Talk:W.E.B. Du Bois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article W.E.B. Du Bois, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 a couple of crucial flaws: "subtler" thinking, and "father" 2 Du Bois or DuBois? 3 Dew Boyce? 4 recent edit 5 FBI file 6 dispute 7 American? 8 So was he born in Gahna or Mass.? 9 Education Controversy? 10 Requested move 11 Revert reason 12 Article title/body name spelling 13 Clarification 14 started first department of sociology in US? 15 Adding the space in Du Bois 16 Darkened skin color 17 Buried history 18 Dubois and Pragmatism?? 19 Childhood section 20 Ancestry 21 Roxannelawson edits copied from other website 22 Put the Spelling/Pronunciation Issue in the Article

[edit] a couple of crucial flaws: "subtler" thinking, and "father"

the passage about dubois's "subtler" thinking has no place in the wiki. Dorr's paper is a poorly written piece of scholarship resting on the thesis that if we don't argue that DuBois was kind-of-a-racist, then we've stripped him of his agency. notably, most (or all) of Dorr's quotations of DuBois are cut short, stripped of context, and Dorr adds in his own editorial context to construct his argument. (for example: in one piece of his essay, for Dorr's argument to work, "spiritual ideals" must be thought by DuBois to be genetically endowed. if you refer to Dorr's essay, you will you see what i mean.) and, precisely that phenomenon has appeared in the wiki. notice how there is NO QUOTE given for the nonsense about the talented tenth and DuBois encouraging them to marry. we could just as well assume that he was afraid they'd commit themselves so strongly to public service that they wouldn't allow themselves the personal or spiritual pleasures of family life. can anybody really argue why interpretation is less appropriate than projecting "subtle hereditarian" ideas onto DuBois, using nothing but the vague unattributed reference to his encouragement of marriage?

the point is: no. so the whole thing has no place, unless somebody finds something of substance to contribute.

furthermore, the line "and indeed, is considered the father of African-American culture" makes an absurd claim. most importantly, for the purposes of the wiki, the following question must be raised: considered BY WHO? the passage is a very shoddy piece of journalizing; it's unattributed and sensational. but secondly, it's obvious to anyone who has read DuBois's work that he would never accept or agree with the description "the father of african-american culture." the effective entirety of Souls of Black Folk is a sociological study detailing the characteristics and nuances of black culture(s) in America. therefore it's completely nonsensical to consider him to somehow bethe father or originator of "african-american culture." obviously he was a member of it and a scholar of it, not the "father" of it. that's an absurd and meaningless claim.

but i'm not going to waste my time changing the wiki when some self-appointed steward is going to retrieve and reinstate those severely flawed passages that are in serious need of remedy.

(additionally, the discussion or article were apparently completely erased recently by somebody at my IP address (or spoofed address?). i have to admit that by some really unfortunate mistake, i COULD POSSIBLY HAVE deleted it-- NOT ON PURPOSE. i'm on dial-up, and my computer has serious RAM/swapspace issues, so i deal with major lag and herky-jerkiness, and it seems plausible that i somehow accidentally highlighted the entire text-box and accidentally scrubbed it. because it doesn't seem likely that a vandal, from my same IP, would vandalize the article ON THE SAME DAY that i contributed to the discussion page... so i'm sorry if i'm somehow responsible.)128.119.132.42 22:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Du Bois or DuBois?

Sources differ. Google says DuBois, by a small but significant margin. --The Anome 11:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just finished writing a research paper on W.E.B. Du Bois for a Southern politics class. Every single source I used for the paper listed his name as "W.E.B. Du Bois" --Naked Yoga 20:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article now has it both ways -- clearly the worst answer for someone seeking clarification (as I was). Someone should decide and make it consistent.

