Talk:Juneteenth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Texas/primarily.

Very glad this article's here: we don't have this in my home state (Michigan) so I was introduced to it once I came here to Texas. Edited the line, "Juneteenth has its origins in Texas, where it was primarily celebrated for more than a century." and reworked to clarify. Thinking specifically about how it may read to someone who has learned English but does not use it colloquially. I understood what it was saying and so will most Americans, but since the site is read throughout the world, it may be confusing to other readers. Specifically the word primarily/primary, and think of it in the definitive sense, "of first rank". They might read the line more literally and think that Juneteenth is the most important of all Texas holidays, when there are several very important dates. Noirdame 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial?

I work for the local school board, and I'm currently in the process of preparing the school teachers' calendar. I added Juneteenth to the holidays listed this year (not all are school holidays, but a lot of them are included). My boss told me to remove it, claiming that Juneteenth is controversial and that many African Americans object to the name "Juneteenth". I have been unable to find anything on the web to support this view. Does anyone have any idea what my boss is on about? I was also forced to remove Chinese New Year and some other miscellaneous non-"standard" holidays. — Amcaja 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• In all of my searching for stuff to add to the article and searches for sourcing and whatnot, this is the first that I've heard of Juneteenth being controversial and the name being objectionable. Quite frankly, it sounds like a load of crap. --Vengeful Cynic 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think your boss was mistaken and/or caught in the throes of political correctness. I'm sure you cna find some people who will claim anything is controversial, but I know of no broad controvery over this holiday. We have many links here to groups celebrating the holiday. I see no mention of a controversy. I see plenty of African Americans (and non-African Americans) supporting the holiday. If you follow the link at the bottom of the page to the commons, you will see soem US Congressmen observing the event, including one campaigning for it to be a national holiday. As to the other events, maybe he/she just wants to cut down on clutter. It is true that basically every day of the year is some sort of Hallmark holiday, or else a holiday that may be very important to a sub-set of people, but unknown to many. Happy Summer solstice, by the way. Johntex\^talk 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut doesn't have this listed, why not?

The Wiki page says this is a state holiday for Connecticut. CT's website doesn't list it. Can we make them list it?

http://www.ct.gov/ctportal/cwp/view.asp?a=843&q=246434

• There seems to be a distinction between an "official holiday" and a "legal holiday". Our source saying CT has this as a holiday is here. I'm guessing CT acknowledges the day as a day of importance, but does not close government offices for the day. I will try to clarify this in the article. Johntex\^talk 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• In fact, even in Texas, it is only a "partial staffing holiday" and state offices do not close.[1] - Johntex\^talk 17:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Years

i think the recent years section is a far better alternative to the original "violence" section or even my removal of the contents. it makes since to talk about some of the recent follies surrounding the holiday as long as its put in this context. the previous incarnation kinda lumped violence and juneteenth altogether. Good showScott Free 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Violence

Lots of mob violence associated with Juneteenth celebrations throughout the US. Would be good to have an accompanying list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigercap (talk • contribs)

If you've got references, sure. CJ 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are different violent incidents:

• Austin: [2]
• Milwaukee: [3] [4]
• Syracuse: [5]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrand (talk • contribs)

Unless we're going to start tagging all the other holidays and celebrations with all violent incidents, I think doing so with Juneteenth would seem to be pushing a POV. For example, the NBA playoffs does not note this [6] and the fourth of july has seen many riots:

* [7]

* [http://www.examiner.com/a-349356~Fourth_of_July_to_be_rescheduled_after_riots_in_Havre_de_Grace.html]

* [8]

* [9]

Studerby 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IU'm removing the violence section. These incidents happened in one year and don't seem to have any real relation to the holiday. At best, the incidents are useless. At worst, they perpetuate a stereotype that you can't get a bunch of us darkies together with violence ensuing.Scott Free 00:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* I don't see a problem with it either way. I don't object to it being removed. You don't have to preserve it either. The history does that. CJ 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I srrongly agree that including a violence section perpetuates a stereotype about violent "darkies." Many festivals are "marred by violence," and many Juneteenth celebrations are not marred by it. Tney only get a lot of media attention when they are because such incidents feed into the non-black fear of blacks. --Willie Mink, 6/21/07

