Jump to content

Talk:John Lewis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wikiquote John Lewis

If your looking to access these quotes in wikiquote type in John Lewis just into the search box —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McNoddy (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).--McNoddy 13:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the quotations from this page as they were repetitive when used in conjunction with WikiQuote. Please post on the discussion page any reasons for why they are necessary before changing the page back. Diablomarcus 03:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs editing

I'm not going to do it, but as an interested reader, I suggest that the article be thoroughly edited. The last half, especially, is a series of disconnected sentences. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Addresses

It surely would be a great addition to include references to major speeches that Lewis has made pertaining to his life-long pursuits of civil rights and justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.44.250 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Howard Zinn

4 entire paragraphs of this article are quoted from Howard Zinn. Would anyone object if I greatly reduced the Zinn quotes in this article? OCNative 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. The article oddly currently reads like it's more about Zinn than about Lewis, even talking about where Zinn's articles were reprinted. --Delirium 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost two years later, the article still is mostly quotes from Howard Zinn and definitely should be re-written.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Post 2008-election quote

The quote to CBS needs a reference or I'm going to delete it. I want to go back and verify that he was specifically speaking of the 1963 civil rights bill, or was he referring to a later civil rights bill, or was he referring to all the civil rights legislation in general. It's a good quote and I'd like to keep it, but I need to know what he actually said. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

John Lewis (U. S. politician)?

Why the spaces after U. S. ? Is that now the standard format? Kingturtle (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Political positions

Source:[1] Jesanj (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Civil Rights Biography

  • Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement by John Lewis with Michael D'Orso, 1999)

I would like to have participated in this project but this reversion to difficult to understand language, without explanation either in the Talk page or the Edit Summary means that unless one has time and inclination to engage in an editing war on what should be a routine matter, it was time wasted to have spent doing it in the first place. The action of this reversion discourages me from contributing to the congressional project. skywriter 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also would have liked to have participated in this article. How can the writer not have known that John Lewis was one of the "Freedom Riders" an action that took place before his more well known SNCC activities. This was his true baptism into civil rights activism. Oldpanther 01:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldpanther (talk • contribs)
As far as I know, no one is blocking progress on the article. Please feel free to make improvments. Jesanj (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Panama

Is anyone aware of a reliable source that documents Lewis' position on the 1989 United States invasion of Panama before it happened? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Graphic novel

It was announced this February that Congressman Lewis will be authoring a graphic novel called March, to be released by Top Shelf Productions some time in 2012.[2] I wasn't sure where that would best fit into this article, so I figured I should post about it here in the hopes that someone else will manage. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies on Page

His birth date is given as 1960 (which I know is not correct). But it states below: "In 1961 he joined SNCC, the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee and the Freedom Rides. He was 21 years old." It also states: "In 1963, Lewis helped plan and took part in the March on Washington. At the age of 23, he was a keynote speaker at the historic event." I feel certain that he was born in 1940, not 1960. Sidney76 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Sidney76

Currently this page says the following:

After leaving SNCC in 1966, he worked with various community-oriented organizations and later became community affairs director for the National Consumer Co-op Bank in Atlanta. His first run for elective office was in a 1977 special election for the 5th District, which resulted when Andrew Young was appointed as ambassador to the United Nations. He lost to Atlanta city councilman Wyche Fowler. In 1981, Lewis himself was elected to the Atlanta City Council. In 1986, Fowler made an ultimately successful run for the United States Senate, Lewis ran in the Democratic primary to succeed Fowler and defeated then-state senator Julian Bond, another national Civil Rights leader. This was tantamount to election in the heavily Democratic 5th District. Lewis was the first African-American to represent Georgia in either house of Congress since Reconstruction. He has been reelected nine times without serious opposition, often with over 70 percent of the vote. He has been unopposed for reelection since 2002.

The above contains inconsistencies such as if Julian Bond held the 5th District seat in 1977, Lewis could not have been the first blah blah... I am therefore correcting this record. (Writers often get into trouble when making claims for the first this or first that. Inevitably, some earlier holder of the title steps forward.) skywriter 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


My rewriting and editing of this page was for naught as it has been reverted by BlueBoy96, without explanation here or in answer to request for explanation on this and his own Talk page. I object to the reversion because the language is difficult to understand and leaves out the important factual emphasis that Walking With the Wind is a Civil Rights autobiography. I also object because the reversion is needlessly dense and difficult for the reader to understand.

For the record, this is what I contributed to this page but that has now been reverted.

After leaving SNCC in 1966, he worked with community organizations and was then named community affairs director for the National Consumer Co-op Bank in Atlanta.

Lewis first ran for elective office in 1977 when a vacancy occurred in Georgia's 5th District. A special election was called after President Jimmy Carter appointed then Rep. Andrew Young, D-Atlanta, to be ambassador to the United Nations. Lewis lost the race to Wyche Fowler, then a member of the Atlanta City Council. In 1981, Lewis was himself elected to the Atlanta City Council.

In 1986, Fowler ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate. Lewis defeated Julian Bond, also a national Civil Rights leader, in the Democratic primary to succeed Fowler. Winning the primary was tantamount to election in the heavily Democratic 5th District. Lewis has been re-elected nine times without serious opposition, often with over 70 percent of the vote. He was unopposed for re-election in 2002 and 2004.

Since 1991, Lewis has been senior chief deputy whip in the Democratic caucus. He is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc..

Lewis is, according to the Associated Press, "the first major House figure to suggest impeaching George W. Bush," arguing that the president "deliberately, systematically violated the law" in authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct wiretaps without a warrant. Lewis said: "He is not King, he is president."[3]


Skywriter, it didn't say Julian Bond held the 5th district seat or any seat in the U.S. Congress; it says he was in the State (Georgia) Senate. (I didn't revert your changes though.) --63.150.149.226 04:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


-- It says in the page: 1990s In this decade, his worst winning percentage was in 1994 (69%). 2000s In this decade, his worst winning percentage was in 2000 (77%).[19] 2010 He won re-election with 74% of the vote, his worst winning percentage of his career.[20]

So if his winning percentage in 94 was 69%, then how is 74% the worst winning percentage of his career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.53.74 (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

repitious

The article repeats itself repeatedly. Under "Early life, education, career", a summary of the next section is given. This is repeated throughout. I find it disgraceful. Congressman Lewis is one of the most distinguished remaining civil rights leaders in this nation and this article does NO justice to him. 74.69.2.87 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Help request: Please clarify this section about the Freedom Riders

The following seems odd to me, but I am very tired [and so I (which I ironically left out at first--see why I'm asking for help instead of editing this myself?)] might be missing something:

"The Freedom Ride, originated by the Fellowship of Reconciliation and revisited by Farmer and CORE, was initiated to test a Supreme Court decision that desegregated interstate travel. The Freedom Riders traveled South challenging that decision."

If the Supreme Court decision actually was pro-desegregated interstate travel, why would they challenge it? So either the decision was anti-desegregation or (which I have a faint recollection of reading somewhere) the Freedom Riders were challenging the South's refusal to comply.

Thanks in advance! (I have a chronic illness which probably won't let me get back here, and so regretfully I often only can point things out. And talk page too much.) --Geekdiva (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

March: Book One

For people interested in the John Lewis article, let me mention that I just started a stub for The March trilogy, about the graphic novel that he just published. Feel free to contribute to it if you like. KConWiki (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Politician, or civil rights leader?