--priceyeah

I wouldn't trust google on this one. It should be Du Bois, this is how it is spelled on most of the editions of his books on Amazon.com and all of the ones on Project Gutenberg as well as in the title of the Pullitzer prize winning biography of him. The W.E.B. Du Bois Boyhood Homesite is a National Historical Landmark. If there aren't any objections I'm going to change it. GabrielF 23:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What is with the initials anyway? I mean, one would expect it to be "W. E. B. Dubois" not this "W.E.B. DuBois" or whatever it is. --Maru (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well Romania has alternated spellings, too. Is it really important to haggle over the spelling of the name? "Du Bois" is pretty authoritative, but the wiki should probably mention something like "often seen written as "Dubois" and "DuBois"". that seems appropriate, and informative.128.119.132.42 22:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

On the principle that everyone has the right to spell their name how they want, there's no doubt that it is Du Bois. In the magazine he edited, and in his signature, it is clearly Du Bois. (unsigned)

---

The page spelled "DuBois" needs to be a redirect to this article, which should be titled "W.E.B. Du Bois". This would require a move. --Iggle 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dew Boyce?

The pronunciation guide says Dew Boyce. I've always heard it with a voiced final consonant -- dew boyz. The sound file here confirms this. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That source actually gives the more uneducated-sounding /du:'bɔɪz/ rather than what you said: /dju:'bɔɪz/. However, if the man said it was pronounced /dju:'bɔɪs/, we should go with that. — Helpful Dave 11:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my dialect of English, "dew" is pronounced IPA /du/, not IPA /dju/. Apologies for the confusion -- I should have written "doo" instead. (I do not believe anyone, ever, says /dju:'bɔɪz/, nor that WEB Du Bois intended this pronunciation by writing "Dew" himself as a guide.) -- Rbellin|Talk 03:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, he should have written "doo" as well, if that's what he meant. I've no idea how he said it. I just know about English and French pronunciation. :) — Helpful Dave 07:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be Du Bois (doo bwoh)...where did this dew boyce start anyway?

It's the way he pronounced it. The "correct" or usual pronunciation of the name is irrelevant. Fan-1967 05:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

According to a source I used on a recent research paper on Du Bois, his name is pronounced "Due Boyss" with the stress on the second syllable. --Naked Yoga 20:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit

W.E.B. DuBois visited Communist China during the Great Leap Forward and never supported famine-related criticisms of the Great Leap. Another author visiting China during the Great Leap named Anna Louise Strong wrote a book titled When Serfs Stood Up in Tibet based on her experience. Both these authors, however, had been taken through Potemkin-village style tours of China, never travelling outside of the supervision of the authorities. Both DuBois and Strong's are infamous for their rose-coloured depiction of the unfortunate events of that era, famine and the invasion of Tibet.

Regarding this edit: This reverts changes I made to attempt NPOV on DuBois and China. I believe the paragraph it reintroduces (quoted above) is self-evidently biased (check out those adjectives: "rose-coloured", "Potemkin-village-style", "infamous"?) and needs to be NPOV-ed. In addition, Anna Louise Strong is irrelevant here: this is an article on DuBois. This edit also pointlessly reverts several apparently uncontroversial header changes, and the paragraph is badly formatted in any case (needs itals, invasion of Tibet is a non-functioning link, etc). I won't engage in a revert war, but I'm trying once more to fix this. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If by "fix" you mean pro-DuBois revisionism, understood. The man was a communist who visited communist china during the height of the red scare, and wrote rose-tinted depictions of what was both one of the worst man-made famines in human history, and one of the most obvious disasters of central planning and communist economics. I excused him somewhat, given his chaperoning, but his actions were reminiscent of Jane Fonda in Vietnam (well, not that bad, but you get my point). Example (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not the job of a Wikipedia article to make editorial value-judgments. Remember: articles must use a neutral point of view. That DuBois was a Communist at the end of his life is indisputable; but to write that his writing on China was "rose-tinted" and that the Great Leap Forward was an "obvious disaster" is pure POV. Anyway, arguments about the Great Leap Forward belong in that article, not here, as does Anna Louise Strong. Removing obvious bias is hardly "pro-DuBois revisionism". What this article badly needs is more content on DuBois's life and work, anyway; but this paragraph only hurts the article (and Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy source of information rather than partisanship). -- Rbellin|Talk 21:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that to be neutral in your eyes, ones statements must be completely lacking in substance and insight. If you have contrary information, I would be glad to hear it, and I am willing to accept different turns of phrase than "rose-tinted" and "obvious disaster", so long as they remain factually accurate. Mention of Anna Louise Strong is of value here, she shared a similar tour of China at about the same time. As far as POV, POV might have been calling DuBois a traitor to God, country, and humanity for his treasonous actions at that time. Instead, I chose to at least partially excuse him, by emphasizing his theoretical ignorance of the Chinese plight of that era. Example (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's fair to call it a "disaster", though it wasn't "obvious" to all, so we might leave that out. — Helpful Dave 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does the term "Stalinist" appear in the article other than his kind words spoken at Stalin's death? nobs

