Template:Did you know nominations/Slavery by Another Name
- The following discussion 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 SL93 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Slavery by Another Name edit
- ... that Slavery by Another Name argues that slavery in the United States continued after the Civil War?
- Reviewed: Pilot (Devious Maids)
5x expanded by Khazar2 (talk). Self nominated at 19:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC).
The proposed hook is not precise, and a bit sensationalist. Yes, slavery in the United States ended after the civil war, period. That's a fact of life. The sense that the hook conveys (that, even if slavery was abolished, social and racial inequality persisted) should be better described by other words, such as "redefined" Cambalachero (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, are you saying that this is an inaccurate summary of the book, or are you directly objecting to Blackmon's conclusions? He uses the word "slavery" hundreds of times to describe post-Civil War conditions, including in the book's title. The article cites a half-dozen reliable sources that summarize his argument in the same language. I'm not sure I understand the nature of your objection. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though some may consider Blackmon's conclusions to be sensational, this hook is not sensationalist. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a more precise and neutral description of what the book argues. Slavery did not "end" after the Civil War; it became conditionally illegal. The claim that "social and racial inequality persisted" is accurate and important but not a fitting description—nor Blackmon's description—of being arrested for vagrancy and worked to death in a coal mine. groupuscule (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Khazar and Groupuscule: this is an accurate summary of the book's main point. Our agreement with what the book argues is not a valid criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Very well, it is not a major problem anyway, and if 2 other users agree that it is not a problem at all, then I will decline my concern about it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