I question the current disambiguation language because it implies he is more notable for his years in Congress than for his role in the Civil Rights Movement. Even allowing for his long congressional tenure, I would still argue that his greatest notability to this day remains his civil rights leadership. He was most certainly portrayed in Selma more for that than his years in Congress; even the fact that he was the only leader of his stature to live to see President Obama's inaugural owes more to his youth during the 1960's than his political position. (Also, the word "Georgia" is almost automatically vague because it doesn't differentiate between the U.S. state and the ex-Soviet republic.) --RBBrittain (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing sit-in

I redirected 2016 House Democrats sit-in to the John Lewis article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this event is unprecedented and receiving a lot of media coverage, I created a stub. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Civil rights activism section is a mess

It jumps around chronologically and has repetitions of info. It needs some drastic editing! 172.251.75.106 (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reflections on the Obama presidency and race relations

The source cited in this section doesn't lead to any link, and googling only finds reference to this page and one blog post that refers to a link that doesn't seem to exist. It sounds like a plausible quote but the citation is no good and I can't easily fix it. TaraIngrid (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This section should be deleted, actually. Its notable only in the context of the last few days of news. In borader context, its largely irrelevant, in much the same way a Daniel Webster comment from the 1800's would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

philosophy of non-violence

Parts of the article read a bit like an encomium. To achieve some objectivity, a statement like "he became a dedicated adherent to the discipline and philosophy of nonviolence" would be more encyclopedic if the "philosophy of nonviolence" he follows was named and linked to. Otherwise it just sounds a bit gushing. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

Change typo in early life from "med Parks" to "met Parks" 100.15.104.179 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Done by Gandydancer (talk) JustBerry (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple parts of the page should be updated to reflect his 2016 re-election, as well as a 2012 primary challenge: § 3.1.3 should be "1988-2016" instead of "1988-2014". Within that section, he has been reelected 15 times (not 14), and he had a primary challenger a third time, in 2012. [1] § 7 Electoral History, the chart header should include the year range "1986-2016" instead of 1986-2012. A new 2016 row at the bottom of the chart should include the data John Lewis 253,781 84.4%, Douglas Bell 46,768 15.6%. [2] Jmill23 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ballotpedia.org/John_Lewis_(Georgia)
  2. ^ http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/63991/184321/en/summary.html

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

Please change March Book 3 to Winner of the National Book Award for Young People's Literature, from Finalist for the National Book Award, because it won the National Book Award in November 2016. [1] Cgillette (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/11/17/rep-john-lewiss-national-book-award-win-is-a-milestone-moment-for-graphic-novels/
Done Stickee (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 03:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

– The page views (won't let me link them here) compared with some of the other John Lewises shows there's no comparison, even when he hasn't been in the headlines the views on this page are still several times all the others combined. Lewis has been and will be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC due to his continued activism since the 1960s. MB298 (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, one of the brave souls from the 1960s who is still going strong. With his comic book series and congressional duties and stands he keeps his name, image, and ideals in front of the public. And per primary and lasting significance. Randy Kryn 22:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The pageviews seem like WP:RECENTISM to me. If you look at them from before Trump started attacking him, he's usually not ahead of John Lewis (department store) or say John Lewis Partnership, outside of a few spikes, so I can't really say they provide an accurate measure. I'm also concerned that this may be an America-centric move, in that Americans would know the congressman but not the store. With such an insanely common name with hundreds of articles bearing it like this one, I'm usually inclined to say there is no primary topic unless there's outstanding evidence, and there really isn't here. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence provided that this person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking quickly at the 90-day page views, when you factor out the spikes which occur on both pages with recent John Lewis news, Lewis still gets over 2,200 a day while the store gets around 600. Seems primary by that measure. And Lewis will hold up as an important person in history, look what's happened to the honoring of America's founding fathers centuries after they've died. King didn't do it alone, all the others will be honored in the future as well. The store is important, yet surprisingly, using the founding fathers as an example, Lewis and others will be better known worldwide as the decades pass than they are now. Randy Kryn 00:00, 1l February 2017 (UTC)
The results from Google UK suggest the department store as primary topic so no way this politician can be the PT here. Remember this is English-language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. [4] Zarcadia (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:GHITS are not the only metric of interest. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I had thought about making this same proposal myself in the past, but didn't. I get why someone argued "recentism" about Lewis, given the Trump thing, but it's still kind of funny, because Lewis has been a BFD for over 50 years now. Page views may wax and wane, but Lewis' major impact is undeniable, and I think enough to make him the primary topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
"but Lewis' major impact is undeniable, and I think enough to make him the primary topic" Your subjective opinion does not make this person the primary topic. There's no evidence he is. Zarcadia (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Read the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose John Lewis is a very common name. Up until recently this John Lewis was barely ahead of the department store of the same name, showing no evidence of being the unambiguous primary topic. This is an English-language Wikipedia. We serve Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Ireland, South Africa and the UK amongst others. This is not the American Wikipedia. The evidence suggests John Lewis is not the worldwide primary topic. Making emotive statements like "Lewis' major impact is undeniable, and I think enough to make him the primary topic" does not make it so. We should go on facts here, not emotion. I think this is an example of WP:GEOBIAS in a move proposal. AusLondonder (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I make my comments assuming people have read the page. He is an American, but also a major figure of the Civil Rights Movement and it's hard to sum up his impact in a brief talk page comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious this person is very important to you, but that doesn't make him primary topic when he clearly isn't. Zarcadia (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Muboshgu Of course I've read the page. He is only of significance in one English-speaking nation. AusLondonder (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Georgia politician is only getting 48% of John Lewis pages views at a more typical period (Sept 2016). At Christmas 2014 2015 when the John Lewis advert runs he is overtaken by the department store. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and granted, he doesn't rate primary with page views. But the other path to primary topic is long-term significance which is decided, in large part, by educational value. This path is being forgotten by the opposition votes here. Does this page qualify under that option? Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really, he's only of local interest to one country. It's a very common name. And it's not as "(Georgia politician)" isn't a helpful WP:CRITERIA title, John L. Lewis is also known as John Lewis (labor leader) in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Long-term significance in one English-speaking country does not equate to a primary topic globally on the English Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Civil rights is a global issue, which is why Nelson Mandela and Gandhi are so important here in the U.S. But I agree with Randy Kryn that this discussion will probably end in no consensus or consensus not to move. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I forgot about John L. Lewis. With him and the store chain this seems like a non-move, so can we open up a discussion to change the descriptor? "(Georgia politician)" just doesn't do him justice or accuracy. He will be known long-term not as a politician but as a "(civil rights leader)". Randy Kryn 21:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. MB298 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: agreed, that is a significant improvement in WP:RECOGNIZABILITY In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Does a suggested change to "(civil rights leader)" need a new RM, or maybe MB298 can ping the others who commented here? I don't know what the formal path is to suggest a new name in the middle of a discussion and then have that name 'chosen' by the closer. Or is it just enough editors agreeing? Randy Kryn 12:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Is closing the RM and moving the page to the (civil rights leader) descriptor an option? Doesn't seem controversial. Randy Kryn 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are 59 entries listed within the John Lewis disambiguation page — far too many for one name to be the primary topic, but exceptions do exist — justifiable or not. The biggest such exception is for composer John Williams who is the primary topic of the 162-entry John Williams (disambiguation) page. Mention may also be made of Australian politician Bob Brown, the primary topic of the Bob Brown (disambiguation) page which has 22 entres. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment—This is the English Wikipedia. But don't make the mistake that of assuming it is only read (or edited) by just those countries where English is the main language. It isn't. The English Wikipedia is global resource. — Neonorange (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Completely Americanocentric. In Britain, John Lewis almost exclusively refers to the John Lewis Partnership. Pretty much nobody (unless they knew somebody called John Lewis!) would think of anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not primary topic by usage when you factor out recentism. I was against long term significance when it was added to primary topic, and still think it's wrong. Primary topics were originally solely determined by reflecting what people are most likely to search, and that's strictly a numbers thing; has nothing to do with subjective measures of historical significance. I see no benefit to WP users taking historical significance into account in this case, or in any case, so I apply WP:IAR to that consideration. Therefore, no primary topic. No move. --В²C ☎ 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
All of you folks are missing what occurred on the sub-talk above. We're all in agreement that the page will not become primary. The title 'John Lewis (civil rights leader)' has been suggested and I've commented that it's probably uncontroversial. What's your take on it? The present descriptor (Georgia politician) certainly doesn't seem accurate enough, and his long-term significance will be as a civil rights leader and not as a politician from Georgia. Randy Kryn 02:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

John Lewis (civil rights leader)

Hi. Can someone put up an RM for 'John Lewis (civil rights leader)', I'm having trouble formatting RM requests. The name is presently a redirect, but the page could also be renamed over the redirect if an admin agrees that it is noncontroversial (the name was proposed in the above RM and nobody opposed), or if a discussion here finds it is noncontroversial. The reasoning is that Lewis' long-term significance will be as a civil rights leader and not as a Georgia politician. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Lewis (civil rights leader). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John Lewis (civil rights leader). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Lewis (civil rights leader). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly misleading segment regarding Haiti

A segment regarding Haiti appears to lack important context. The segment reads

In 1994, when Clinton was considering invading Haiti, Lewis, in contrast to the Congressional Black Caucus as a whole, opposed armed intervention. When Clinton did send troops to Haiti, Lewis called for supporting the troops and called the intervention a "mission of peace".