[edit] FBI file

Removing the following text:

J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo to the FBI on October 6, 1950 that while he is a "strong believer in free speech," a report of a speech made by DuBois seemed to be "subversive to a degree that makes [his] blood boil," and that he wishes the government "could squelch some of the people who are talking like this DuBois."

The letter in question was sent to Hoover, not written by him (page 43 of the FOIA PDF of DuBois's FBI file, linked at article bottom). The sender's name and address are redacted. It seems to me a bad idea for Wikipedia to report anonymous slanders which may well have been sent to the FBI by cranks or rivals, so I am removing the text. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] dispute

For the benefit of TDC, I'm posting here the text of the listing on RfC for this page and Pablo Neruda: "Were these historical figures actually "Stalinists"? If so, is this fact important enough to include in the introductions to these articles? Is it true that they actually performed the pro-Soviet activities listed in their articles? How much space should be devoted to such activities compared to the activities they are famous for to the general public?" Gamaliel 18:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well he was a communist during stalins regime. Maybe he is better classified a maoist? Sam Spade 19:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion both DuBois and Neruda can be called "Stalinists" only by enormously expanding the meaning of the word, to the point where (as Sam Spade has it above) a "Stalinist" is not an explicit backer of Stalin's policies and positions, but instead, by default, anyone who was a Communist or sympathetic to Communism, and not a Maoist or Trotskyist, during Stalin's time in power, and/or anyone who ever said a nice thing about Stalin. To use this broad a sense of the word is a tendentious distortion of its usual meaning. Therefore, my opinion is (a) that it makes little sense to call either one a Stalinist and (b) that their pro-Soviet positions are not the most significant points about either one, and should be treated only briefly in their articles. I have little taste for the partisan bickering and edit-warring which characterize most of the edits to this article, so I'm unwatching it and moving on to other topics. But it seems a shame to allow the kind of naked POV-pushing that might be expected on current politics spread into articles on major intellectual and artistic figures. Let's not waste more time re-fighting the Cold War when a better article on either DuBois or Neruda would be so easy to create. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American?

It seems a little POV to me that Du Bois is constantly listed as American in this article, when he angrily renounced his citizenship and moved to Ghana, where he gained citizenship. That he was born and lived in the United States doesn't seem to really be applicable; we don't consider Albert Einstein's 54 years in Germany enough to categorize him German, nor do we consider Ayn Rand a Soviet. Calling Du Bois an American seems to me just a denial of his pointed objections to and renunciation of the United States. He should be listed as a Ghanaian, as he was legally classified when he died. Sarge Baldy 16:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

This seems silly to me. He is most known for his work in America. He only spent two years in Ghana. Britannica identifies him as American, as does every biographical database and reference work I've looked at. Gamaliel 01:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What I meant to say in my edit summary was "calling him Ghanian in the intro creates a false impression". Of course the entry/article should mention this fact. Gamaliel 01:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I never changed anything in the article, I wanted to put it up for debate in the talk page first since I was sure there'd be conflict as to the matter. Certainly I want people to recognize that he was born and lived much of his life in the United States, but he chose to become Ghanaian and did. I think the current wording makes both points fairly evident. Sarge Baldy 01:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the newest version at all. Why does that point need to be segregated from his other descriptions? I don't see why it matters that it was "at the end of his life". "American-born" clarifies enough where he was originally from, and "naturalized Ghanaian" clarifies that he himself no longer regarded himself as American at the end of his lifetime. The current wording just makes it sound like he emigrated to Ghana to retire and die. Sarge Baldy 06:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I added "African American" to the short bio, because I feel that info was missing (I came to that page not sure of whether he was or not, and the picture didn't really help). I don't think it conflicts with this dicussion on nationality since "African American" is more about ethnicity than nationality (if you want, at the end of his life he was a ghanian african american ^-^ ) Flammifer 09:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He didn't renounce his American citizenship when he became a Ghanian citizen. He couldn't get a U.S. passport, so the Ghanian dictator gave him dual citizenship.

