough details - we're waiting for you to jump in, preferably with a credible source, as always. Fastifex 09:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote a paper on it in high school. I'll see what I can't round up Mikelj 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed tagline

Added this tagline, as there are a lot of statements regarding Christian symbolism in lynchings that are not substantiated, and which appear to be purely conjectual. Yaf 03:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead too long

How about breaking after first paragraph? It seems too long now. People can't see what else is there on the first screen.Skywriter 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way, the article was largely built by Bcrowell last year (with a tiny bit of help from me), but that editor has quit Wikipedia. I was very happy with the article last time I gave it attention (see this March 2006 edit) -- the lead especially was, IMO, contextual and encyclopedic, moving from a simple definition to encompass the social phenomenon. I would strongly encourage going back to the basic structure as it was then, although I am not opposed to keeping information that has been added in the last two months either. But there have been many edits that have largely wrecked what was then still an exceptionally good article. What do you think of a rollback to that good introduction, and a gradual reincorporation of new data? This isn't an article that lacked quality, it's an article that's been robbed of quality by inconsistent and POV edits. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the part in the intro that is basically a reading of Without Sanctuary is not helpful (distracting) at that point in the article, and given the discussion of the postcards above, we should probably do what we can to avoid making this article a regurgitation of the book. WS is just one of many sources we should be using, not the Bible. --Dhartung | Talk 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't read all of it but here are a few first impressions, and this is the reason I became interested in working on this article. 1. There's not nearly enough emphasis on individual African Americans. There should be because fully three quarters of lynching victims were black. There are many relatively recent and high-profile cases not mentioned, such as the 14-year-old Emmett Till. 2. The emphasis on Leo Frank is not necessary as a link will do. There's an overwritten article on him. 3. The emphasis on frontier justice high up in the article is unfair, given who the main victims were. The frontier section is also less interesting and speculative. 4. There is a mere mention of Ida Wells Barnett and all the campaigns against lynching. It was hardly the case that there was no fight-back and yet this is hardly mentioned. 5. There's a book called Slave Patrols by Salley E. Hadden that establishes true Klan origins. The Tenn. story is nice but does not go back far enough. The origins of this sort of terroristic behavior pre-dated Reconstruction. I don't mean to be negative. There's a lot of good stuff in the article but it is buried. Skywriter 04:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to these suggestions. Here are my responses: 1. This is already a very long article; I don't think that adding individual stories is actually necessary. Such stories should be added where they illustrate encyclopedic points. I do support the addition of notable lynching cases to Wikipedia as articles. I don't think that there is a List of lynchings article; there should be. Till was in the article previously. [4] Expansion of the point there is certainly welcome. 2. I think the Frank bit is used to develop the story about the Klan; there could be other material that would do that as well. It could easily be trimmed. 3. The original article was just "lynching" and it developed into a history of lynching; the frontier justice era is certainly relevant there. Unless we're to break out the racial lynchings into a separate article, I would not want to skip over that era; indeed, I always wanted to flesh it out more. 4. I agree that Ida B. Wells (hey, I'm a Chicagoan) deserves prominence; she was added to show the fight-back, as you put it, but she certainly wasn't alone. This is potentially a break-out article, actually. 5. The Klan per se is not the focus of this article. Relevant points from any source are welcome, but the Klan is a whole 'nother ball of wax. In any case, Wikipedia should be wary of giving any one source the authority of "truth". Just so you see my perspective. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted most of the Frank text yesterday because there is an entire article with his story. I do not suggest taking out Lynching on the frontier, just that it should be lower in the article. Its placement is disproportionate given that 80 percent of lynching victims were African Americans in the South. The photo of tar and feathering would be appropriate on a tar and feathering page, not here. The role of the Klan and its affiliated organizations is well-documented. It is impossible to write an honest article on this topic without referencing its role. The article needs refocus and restructuring. Some of the existing material is excellent.Skywriter 15:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My thinking is that I'd still like to back out some of the more recent "prose" edits to the introduction. I don't want to set the article up as POV by making the article's narrative fit the Without Sanctuary approach. Even though I think that is a very strong and important work, I don't think it fits the encyclopedic format. Lynching is a practice with a long and murky history, and I think the article needs to illuminate that context, rather than drawing out one aspect of it to the detriment of others. I'm also uncomfortable with making this article "inextricably" about the Klan, partly because my understanding is that formal Klan involvement really was present in only a minority of historical lynchings -- especially outside the south, where many seem to be spontaneous. My interest in such events is psychosocial. What made people do such things, that seem so horrible to us today? I don't think the answer is simply that the Klan, i.e. an evil actor, persuaded them to do it, because after all, who persuaded the Klan? That seems ultimately a circular and less interesting line of inquiry. And in any case, Wikipedia already has an excellent Ku Klux Klan article; we don't need two. So given that we both have the goal of an improved article, I hope we can reach a consensus about approach. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Bean does not fit the category