The first sentence refers to statements made sometime on or before September 16, 1994 (based on the date of the cited article). The second sentence refers to statements made on October 6, 1994 (as per the cited paper). In between those dates a (relatively) peaceful transition of power was successfully negotiated as described in Foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration#Haiti. The nature of the subsequent troop presence was thus substantially different from what Lewis had apparently opposed.

I'm not sure how best to add context. Perhaps the second sentence could be replaced with this:

After a peaceful transition of power was negotiated, Lewis supported the presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, calling the operation a "mission of peace".

I'm not sure if this is the perfect wording, as I do not commonly edit Wikipedia. The term "peaceful" is used here by the U.S. State Department.

Lewis' full quotation from October 6 can be found here. I do not have access to the Star Tribune article cited as a source for Lewis' earlier statements. Smoclon (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism noticed and cleaned up Feb 26, 2020

Hello, all, researching today, I came across a notable Vandalism, specifically changing the link to the US House of Representatives (ushr) to the musician (Usher). Multiple other things were off as I looked closer, including successor and predecessor names that appear to have been changed to anagrams, and broke their links. I tried to go back in the history to see if I could easily revert the article to a good spot, but there appeared to be both Vandalism and valid changes made today, so I manually weeded out the Vandalism in a series of edits. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but not new to attention to detail, so it took a bit, but I think I got them all.

If you have any questions about the edits I made, or if I need to provide additional citations, please let me know. Kohrmy (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. There is basically a three-and-a-half way tie of opinion between carrying out the proposal, moving the title to John Lewis (Georgia politician), declaring this John Lewis to be the primary topic of the name, and keeping as is. There are reasonable arguments for each position, but no clear consensus from which a specific move can be carried out. There appears to be consensus against the position that the subject is either the primary topic, or the primary "U.S. politician" by this name. BD2412 T 04:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

