Template:Did you know nominations/Oregon black exclusion law
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Oregon black exclusion laws
[edit]_(14586503597).jpg)
Oregon territory as of 1903
... that the only state of the Union to ban black settlers was Oregon? Source: Eighth paragraph of the Portland State University / Oregon Historical Society Oregon Encyclopedia website writes, "Oregon thus became the only free state admitted to the Union with an exclusion clause in its constitution."ALT1:... that in 1844, Oregon laws banned slavery, but also banned all black settlers? Source: Basically the entire article is a sourced version of this statement.
- Reviewed: I reviewed the DYK for Kwesi_Amoako_Atta
Created by Owlsmcgee (talk). Self-nominated at 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC).
Page created on 15–16 August 2017 as a fork from Provisional Government of Oregon; meets length requirements even when original text and quotations from the law are excluded. The referencing is very well done. QPQ complete. Some comments:
- I think the original hook is stated a little too expansively, as other states of the Union in the antebellum period did pass laws restricting black immigration (don't have all the sources on hand but this says it: [1]; and see also the article Free negro). Thus it may be necessary to retreat to to the more limited statement in the source, or to come up with another hook. ALT1 is okay; permit me to propose some others which you can accept, reject, or modify:
ALT2 ... that Oregon voted in a landslide to ban both slavery and free black settlers?- ALT3 ... that an 1844 Oregon law required all slaves to be freed—and all freed slaves to leave Oregon?
ALT4 ... that when Oregon outlawed slavery it also banned immigration by free negroes?
- Would it be possible to set aside exact quotations from the laws, perhaps using block quotes? It would help to have something visual showing where the quotations start.
- The repeal of the laws by 1926 is mentioned in the lead but it would be good to include a sentence or two describing the repeal (which I think is equally germane to the topic) in the article body.
- Addendum: Did you notice these comments in Brown 1892 after the quotation of the law?: "Both of these laws seem to have been entirely nugatory. First, they did not go into effect until two years after their passage ; Second, it was evident that there were none who would insist upon the fulfillment of such an objectionable law. [...] I have not been able in one instance to find in the history of Oregon at that, or, at any later period an instance in which the law was or attempted to be enforced. It was practically a dead law on the statute books?" Do later authors disagree with this assessment? In other words, were (any of) these laws ever enforced? You touch on this for one or two laws, but not for the 1844 law discussed here, which is featured in the article. Either way the answer would be significant.
- Thank you for this well-written contribution on an important topic. A lot of fascinating details and informative quotations in here. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for these great recommendations groupuscule! I like ALT 3, shall we promote that one? I take your other suggestions to heart and I'll use them to improve the article! I do wonder if the article could go to DYK without these changes, but I've made smaller adaptions in the meanwhile to tackle your concerns, adding a statement that there is no documentation of the law being enforced, and then formatting all direct text of the all of the laws in block text and italics. On the last point, however, I don't have any access to further info about the 1926 repeal at the moment. I think we're good to go, what do you think? Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Groupuscule: What's the status of this nomination? You said ALT1 was good. Are you coming back, or does it need to be re-reviewed? --MopTop (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
We're rolling with ALT3. Please excuse the delay (internet time is sporadic right now) and thanks again for the article. groupuscule (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