He was the law west of the Pecos. This article is about mob rule and actions outside the law. Does anyone disagree with removing the following paragraph from this article?

A legendary practitioner of harshly 'improvised' (in)justice was 'Hanging judge' Roy Bean, a legally incompetent saloonkeeper, who handed out excessive punishment, even for strictly non-criminal acts, but was technically not a lyncher since he repeatedly obtained a legal mandate as justice of the peace in texas' Pecos county.

Skywriter 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be a see also to something like hanging judge, of which there are several individuals named including Bean. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd paragraph

At the end of the 2nd paragraph, text reads "according to a May 5, 2002 article..." but the hyperlink citation links to this same thing. I'm going to remove the "according to a May, 5, 2002 article..." part - it seems to really break up the flow of the introduction. Also, it's repetitive. --Natalie 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Without Sanctuary, 3rd paragraph

The 3rd paragraph seems really out of place in the introduction. Particularly the sentence "Allen's words of his impressions of what he saw accompanies the images." (I had to read it several times to get the meaning. Would anyone object to paring this down to one sentence about lynchings often being photographed and the photos being distributed, and moving the remainder of the paragraph (or something like it) to a later paragraph? --Natalie 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommended that above. The article got pretty messed up after the primary author quit Wikipedia, and then somebody came in and tried to make it basically a Wikipedia translation of Without Sanctuary. I've been meaning to give it a good scouring but haven't had the time (and I keep getting my Wiki-morale beaten down). --Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki morale is an important thing :). I think I'm going to cut that paragraph, since Without Sanctuary is discussed later. Although its iffy if a specific book should be discussed at all, I think its relatively obvious that it doesn't belong in the intro. So I'm going to go ahead and edit it, dangit! --Natalie 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet figured out how to make an in-text note - anyone who knows how want to add a note to my change, probably to without sanctuary's website? --Natalie 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Without Sanctuary certainly deserves an article (it's a book, website, and traveling exhibit), and some of these themes are appropriately handled there. I think it's inappropriate to place them in a general article, though (especially since this article is not strictly about lynchings of blacks), and particularly so in the introduction. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your help. --Natalie 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarence Thomas

This is completely irrelevant to an article on Lynching in the United States. Everything else seems pretty well organized, written, etc. and right smack in the middle is a unrelated (albeit well documented) aside about Clarence Thomas being metaphorically lynched... Got to go. Thoughts?Mikelj 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split off list?

The list added to this article is incredibly long and distracting. I think it should be split off to its own page. Natalie 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it serves any purpose. Wikipedia still lacks a list of notable lynchings. I don't think a list that asserts no particular notability or significance to individual lynchings tells the reader anything useful. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. I don't particularly care for it either, but whether it stays or goes it should go off this page. Natalie 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the list belongs on the page, so I'm going to delete it. Anyone who decides to create the list on a separate page later can refer to an older version of the page or the list's sources (which I'll leave in). — Elembis 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/y/n/Talk%7ELynching_in_the_United_States_7483.html"