John Lewis (civil rights leader) → John Lewis (U.S. politician) – Lewis is known for his congressional position more than being a civil rights leader. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose, Lewis' long-term historical significance will center around his accomplishments and leadership roles during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. There are thousands of present and past U.S. politicians, but only a few people did what Lewis did to expand human and legal rights in his nation and, by example, throughout the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:NCPDAB. We pick disambiguators that a person is best known for, and politician is a standard disambiguator which he is undeniably well known for. Alternatively, the undiscussed move of 3 years ago should be reverted and this page moved back to John Lewis (Georgia politician). Iffy★Chat -- 13:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • He is "best known for" his work in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. The most media coverage Lewis receives every year is when he goes back to Selma, Alabama, on the anniversary celebration of the Selma to Montgomery March and leads, at the front of the line and arm-in-arm with major politicians and other Civil Rights Movement leaders in attendance, the reenactment of Bloody Sunday in a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. In fifty years his political career will be a footnote to the honors and statues that will be put up for Lewis' role in the movement, thus the long-term significance portion of Wikipedia's titling guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I still believe that John Lewis the civil rights leader / politician is the primary topic for "John Lewis", and that John Lewis & Partners is sufficiently different in name to stand on its own as well. I see that I did a terrible job of advocating for that position in the requested move discussion of three years ago. He has been a major force in the civil rights movement and in American politics in a way that I think that either disambiguater leaves out too major proportion of his notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Pure Americanocentrism. Not an especially well-known figure outside the US and other John Lewises are far more significant in other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move back to to John Lewis (Georgia politician). We never use "U.S." in disambiguators for American people and there are a number of American politicians called John Lewis in any case. It's utter rubbish that he is the primary topic for John Lewis. Trust me that most people outside America will never have heard of him. The primary topic for John Lewis in the UK, for instance, is far and away the department store chain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As primary the page seems to be opposed. But if the choice is limited to the two disamb. titles, historical long-term significance would go to 'civil rights leader'. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That's how long-term significance works. What, in the long run, is the greatest historical impact of a topic. If Lewis is not primary then either 'civil rights leader' or 'Georgia politician' are the choices, and Lewis' contributions to the overturning of legal segregation in the U.S. (in a movement that has been called the "second American revolution") has reverberated across the U.S. and the world ever since in similar movements and similar removals of legal barriers. Lewis's role, bravery, and leadership positions during this era can be compared to few other individuals. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Lewis is notable both as a civil rights leader in the 1960s and as a congressman from the 1970s until today. His greatest notability comes from his political career. Obviously his civil rights activity helped launch his political career, but it's not unusual for political figures to have earlier careers that propel them into office. TFD (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move back to to John Lewis (Georgia politician) (where the page was until 2017) per nom, others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose John Lewis's long term notability is as a civil rights leader. He belongs to a much more selective group than U.S. politicians. Large numbers of U.S. politicians would not be U.S. politicians were it not for his activities as a civil rights leader. On the other hand, the high street store is known as John Lewis & Partners. The current status seems correct—without even asking the question which subject has had more effect on our history?—no matter what our nation of birth. Just wondering, but how many school textbooks (other than for MBA candidates) mention John Lewis, the civil rights leader, compared to the number that mention John Lewis & Partners—across all countries? — Neonorange (Phil) 03:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Neonorange, do you think that most readers looking for this article come here because they are interested in his civil rights career or his congressional career? Did you first hear about him because you were following the civil rights movement or because he was a congressman? When Dr. King was alive I knew who he was and also Malcolm X and heard about Dr. Abernathy when he replaced King. But I never heard about John Lewis until he became a congressman. Now you can say that I never followed the civil rights movement properly (although I was pretty young at the time) but I doubt Lewis would have the same fame had he not been elected to Congress. TFD (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Reply to The Four Deuces — Yes, I do think that most users of en.wikipedia will be looking for John Lewis (civil rights leader). Most users in the U.S. will go to John Lewis, find the disambiguation page, and then choose John Lewis (civil rights leader). In the U.S. I expect for the last decade or more, every student in state funded 1-12 grades will have been presented with his civil rights role more years than not. In other English-speaking countries, I seriously doubt meany users will even know he is a politician. If such users do know his name, it will be as a civil rights leader. I seriously doubt I can name two dozen members of the U.S. House of representatives. In fact, if it were not for the recent impeachment, I doubt I could name a dozen. After all, a Full House has 435 members and all stand for election every two years. I don't even know the representative for my district (thought I expect I will be getting mailers real soon now. I should bring up that John Lewis has stage IV pancreatic cancer. — Neonorange (Phil) 08:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I am sure most people could not name 2 dozen members of Congress but if they could Lewis would be one of them because he is influential, high profile and makes the news frequently. His civil rights record was taught in schools from early in the century because he was a high profile person. The other followers of King among the Big Six were equally important but were not elected to Congress hence are less well known. It's similar to John Kennedy's war record being made into a movie. While Kennedy was obviously heroic, the story caught attention because of Kennedy's subsequent political career. TFD (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
          • The Four Deuces, taking the titling component of "long-term historical significance" into consideration John Lewis will be prominently known, in a hundred years, as one of the major participants in the Civil Rights Movement (what has been called the Second American Revolution). He will not be known very much as a congressman, let alone a "Georgia politician". Neonorange knows of what he speaks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
            • I disagree. The 2015 Routledge biography, Martin Luther King, Jr. mentions Lewis a mere 4 times. I doubt many of today's politicians will be well remembered. But the entry for Lewis will say, "A leading Democratic congressman, who gained prominence by his connection with the Civil Rights movement." TFD (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
              • Which seems more of a case for primary, especially since John Lewis the store changed its name to John Lewis & Partners. The American's case for 'civil right leader' and 'U.S. congressman' can both be argued effectively, and both are so notable that primary seems the way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Comment@The Four Deuces — the Routledge series of compact biographies may not be very useful for counting mentions—it's merely 300 pages; a comprehensive biography of King runs multiple volumes—Pillar of Fire alone runs over 700 pages—and covers John Lewis across 20 pages. John Lewis was 28 years old in the year King was assassinated—it boots nothing to set John Lewis's role against King's. They were complementary figures working through complementary organizations—SNCC and SCLC. A more useful exercise would be to read the memorializations of Lewis's Honorary degrees and histories of the American civil rights movement — Neonorange (Phil) 01:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
              • If you have 4 books of 700 pages you would expect even minor people to have a lot of mentions. I can only find 5 mentions in the book, of which only two say anything about him. Also, he was a leader in the Civil Rights movement from 1963-66. Most of the coverage of his time in the civil rights movement came after he was elected to Congress. His civil rights history became of interest because he was a congressman, just as Kennedy's record as a war hero became of interest after he became a senator. (There was even a movie about it, PT 109 (1963).) As you say, Lewis was only 28, so was not well known at the time. TFD (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                • Sorry, but Neonorange is correct that you probably need to read more about this, maybe start with Lewis' own book and his graphic novel series. Lewis's accomplishments and historical place in the 1950s-1960s Civil Rights Movement did not occur because he was elected to Congress. At the time and for decades later the major media focused on Dr. King, and his assassination solidified him as the image of the Civil Rights Movement. But when you expand that universe of accomplishment within the topic, John Lewis is there, and that's where his major historical significance, his long-term notability, exists. Your comments are in good faith, but please study the material. And again, both points of view are arguable, each counteract the other, and there is no logical reason to exclude either, which further explains why this article should be at titled primary now that the store has changed its name. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                  • So you're saying that Lewis was not well-known until he became a congressman and wrote a book about his role in the civil rights movement. There's a book by James Forman, The Making of Black Revolutionaries (University of Washington Press, 1972). He says very little about Lewis despite being executive secretary of the SNCC when Lewis was chairman. In fact there's very little about him in the article, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. IOW he's well known for his civil rights role in books about him but not in books about the civil rights movement. TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                    • During the movement years there was only one nationally "well-known" person, Dr. King. People were aware of others, such as Ralph Abernathy, and in various movement cities others were well-known, such as Fred Shuttlesworth in Birmingham and Amelia Boynton in Selma. But long-term notability and historical significance adhere to historical norms of notability-plus-time. Yes, popular wider knowledge of Lewis's deeds did not become familiar until he was in Congress and gained the praise of his congressional colleagues and the media throughout the years. Yet he now, along with Jesse Jackson, is the major "known" individual from the movement years along with Dr. King, Rosa Parks, and Coretta King. Those five are likely the only Civil Rights Movement participants that the average person could name upon questioning, the "names on the board" in television game-show terminology. But, as to not essay-length this, that Lewis is included among those five is a combination of his congressional service which often focuses on his Civil Rights Movement accomplishments (i.e. Lewis's yearly pilgrimage to Selma during its anniversary ceremonies and bridge-crossing reenactment accompanied by dozens of congressional colleagues), his longevity (which has allowed for accumulating honors and for the media to focus on his early deeds when interviewing or feature profiling him), and his movement accomplishments themselves (in the Nashville Student Movement, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the Selma Voting Rights Movement, his leadership role with SNCC, etc.). But to bottom-line it, it is easy to take either side of this discussion - that Lewis's long-term significance resides in his movement years or in his congressional service - which shows that, when compared with the other names listed on the disamb. page, Lewis should be primary with a hatnote leading to the disambiguation. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Frankly, most school textbooks outside the USA and UK will mention neither of them! Trust me, as a non-American, he's really not that well-known outside America. He's hardly a Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X. Sorry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment—Even more frankly, "Trust me" carries little weight in Wikipedia discussions. More scholarship and less heat, please. — Neonorange (Phil) 18:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Hmmm. You were the one who suggested, with no evidence, that this John Lewis was the best-known! I'm just pointing out that this is an Americanocentric view, just as it would be an Anglocentric view for me to suggest that the department store chain was the best-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are many U.S. politicians named John Lewis, so if the argument is that this John Lewis is the primary topic of John Lewis (U.S. politician), then that would be a different discussion. Additionally, John Lewis (Georgia politician) sounds as if he serves at a state level only. KyleJoantalk 06:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That's in contradiction to hundreds of other American representatives and senators who are already disambiguated with John Foo ([State] politician). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Right, and I have my opinions about those articles as well. Regarding this one, John Lewis was not born in the state of Georgia–the way John Lewis (Montana politician) was born in Montana–nor does he hold a position in Georgia–the way John Lewis (California politician) served in California. Aside from that, Georgia is also the name of a country in addition to the US state. Why risk any uncertainty? KyleJoantalk 10:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Your opinion aside, that is the naming convention established over many years. It's especially apposite given that politicians in Congress are often actually described as a Representative or Senator from Georgia (or wherever). He has represented a Georgia seat for 33 years, which surely makes him very closely associated with Georgia. And a politician from the country would be (a) called a Georgian politician; (b) unlikely to be called John Lewis; and (c) irrelevant to this discussion unless there actually was one called John Lewis! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
          • . . . that is the naming convention established over many years. Except he's not only known as a politician, therefore, the naming convention is not fully applicable. He has represented a Georgia seat for 33 years . . . And he's been a civil rights leader for no less than 46. KyleJoantalk 12:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
            • I don't think that any reliable sources would say he was a leader of the Civil rights movement for 46 years, since that era is considered to have ended around 1968, two years after Lewis had been voted out of his leadership role. TFD (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
              • Lewis was not "voted out" of SNCC. He left as chairman in May, 1966, when the group was taking a direction away from nonviolence (the philosophical core foundation of the successful Civil Rights Movement and its actions and participatory short and long-term events). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                • Is the title civil rights leader only applicable to one's work during the civil rights era? I thought it was a description of one's overall career. For example, Al Sharpton is regarded by The Los Angeles Times and The Independent as a civil rights leader, but he wasn't a leader during the 1960s. Another example would be William Barber II–described as a civil rights leader by The Guardian and The Washington Post–who was only five years old when the civil rights movement ended. In that sense, if sources still refer to Lewis a civil rights leader today then he remains a civil rights leader, no? KyleJoantalk 16:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                  • Randy Kryn, s ee The Making of Black Revolutionaries, p. 455: "John Lewis was defeated for the chsirmanship by Stokely Carmichael." Forman says the media saw this as a triumph by pro-violence elements, although he says it was untrue. Lewis took a position as head of international affairs before quitting without providing any reason.[5] KyleJoan, I suppose some sources do, although he is more often referred to, including in his Wikipedia article, like his mentor Jesse Jackson, as a civil rights activist. But we don't normally describe elected officials as activists. TFD (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                    • I'm seeing fine and detailed arguments for both disamb. options, with neither weak. Why not just make this page primary? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                        • I think that's a good idea. I never heard anyone refer to John Lewis & Partners as John Lewis and none of the other articles meet the same notability. TFD (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
                          The Four Deuces, exactly! I'd love someone WP:UNINVOLVED to come and close this, and I'll start a proper RM to move this article to John Lewis. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                          The department store chain is always referred to as John Lewis! Nobody calls it John Lewis & Partners. We've already had an RM. See above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                          Wikipedia does. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                          Only for disambiguation purposes. That doesn't make this John Lewis primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                          The point some of us are making here is that this page has two distinct and arguably equal disambiguation choices, so choosing either of those leaves the other equally correct. The store's article name was changed since the last RM, and already has a definitively correct article name while this one does not. That, combined with Lewis's accomplishments in two fields of endeavor, make primary a clear choice for some editors commenting here. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
                          The fact remains that the department store chain is commonly known as John Lewis and is far and away the primary topic for John Lewis in the UK, where almosty nobody will have heard of the American civil rights leader/politician but everyone will have heard of the department store. Frankly, I doubt whether even most people in the US will be familiar with this John Lewis. He's relatively obscure as far as civil rights leaders and politicians go. Whereas, I reiterate, everyone in the UK will recognise John Lewis as a department store. It's an absolute household name, whereas he is not even in his native country. So, to be honest, claiming that this gentleman has any sort of primacy is ludicrous and Americanocentric in the extreme. The departmemt store article has been given the full name of the company simply for natural disambiguation purposes. That does not take away from the fact that its common name is simply the first two words and does not mean that because this John Lewis cannot be naturally disambiguated he is therefore automatically primary. That is not what the guidelines say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Middle Name

