Talk:Antoinette Harrell

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite slavery in the United States being outlawed in 1865, historian Antoinette Harrell found hundreds of examples of African-American families who remained enslaved through debt bondage on plantations up through the 1970s?Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that historian Antoinette Harrell found hundreds of examples of African-American families who remained enslaved through debt bondage on plantations into the 1970s?Source: [2]
  • ALT2:... that despite the United States outlawing slavery in 1865, historian Antoinette Harrell found examples of African-American families who remained enslaved through debt bondage as recently as the 1970s? Source: see ALT0

• Reviewed: Japanese idol
• Comment: I feel like the first hook is better with the context of when slavery was abolished, but I did create the second one in case anyone thinks it's a bit too long.

Created by Tpdwkouaa (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, and Earwig did not pick up any copyvio. Both hooks are cited and interesting. QPQ is pending. I'm holding off on approving the nom until the exact phrasing of the hook is discussed a bit more, but my initial interpretation is that it's factually clear enough. However, we may change to an alt such as "hundreds of thousands who remained enslaved, from 1865 up into the 1970s" or something like that. QPQ has been provided and I think ALT2 should address any concerns discussed below. All in all this looks like a great hook from a very interesting article! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a review. The source says there was an example in 1973. Is this "through the 1970s"? The source says there that there were 100s or 1000s who still remained enslaved. Was this "through the 1970s"? Is there a better source for these hooks or can they be rephrased? Victuallers (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello! Per the third paragraph of the source: "But she said many of them also lacked the resources to leave or had nowhere to go, and the generations – as many as up to five – stayed on well into the 1970s because they couldn’t leave." That's where my general reference to "the 1970s" comes from, but "through" could be changed to "into". /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed it to "into" - its important that hooks have factual refs - is there a source for the "100s of examples" in the 1970s? Victuallers (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Same source, seventh paragraph: “1973 is really, really not long ago,” Harrell said of when the modern day slaves finally left Waterford Plantation. “That’s in my lifetime. I was 13 years old, and the history books are teaching me that slavery was abolished and Lincoln freed the slaves. Was this just on paper? What about the people left on Waterford Plantation? Whitney Plantation? The history books failed to teach us that slavery wasn’t truly abolished, just on paper, but in actuality it was not for hundreds of thousands of people left behind.” Though, it actually says 'hundreds of thousands', so that could also be tweaked to reflect that wording. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

... but the hooks say "found hundreds of examples ... up through the 1970s?" so a) not through the 1970s and b) not hundreds of thousands IN the 1970s. The source says that there were this number not freed in the 19th century ... which IS a much longer time ago. Having one person en slaved in 1973 is terrible. We don't need to imply that there were 100s more in 1979, unless there is a ref that says that. Victuallers (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Victuallers: I read "hundreds of examples ... up through the 1970s" to mean hundreds of examples between the abolition of slavery and the 70s. The key here is the "up through", as it implies that not all of the examples were from one specific decade, but that they stretched over the period of time defined. You're reading it as "hundreds of examples ... throughout the 1970s" which is a big grammatical difference. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this interpretation @Tpdwkouaa:. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Per some discussion with Victuallers on my talk page, I'm proposing ALT2. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Victuallers:, @BuySomeApples:, thank you both for your input! BuySomeApples is correct, "up through the 70s" is meant to read as "into the 70s". Nomination has been updated with QPQ. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice work @Tpdwkouaa:! I have approved this nom since it seems ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)