[edit] So was he born in Gahna or Mass.?

The intro says he's a naturalized citizen, but then it says he was born in Mass... Which is it?

Naturalization means changing citizenship to that of a state you weren't born in. He was born in Massachusetts, but became a Ghanian citizen in 1963. Having been born in the U.S. and immigrated to Ghana, that makes him a naturalized citizen. Sarge Baldy 21:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I added "at the age of 95" to the first paragraph. i think it helps put the fact into perspective, and won't allow to anyone to mistakenly think that he lived a significant portion of his life as a citizen of ghana, (and certainly not that he was born there.)128.119.132.42 22:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Education Controversy?

The page on Edward Bouchet states that Edward "..resigned in 1902 at the height of W.E.B. DuBois' controversy over industrial vs. collegiate education.". But I couldn't find anything about this controversy in the article on DuBois. Can anyone add something about this? -Feb 6, 2006

[edit] Revert reason

16:10, 19 May 2006 210.84.5.184 Current revision 210.84.5.184 (Talk) + *"[I]t takes extraordinary training and opportunity to make the average white man anything but a hog." [1]

The above text added by first time anonymous user 210.84.5.184 is now reverted because the text does not derive from a reputable source for quotations by the subject of this article.Skywriter 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It does now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title/body name spelling

Can someone please make consistent the spelling of the name in the article title and the article itself? Whether or not this has been beaten to death, they ought to be the same... (and I'm voting W.E.B. Du Bois) Outriggr 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is properly Du Bois. However, some references use DuBois and can not be located without that spelling. Skywriter 03:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of your point. The redirects are in place for either spelling, so moving the article to W.E.B. Du Bois should present no problem... Outriggr 05:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Skywriter 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

"In an article published June 8, 1997 and titled "A New and Changed NAACP Magazine" by James Bock in The Baltimore Sun, the Crisis, under the stewardship of Du Bois, set the agenda for the fledgling NAACP."

I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say; it seems to be missing a connective phrase somewhere. Was the article about how "Crisis" set the agenda for the NAACP? If so, there needs to be something like "according to" somewhere to make the relationship more clear. Gershwinrb 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"set" is the verb or connector word. "established" might remove the ambiguity. Skywriter 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then is that date right? Or was the subject of the article how Crisis established the NAACP's agenda. I don't mean to seem dense, but I'm honestly not seeing this one. Gershwinrb 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] started first department of sociology in US?

It says that W.E.B. Du Bois started the first department of sociology in the US but while reading up on the University of Chicago, I found that the same claim is attributed to that school. Specifcally, the page says "The university is also known for creating the first sociology department in the world, which later founded its own school of sociology." Could someone please find out which came first (Dubois's or chicago's) and correct the error?

Good question.

• UChi at http://sociology.uchicago.edu/ says it was "Founded in 1892 as the first sociology department in the United States". The article W.E.B. DuBois says he founded the dept of sociology at Atlanta U some time after his Ph.D (1896) and after teaching at two other institutions after that. So a re-write of the claim would be in order. See also Clark Atlanta University

[edit] Adding the space in Du Bois

I've gone through and added the space in Du Bois' name in the text of the article as well as in the references. I don't believe I made any changes in links--apologies if so and the links no longer work!

My company administers rights for the W.E.B. Du Bois Trust, and as his step-son David told me once, "The Doctor insisted upon the space!" and so, too, should Wiki.