Can his middle name be confirmed? I don't see it in his congressional biography and I see him referred to as Congressman John L. Lewis at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-david-saperstein/going-to-jail-to-fight-ge_b_194601.html Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

history.house.gov lists him as "Lewis, John R.", and there's a variety of places that specify his name as John Robert Lewis (including a CNN profile and a quote from him in an interview). Whoever wrote that Huffington Post article might have just made a typo, or might have been thrown off by the fact that there happen to be two Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients named John Lewis (the other one's middle initial is L). Daknalo (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Early life section redundancy

About half of the "Early life" section (the middle half) seems to be a sort of summary of a chunk of the "Civil rights activism" section that follows. It's redundant and, IMO, makes the article awkward to read. I think the article could be improved if:

  1. The "Early life" section was renamed to "Childhood" and focused just on his life through high school. The section would cover his birthplace, siblings and parents, and experiences like the trip to Buffalo, NY.
  2. The student activism info that's currently in the "Early life" section was consolidated into the "Civil rights activism" section.

Would anyone object to me doing that (and/or have other feedback)? Daknalo (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The "Civil rights activism" section has a similar problem with things being out-of-order and a little duplicated. I'd like to try to address that too, but I'll do it separately (one thing at a time). IMO the "Civil rights activism" section could also be divided into sub-sections (i.e., subsections for the Nashville Student Movement, Freedom Rides, etc.). Daknalo (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

July 11, 2020 death report

For some reason it was reported that John Lewis died on July 11, 2020. Here is a news story from the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporting his chief of staff stating that he isn't dead. - Jon698 talk 19:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Jon698, I have protected the page for three days based on IP edits adding this death hoax as though it were real. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/rumor-rep-john-lewis-has-died-are-untrue-spokesman-says/y3ZdCuC98eO2gD7w7NoOSM/

Lewis has reportedly passed, July 17, 2020

On July 17th, Lewis's death is now being reported by legitimate sources on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/1284326141352914944 https://twitter.com/goldietaylor/status/1284324190544429057 https://twitter.com/GravelInstitute/status/1284325477306507264

Dotdh15 (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It needs to have been reported by legitimate sources in major news outlets. Nothing less. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Mélencron here on an alt – just returning to say that this is really poor conduct on your part; perhaps it's down to a generation separating us, but tweets from journalists who are respected in their area of expertise clearly meet the bar of being an RS, and in my time editing, never have I encountered any objection from other editors for using {{cite tweet}} whether for breaking news or not. Mélencron2 (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
If the major news outlets have not confirmed it and published it, it's not usable. We're not running a ghoulish race to be first to report someone's death. They rtake the time to check, so must we. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That's all well and good if you believe that, but that's not consistent with my understanding of the guideline, as I don't think most editors would consider it objectionable to use tweets of journalists (from major news outlets!) as a source, especially for the type of primary source reporting which is not necessarily going to make it into the body of news articles filed on short deadlines with lower word limits. In any case, it is not at all appropriate for an admin to engage in edit-warring of this type – emphasis on the fact that this was not a clear WP:BLPVIO, and this was not an appropriate use of rollback privileges. Mélencron2 (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Sourceless reporting of someone's death is a clear-cut BLP violation. There were several edits like that, all equally unacceptable. None of the edits to the article provided any sourcing until the USAToday source came up. As of now, the Washington Posgt, New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution still have not reported it. They're presumably doing what reliable sources do - checking to make sure it's not a rumor. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's a legitimate source (sort of). First I've seen, other than tweets. Szarka (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's a better one. Szarka (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And here's HufPo running whatever obit they had in the can, probably. Szarka (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And now we're getting the kind of sourcing we must insist upon when we report on someone's death. How hard was it to wait until that happened? I've dropped it back to semi-protection. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
And now, the NYT has it covered, and the AJC. Someone has checked. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

He died on 7/17/2020 Wikijusticereform (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

New infobox photo

Would this photo be better to use for the infobox? I feel like it's just a more official looking portrait. --Rockin 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

“change born city from Troy, AL to Brundidge, AL” 71.91.132.95 (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request re Honorary Degrees

I was reading this page in light of Rep. Lewis's death, and I noticed an objective error. Lewis's honorary degree from Yale is listed as having been awarded by the Yale Law School. His honorary degrees, as is Yale's practice, was awarded by Yale University, and not the Law School -- even though his honorary degree was labeled as a law degree. See https://news.yale.edu/2017/05/18/yale-awards-honorary-degrees-eight-individuals-their-achievements (reflecting that Lewis's degree was awarded at University Commencement); see https://secretary.yale.edu/governance/honorary-degrees (explaining that honorary degrees are awarded by the Yale Corporation, and implying that this is a University-wide honor, not necessarily one that is specific to a school). 172.114.175.131 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done You make a good point. Also the URL is from Yale University. KittenKlub (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2020

Change accidentally used Cummings when posing their tributes to.... posting their tributes 107.198.87.192 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2020

Add to the list of John Lewis' honorary academic degrees: "1999: Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Knox College" References: https://www.knox.edu/about-knox/our-history/honorary-degrees/honorary-degrees-1900-1999 http://departments.knox.edu/newsarchive/news_events/releases_1998-99/Founders_Day_1999.html OakRunPaul (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Was done by Knoxcollegewnms. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Resemblance to Elijah Cummings

When looking at the photos of the two side-by-side, it's clear that the two men look alike. It should be brought up in their articles. 24.112.138.212 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. Volunteer Marek 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
If you bring WP:RSs it could be considered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Apparently they look alike to Marco Rubio, but we would need a source that said the resemble each other. TFD (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Your 24.112.138.212 comment is extremely racist! No, all black men do not look alike. I am a white person who is privileged with the honor to call both John Lewis and Elijah Cummings my dear, dear friends. I have had that honor since the late 1960s - I was just a young pup back then. They are much better people than I am - much, much better. As I've told them for decades, I can only hope and strive to have the patience, intelligence, and where-with-all they had in dealing with racist pieces of filth that they had, but I don't. By that I mean, part of my white privilege is that racists piss me off - but they weren't allowed to be pissed off like me. Ya' see, I've never understood racism or bigotry of any sort. How in the world can one human hate/despise or want to demean/degrade/oppress another human just because their skin color, or religion, or dialect is different? Racism is a learned thing. Hate/bigotry is a learned thing. Seems you had the wrong teachers? I had the right teachers: the lovely, and very manly John Lewis and Elijah Cummings. To close, I proudly proclaim my undying, unfettered love for both Elijah & John. The world is a better place because they were in it. I miss them both so much that my heart is aching, the hole in my heart is almost unbearable. Yes, I've been crying all day over my loss, the world's loss - and it is truly the world's loss. It's unfortunate for you that you, apparently, never had the honor of knowing, hugging, and engaging in brilliant conversation with anyone like either of those lovely, lovely men. Godspeed my dear John & Elijah. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This should never be considered for inclusion in this article. John Lewis was a civil rights leader, not a scandalous rag mag celebrity look-a-like. Ted Cruz and the rest of his ilk's inability to differentiate between two great men is utterly idiotic but more importantly, unencyclopedic. Praxidicae (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
What does Ted Cruz have to do with this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia [6] -- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It matters not what people think is racist (who cares), it matters not what people like about the article or not. It matters that people legitimately confuse these brothers in arms. Hence, aptly, the distinguish tag is there. Trillfendi (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the article about Rubio and Sullivan posting the wrong picture. That is all that needs to be said. We certainly aren't going to say, anywhere in the article, that the two men "looked alike". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I have removed that sentence. Should go in their pages if anywhere. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is an article by Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, Elijah Cummings' widow, on the subject. https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0723-elijah-cummings-john-lewis-20200722-sls4huvaznct3ne6kjrqdn5dge-story.html 2601:14F:8300:C1C0:115E:D02E:9D1E:72C2 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong statement based on wrong Congressional district

In the Tenure section, this statement is not correct about GA-05

"Since its formalization in 1845, the district has been represented by a Democrat for all but the nine years the seat was vacant when Georgia seceded during the Civil War.[66]"

That Atlanta Journal-Constitution link at Reference Note 66 is all about GA-06, not GA-05 represented by Lewis.

If you look at the Wikipedia list of who has held the GA-05 seat, you will see 17ish years (not nine years) when the district has not been represented by a Democrat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_5th_congressional_district#List_of_members_representing_the_district — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.196.110 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

under who is speaking at his funeral, it's George W. Bush, with a period. 50.125.228.122 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done Danski454 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Intricate discussion, but the support positions summed up by Yaksar's and Cullen328's arguments cover the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria and addresses the UK/US issue, that there can still be a worldwide primary topic even if there are different levels of "known-ness" in individual areas. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

– There has been some disagreement in the past over where this page should be located. I suggested in the last RM proposal (February through March 2020, see above) that this John Lewis is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "John Lewis", but the RM closed, according to the admin, as a "three way tie" between the "civil rights leader" disambiguator, the "Georgia politician" disambiguator, and no disambiguator. I want to break that tie. I believe that he is the primary topic, based significantly on his role in the Civil Rights movement as one of the Big Six (activists) and especially the Selma to Montgomery marches, and his tenure in the U.S. Congress, including events like the 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in. I believe that the news coverage around his death and funeral cements this.[7][8]

The only other "John Lewis" that approaches this level of notability for the name, as the disambiguation page suggests, is John Lewis & Partners, which is already naturally disambiguated from the individuals named John Lewis. The stats show that that "John Lewis" isn't the primary topic, while this one is. Using "What Links Here", "John Lewis (civil rights leader)" has over 1,000 articles linked to it. "John Lewis (Georgia politician)", a redirect, has another 419 incoming links. "John Lewis & Partners" is linked from 208 articles. ("John Lewis and Partners" has another three.) The civil rights leader also had 10x more page views than the department store from April through June (I specifically ended the page view search before his death to exclude the expected spike in page views). I'm having trouble presenting the link due to the syntax, but check it out at https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-04-01&end=2020-06-30&pages=. From April through June, this page had 225k views vs 27k for the department store.

So, I propose moving this page to "John Lewis" and including the hat note at the top of this John Lewis's page that says For the department store, see John Lewis & Partners. For all other uses, see John Lewis (disambiguation). The department store's page will be unaffected by this proposal, and should not stand in the way of us moving this page to "John Lewis". Anyone presently going to "John Lewis" needs to click a link to get to the department store's page as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Starting with pageviews: even before his death, the civil rights leader was getting an overwhelming majority of page views. What is perhaps more telling though: the only time there really seemed to be strong page view interest in the department store was at the time of the civil rights figure's death or other major moments with him: when department store page views shoot up is when the civil rights leader is in the news. The store is usually in the 100-300 views per day range -- at John Lewis' death, it shot up to over 8,000. Similar spikes appeared whenever the civil rights leader was also in the news, such as when his cancer was announced last year and the store briefly went up to over 1,000. The same spikes were showing up with the disambiguation page -- it is very obvious that reader interest is overwhelmingly for the civil rights figure, and that readers are ending up at the disambiguation page only because they are looking for his page.
Outside of pageviews, the international breadth of coverage of his death (and indeed of his life) is telling. Were this only the British Wikipedia it's likely there would be no clear primary topic, but it is the international English Wikipedia, and global interest in the figure (given the multiple statements from world leaders and the fact that he was actually eulogised in foreign parliaments), combined with the page views, is pretty clear. A google books search for "John Lewis is" also brings up results entirely about the figure versus the store. All the objective "tests" we would generally use to determine a primary topic seem pretty clear. While the store's official name is technically different, that doesn't mean it is not a partial match for the base page name -- however, what is clear is that the civil rights figure is the primary topic on all counts. We do not prioritise American subjects, nor do we prioritise British subjects, or Australian subjects, or Canadian subjects. The English language Wikipedia is for all English language readers, and in this case it is overwhelmingly clear that those English language readers are looking for this subject. In the same vein, Scottish users might not see Perth, Australia as a primary topic given the existence of Perth, Scotland, but that is not a reason to discount the clear views of the whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the page views are quite possibly recentism from the recent death (10 days ago). When I Google John Lewis the majority of the results are still for the department store (probably because of my location), Images is split but Books does appear to show more results for the civil rights leader. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    Crouch, Swale, as I said, the page view numbers I listed come from before John Lewis' death. Backing it up by a year (April 1-June 30, 2019), the civil rights leader had 91k views while the department store had 26k (with 1,700 of them all on April 17, 2019, for whatever reason) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    As was noted in the 2017 RM he was barely ahead of the store on most days[[9]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    It's a much bigger gap than "barely ahead", even if we discount those huge monthly spikes for the individual, which we shouldn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    When comparing Google hits, please take care to factor in that the department store surely pours a good bit of money into search engine optimisation, as most retailers do these days. If you can strip out hits from “johnlewis.com” if possible. Maybe this was done with the original search, but figured I would point it out. Rikster2 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, Lewis' importance in a movement which is called the Second American Revolution was initially of importance to the U.S., but the reach of the movement into every nation still creates ripple effects on a daily basis. The department store has changed its name to John Lewis & Partners, providing room to primary the civil rights leader. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes but its still nearly always called "John Lewis" per WP:COMMONNAME, the official name was chosen per WP:NATURAL. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe if it had kept the name 'John Lewis', but by adding '& Partners' the store has changed its official name, so that's at least an added reason to primary the civil rights leader which wasn't applicable before the store's name change in September, 2018. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The subject of this article is clearly the most notable John Lewis. While some of the notability is due to his recent demise, relative notability changes over time and we can always reassess. What matters is current notability. TFD (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think that the civil rights leader is the primary topic in the U.S., but in the UK the department store is the primary topic. Since we don't split primary topics by geographic region, the best alternative is probably the status quo of having the two mains at the top of the disambiguation page. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The primary usage in the UK is the chain of large department stores with this name, which are found across the country. The US politician, while no doubt a great hero to Americans, is not a household name in the rest of the world and neither of these two major usages is primary over the other.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions and the WP:RECENTISM spike. The department store adding "& Partners" to its logo has not changed its common name; retailers add and remove the more formal bits of their business identity on the logos all the time without any change to how they're known. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    Timrollpickering, I didn't cite what his page views are now, because this isn't recentism. I pointed out stats from before his death. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, recentism isn't relevant here if we just look at the stats from before his death, which still show the same thing. Unless we are arguing that recentism means discounting anyone during their lifetimes, which would obviously be silly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted above, in the UK, the department store (one of the most prominent retail brands in the country) is the overwhelming primary topic (and it is universally referred to simply as "John Lewis" despite its recent official name change), whereas the subject of this article is relatively unknown. I agree completely with Amakuru's comment that "The US politician, while no doubt a great hero to Americans, is not a household name in the rest of the world and neither of these two major usages is primary over the other." Proteus (Talk) 15:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and other comments detailing the individual as having the large majority of views out of all the pages. even if the department store is the most common John Lewis in the UK, its obvious that on Wikipedia throughout the world in terms of interest more people are interested in looking for the individual by such a large margin. Additionally, i'd argue that the (Civil Rights Leader) description is too limited and doesn't accurately represent the totality of lewis's accomplishments as he would go on to have a lengthy career in congress. Also i'd add that the department store isn't even called john lewis any more but instead