On another note, Du Bois never actually renounced his citizenship. It was never his intention to do so (although rumours, probably started by his political enemies, continue to exist that he not only renounced his citizenship but did so "angrily"). There has been some recent evidence that the FBI took steps to revoke his citizenship, but that action (of which Du Bois was never made aware) didn't get very far and stopped, of course, with his death.

The above information was added 23:11, September 19, 2006 by Perm Dude - (Adding the space in Du Bois)

[edit] Darkened skin color

I think that his image has been manipulated to give his skin tone more darkness than nature imbued in him. People want to claim that the colored man with the Caucasian features was a " black," but he was not. GhostofSuperslum 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buried history

The article features so many exclamations of the words "African American," "Black," and so on that they blur the descriptions of Mr. Du Bois. Someone should strip away those silly words. The article is named W.E.B. Du Bois, not Adjectives which are employed to describe them darkies. Other articles which describe men aren't slathered with the people's skin color. The article on Mao Tse Tung doesn't relentlessy call him a "yellow." GhostofSuperslum 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen the phrase "descendant of slaves" in any wikipedia article. I have never seen the phrase "descendant of slaveowners" in any wikipedia article. Why are people reluctant to utilize those phrases in Wikipedia? W.E.B. Du Bois looks like a typical American Negro who is a descendant of slaves and slaveowners (perhaps with some American Indian admixture). Where is he entombed? I'd like to see someone go out and sample his DNA to see what "race" or "ethnic group" he belonged in. I am not convinced that he was a black." GhostofSuperslum 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubois and Pragmatism??

I don't know where to put this or how relevant this is, but I see that neither this page nor William James's page references any relationship between the two of them. Although my scope of knowledge in terms of the two of them is limited, one source I have been reading talks about a strong relationship between them two that had strong influences on Dubois's racial doctrines. I also don't know how popularly accepted this connection/influence is. The source is COLOR AND CULTURE by Ross Posnock. Perhaps the connection is noteworthy?

[edit] Childhood section

We just had an anonymous IP make a major change to what was a large section concerning Du Bois' childhood. I edited some of the grammar just for clarity, but I'm thinking the older one was better, though I can't tell if it's quoted from the book. I think we ought to edit from where Jarfingle had it and go from there. --Gpohara 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestry

Having just signed up, and being hopeless at computer stuff, I don't know where or how to put this. Please forgive my ignorance! The article says that his great-grandfather James DuBois of Poughkeepsie was "a person of color." W. E. B. Du Bois makes it clear in his Autobiography that James DuBois was a white descendant of Jacques DuBois, a 17th century Huguenot settler in Kingston, NY. (Brother of Louis DuBois, a founder of New Paltz. See the DuBois Family Association web pages, which mention W. E. B. Du Bois.) The Autobiography also mentions that some of his DuBois cousins were "passing."Wikisirius 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You did just fine. If you want to edit the paragraph so that it doesn't describe James Du Bois as an "ethnically mixed free [person] of color," go ahead. Another editor may challenge you, so you might want to make a footnote with a reference to the page or section in the Autobiography. If you need any help, just ask. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roxannelawson edits copied from other website

I googled a portion of Roxannelawson's edits and found a biography being copied word-for-word. I'm going to start reverting these unless an admin asks me otherwise. [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gpohara (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Apologies for not signing.--Gpohara 03:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another website with copied info. [3] --Gpohara 04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm done reverting for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Request some admin assistance in getting this sorted out. Happy New Year all. --Gpohara 04:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The first quotation by David Levering Lewis in the section: American Historical Association is marked as needing a citation. It is from the same pdf source as the second quotation in that section. ChrisFAF 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put the Spelling/Pronunciation Issue in the Article

I think it's appropriate that the matter of "'doo boyz' or 'du bwa,'" "'Du Bois' or DuBois'" be mentioned in the article. It's a common question people develop when learning about the man, and if there are reasonably "correct" answers out there (which there seem to be), they ought to be mentioned in an encyclopaedic article about him.

(Commando303)

You're right; there is some confusion about the correct pronunciation of Du Bois. The first sentence of the article identifies the correct pronunciation, which is the one used by Dr. Du Bois himself: William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (pronounced [dʊˈboɪz]). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)