John Lewis & Partners which is an official rebrand, so even without the pageviews they should be eliminated from consideration on the topic of the change. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Other than his death, nothing has changed since the last RM. He's the clear primary topic in America. In Britain, the chain store (overwhelmingly still known simply as John Lewis) is the clear primary topic and the civil rights leader is pretty much unknown. In the rest of the world, neither of them are well-known enough to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom. DaveTheBrave ❯❯❯ Talk 22:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Per nom. That's what disambiguation pages are for. Tvoz/talk 22:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This is by far the most well-known John Lewis. Most people who search John Lewis are looking for this one. We should change this page's name to John Lewis to better serve these readers. I-82-I | TALK 03:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The pageview data paints a clearer picture than any anecdotes. The disambiguation hatnote should probably have a direct link to John Lewis & Partners as well as one to the general disambiguation page. Dylan (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I fear we're being overwhelmed by editors who don't get the fact that this is English-language Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia. We don't give primacy to American topics just because there are more Americans around. Of course the civil rights leader is searched for more; because there are more Americans and also because he's recently died. Comments like This is by far the most well-known John Lewis are talking only from the perspective of one country, not the global English-speaking community. They're ignoring the fact that most of us non-Americans had previously never heard of the civil rights leader (he's not a Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X, who are known worldwide). Just as most Americans have probably never heard of the chain store. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia; it doesn't and shouldn't just reflect the interests of one country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Knowing that "John Lewis" is likely a common name, seeing the "Civil Rights Leader" in the search prompt made it much easier to know I was on the right one. Is there a way to keep it in the search prompt, even if making the article title simply his name? Hires an editor (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This John Lewis is, by page views, clearly the more notable one by far; he is the PRIMARYTOPIC. I think any concerns about the department chain are easily mitigated by simply changing the hat notes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I agree that for a vast majority of people(excluding Americans) John Lewis is not a well known name. Prav001 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Hmlarson (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It’s too common of a name. The title is perfect as it currently is. I do not believe in WP:PAGEVIEWS and WP:GOOGLEHITS as a reason to change things 9/10. Trillfendi (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom. John Lewis is the clear, prominent, well-known subject under the name and it should be reflected, as evidenced by all the data. Teammm talk
    email     23:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per others, this change really should have happened before his death anyway, so it's not really a matter of recentism swaying things, but rather making a change that already should have happened more clear. SnowFire (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I picked a random month (4/30/19-5/30/19) well before John Lewis' death and looked at page views for the civil rights leader and the department store. There are nearly five times as many page views for the person. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should have the page point to the article readers are most likely to be looking for, which in this case is the person. The article about the person is also the one with greater "enduring notability and educational value" than the article on the store (only the article about the person would be likely to be found in a textbook for example). Philepitta (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom. Pageviews substantiate it. Rikster2 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Necrothesp. Nothing significant has changed since the last RM, where I said Nothing has changed since the 2017 RM about this.. The failure to settle the parnethical question in the last RM means we're probably going to have a new Sarah Jane Brown situation here. Iffy★Chat -- 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, he did become the first African-American lawmaker to lie in state in the US Capitol and had a funeral where three former presidents (of both major political parties) spoke. I get we want to be careful of recentism, but that’s hardly “nothing significant.” Rikster2 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, but as already pointed out, that's only relevant in a single country. Most of us outside the US know nothing about the man and for those of us in the UK there is another very clear primary topic. Which is why in an international encyclopaedia there is no primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Well, this John Lewis has articles on Wikipedia in over 30 languages, as compared to 11 for the department store. Not sure I buy the argument. Rikster2 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Really a complete non-argument, especially given the number of Americans who speak different languages. I'm not convinced that "number of Wikipedias on which a topic has an article" is a valid primary topic argument. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Well, I think it is a pretty weak argument that a person can't be the primary topic when the alternative isn't even using the same name (John Lewis & Partners), so I guess we are even. Rikster2 (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
              • A lot of commenters here seem to fail to understand retailer branding here - maybe it works differently in the States. Here retailers modify their logos with the more formal business elements such as "Co", "Limited", "& Partners" wandering in and out all the time without any impact on how the chain is known or the basic name used. Here's a report from yesterday's Grauniad about the retailer and note how it's referred to throughout: [10] Timrollpickering (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Actually, I understand branding quite well so please don’t assume. If the COMMONNAME is actually “John Lewis,” then the page didn’t need to be moved to include “& Partners.” See Walmart (whose name is “Walmart Stores.” But the experience today for a user searching “John Lewis” and expecting to go to an article on the store today is exactly the same as what it would be if this article is made the primary topic – they would be directed to the “wrong place” and at the top is a link directing them to “John Lewis & Partners.” The user still need 2 clicks to get to the store no matter what we do. Rikster2 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Why is it so hard to grasp that the chain store is almost invariably referred to as John Lewis, despite what its formal name may be? We only added the "& Partners" bit as natural disambiguation on Wikipedia to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. That doesn't make it its common name. Absolutely nobody in the UK says "I'm going to John Lewis and Partners"! Arguing that because the Wikipedia article is named John Lewis & Partners means the civil rights leader must be the primary topic for the name John Lewis is frankly laughable and shows a lack of understanding of how primary topics work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • No, this John Lewis should be the primary topic because he gets more page views, is more present in scholarship/books and I’d be willing to bet he also is the primary by Google hits if you strip out non-independent hits for the stores. I’d also argue this Lewis passes the historical significance test. What I am saying as well is that the readers experience is exactly the same for those searching the store article no matter what we do with this article. Rikster2 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • See Waitrose for example (and its RMs) which was also re branded but there was consensus to keep at at the shorter name, as disambiguation isn't needed and that would be the case here if this term didn't have multiple uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          Do you know how many languages Corbin Bleu has been translated to? [11] Does that make him one of the most notable people who have ever lived? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          Is it your belief that all of the pages created in various languages for a civil rights leader in the US are a result of the same kind of spamming the article you linked describes? Seems like that’d be pretty easy to figure out if you’re so inclined. My only point is that TYPICALLY when subjects have WP pages in a number of languages they have a reasonable global reach. The article you link bears this out, which is why the Corbin Bleu case is such an outlier. Rikster2 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm late with this comment, but I would be curious what sorts of other subjects that are supposedly "only known to Americans" also receive statements at their death from people like the president of France, the president of Palestine, the prime minister of Sweden, foreign members of parliament (hell, including in the UK), Pakistani Nobel prize winners based in the UK, and so on... Obviously the subject is American, but to argue they are only known to Americans is clear nonsense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Or the president of South Africa or the foreign minister of Cuba or the former prime minister of Jamaica or the prime minister of India or the prime minister of Canada, or gets eulogised by the entire Parliament of Ghana or the president of Nigeria or...--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, for better or for worse, the US is the dominant nation in western culture. Press around the world report intricate detail events which have little impact elsewhere, such as the appointment of a supreme court justice. Similarly, prominent US figures who die get coverage elsewhere despite the fact that their impact was domestic only, which will prompt international leaders to express solidarity with the US. That's not particularity surprising. But was John Lewis known to most people outside America before his death? Not at all. Not belittling what he did, it was highly important, but that's just how it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but we don't have a rule that primary topics must be a household name in every country to be a primary topic -- otherwise, we'd pretty much have no people or businesses or cities or works of art as primary topics at all. What is clear in this case: this John Lewis is the overwhelming interest of readers worldwide, and has a worldwide profile given the scope of responses to his death (or if you'd like we can look at international responses and coverage of his life). We aren't talking about template statements here -- again, the national parliament of Ghana held an actual eulogy for him. Perhaps you are right that this is only because the US is a dominant nation in terms of culture and therefore prominent Americans get more global recognition, but our job is not to rectify that and it certainly does not mean we should ignore it. In the UK the primary topic is certainly the store, but we are looking at the interests of our readers worldwide.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have scores of articles - about 70 listed at the DAB page by my rough count - about people named John Lewis. We have a dozen people by that name just under "American politicians". This must be one of the world's most common names. The proposal to make him the primary topic smacks of WP:Recentism and WP:Americentricity. "Civil rights leader" is the perfect description for him and makes it immediately clear who we are talking about. I understand the impulse to honour him in this way, but I fear the impulse has been influenced by all the recent coverage about him and eulogising of him. IMO making him the primary topic would be an emotional choice, not an encyclopaedic one. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's more helpful if we think of this proposal pre-death. The same arguments, page views, etc applied on that front -- no one is arguing, as far as I can tell, that this should be done to honour him, or because of views due to recent death-based coverage. If someone was making this based on emotional appeals or to honour him, I assume the closing admin would discard those !votes, but no one seems to be making that argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, no, I was thinking of making this move proposal long ago. I suggested this outcome in the Feb 27 RM above, but wanted to wait some time before proposing the move. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, Muboshgu, I realise that you have proposed this before. I wasn't talking about you. But I do note that on those previous occasions, the proposal did not achieve consensus. Now all of a sudden there is a lot of support for the idea. IMO a lot of the piling-on "supports" this time are directly related to his recent death and all the adulatory publicity it occasioned. Looking at how this discussion is going, I can see that the proposal to make him the primary topic may well be accepted this time. But IMO if it is, will be for the wrong reasons - emotion and recentism and band-wagon-ism (if that's a word), not encyclopaedic judgment. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    It seemed to be getting support when I proposed it back in the last move, and I believe the only reason it didn't obtain a consensus was because it wasn't the initial goal of the move proposal. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with MelanieN most of the time but this is an exception. Yes, there are many notable people named John Lewis, but our decisions about ambiguous titles should serve our readers worldwide. As for "recentism", I understand that she is referring to his recent death but it is worth remembering that he was a very important figure in US politics for 60 years. Clearly we should ignore fresh readership data since his death and focus instead on data before his death. It is disappointing to see experienced editors describing the data incorrectly. It is also disappointing to see the issue framed as a US vs. UK issue. It isn't. It is the job of experienced Wikipedia editors to make this decision based on the needs of our worldwide English language readership, not on how people perceive things in individual English speaking countries. When I look at the pageview data long before his death, and when I look at Google Ngram data, and look at Google Books results, I conclude that roughly three to four times as many Wikipedia readers worldwide were looking for this man before his death as opposed to the UK department store chain, and that coverage in reliable sources is comparably high for this man, and that book coverage of the civil rights leader and Congressman who served 33 years is overwhelmingly more extensive than the department store chain. Hence my support, which is based on best serving our readers rather than "recentism and band-wagon-ism". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons above. Contra MelanieN, the emotional choice is not recognising this is the primary topic, emotion based on national origin discrimination. The standard metrics point to this topic being the primary topic, regardless of what nation he is from. That there are other people named John Lewis certainly does not prevent one of them from being primary under the cold logic of WP:AT, but it does point to the naturalness of the primary topic being a human, not a thing. The only other topic that is proposed is not only a thing, it already has a different title, making parenthetical disambiguation incorrect under the logic of AT. 'John Lewis', here, logically balances all the criteria, it is recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent with naming biographies, and meets the primary metrics, and all this is encyclopaedically sourced above. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
It is claimed below that somehow because there are other John Lewis's, that this can't be the primary topic, not only does that not make sense as a matter of AT policy, it is solely based on individual perception, not policy, nor sources, nor metrics. John Adams (disambiguation) has as many if not more John Adams's, yet there is a primary topic, John Adams -- a politician, no less -- amplifying that there is no reason-in logic or policy to discriminate against this subject. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MelanieN, and let's remember the choice is not between a politician and a chain store, but continuing listing 70 uses on the DAB, with the politician being at the head of the DAB. Admirable though the civil rights leader may be, I'm not persuaded that his name is SO well known across the English-speaking world, that he should be primary topic.Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a certain way you would quantify how well known someone must be? Because obviously it's about relative notability, and from our global pageviews or international coverage the answer seems clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • A DAB page of some 70 items does also hint at no primary topic especially as noted when you factor out recentism, the current set up seems best but I'd support listing this John Lewis first, then the department store. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Ordinarily, things like Google hits - globally rather than locally - would be a strong indicator, but this guy has just died and coverage has multiplied enormously. Lewis had the misfortune to have a very forgettably, common name and I suspect his (young) face alongside King is better known outside US than the name itself I have huge respect for this man - who had three ex-presidents at his funeral and a fourth only absenting himself because of Covid, but I can only record that his name is not recognisable to a non-US audience, the longer name is effectively identifying the subject, not robbing Lewis of some 'honour' by making him the primary topic. It may be crass, but the store is much better known in UK - I don't know the position in the rest of the English world, but can't imagine why Lewis's name would be well known there, even though many of the events with which he was associated ARE famous. Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Excellent parenthetical epithet. Timeless. Stripping it helps no reader. Wikipedia is perverse in thinking prominent people belong at ambiguous titles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, is the view you are expressing that articles about people should always be disambiguated with a parenthetical description, regardless of primary topic status (or lack of)?--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yaksar, no. The view is that titles should be disambiguated when ambiguous. This John Lewis is very well known as a "civil rights leader" to those interested in this John Lewis, and wide proportions of the readership do not know this John Lewis as the dominant association with "John Lewis". I am also expressing that no reader looking for this topic will be disadvantaged by it being listed as "John Lewis (civil rights leader)", the parenthetical helps and never hurts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Smokey Joe, but I agree with him that description should be sufficient to identify the subject to the majority of readers - there is a tendency to strip beyond that point IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I certainly agree that disambiguation should be as identifiable as we can make it, and that sometimes it is not, but that seems a separate argument -- if I'm interpreting correctly, this is that human names should always have descriptive disambiguation regardless of primary topic status, which isn't our current guidelines on determining a primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
There is User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation which gives good advice on why we don't unnecessarily disambiguate. However in this case I still think it is needed due to the fact that otherwise everyone will end up here when typing "John Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Feels like we are going down a different track here -- the discussion at hand is basically is there or is there not a primary topic for this name. If we want to discuss whether primary topics should or should not still have some sort of description on their titles, that may be a perfectly valid conversation but is probably best for a different, wider venue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to agree with the above that while a major figure in the US - laying in state at the capitol is not something many get - he is practically completely unknown everywhere else in the world and, with such a common name as 'John Lewis', is certainly not the PRIMARY subject under that name for most people. As mentioned by someone above, in the UK 'John Lewis' is a department store known for completely changing the game in terms of Christmas adverts: and because that's a brand, there's more argument to have that subject as just 'John Lewis', but with so many entries under the name, all are rightfully disambiguated in the title. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request: posthumous letter published

I suggest someone make an edit to include reference to the posthumous letter published on July 30, 2020. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-lewis-letterWritethisway (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Lewis/Archive_1&oldid=1240735322"