If you go to an updated link (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PT5C3O0&show_article=1&catnum=0) for the Austin incident, it's stated clearly that the attack and the crowd were unaffiliated with the Juneteenth celebration. I'm removing that one. 70.112.183.10 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)dan solomon

Death of David Morales

The death of David Morales (link 8 on the article page, in the "Recent Years" section) probably doesn't belong in this article, since Yahoo are reporting that police say the attack wasn't connected with Juneteenth. Kake Pugh 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

However witnesses and reporters who were there say it obviously was. Is it not connected just because the police say it wasn't?

Well, given that this is an encyclopedia, and so original research and unsupported hearsay are both inappropriate, I don't think we can say that it was connected unless there are reputable sources that say it was. The link in the article cites no sources other than the police, who at the time of that report weren't saying anything on one side or the other. Kake Pugh 00:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which reporters were there? Even on a slow news day in Austin, there aren't a bunch of reporters sitting around in apartment complex parking lots waiting for people to get beaten to death. All of the information on the case initially came from the APD, which has since <a href="http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/8116837.html">changed its story</a>. There's absolutely nothing besides a retracted statement by the APD to tie this to the Juneteenth celebration occuring in a different part of the neighborhood. I'm deleting it again - please don't replace it unless you can provide a verifiable, current (not based on the retracted APD report) source that connects it directly to the Juneteenth celebration. 70.112.183.10 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)dan solomon

dan solomon, thanks for spelling this out. This information has no place in this article. futurebird 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the Celebration

What does one do on Juneteenth? The recent news stories about riots show people who failed to disperse after gathering for some event. But what was the event? Do people hear speeches, eat particular food, watch fireworks, parades, or what? Dsol 10:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Get dress up and have a picnic in the park. We had fireworks when I was little. futurebird 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

violence section

the writer seemed to have gone to a lot of trouble to put that there, so I'm moving the section's contents below if he or others decide to start a separate article relating to these mishaps. Still, it doesn't belong in the article.Scott Free 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some large Juneteenth celebrations have been marred by violence perpetuated by attendees. At the 2007 celebration in Syracuse, New York, several fights broke out amongst youths at the event. This lead to the event being shut down early. Similar incidents occured in Milwaukee, Wisconsin following the 2007 Juneteenth celebration. In Austin, Texas, a man was killed by a mob after the driver of the car he was in struck and injured a small child. These incidents were the result of the actions of a small percentage of attendees and organizers have expressed desires to educate young people so that such incidents are prevented in the future.

In the Austin incident, it happened 2 blocks away from a Juneteenth festival; current reporting suggests that it had nothing to do the with the festival. The victim was returning from work, the perpetrators are unknown but were believed to be in another car, and the reports suggest that there wasn't even a crowd in the area until after the killing had occurred.

Unless there is some evidence that this event was linked in some way I don't see how it relates to this article. futurebird 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I've changed my mind. I originally put the section there and I think it probably needs to come down. I took another look at the articles and the way they're written does describe isolated incidents that weren't in any way associated with the event itself. CJ 09:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

CJ - Agreed, I'm taking it down, as no one else is arguing for its existence and the arguments against it are pretty compelling. A couple of unfortunate minor incidents among hundreds of Juneteenth celebrations do not an encyclopedia-caliber trend make. Thanks. dan solomon 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Search

Is there a way to get this page to pull up when someone searches for "June teenth"? I had not heard of it and did not know it was one word. Astabeth 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done with a redirect. Hoof Hearted 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Violence and Controversy section needed?

Anyone else think there should be a section that documents, with sources, the violence and disorderly conduct that occurs at almost every Juneteenth celebration each year? Anyone who watches/follows the news a lot should know what I mean... JOK3R 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Celebration in states

In the introduction, it states that 28 states currently (or will in Vermont's case) celebrate the holiday but the source states that Vermont is the 29th. In either case, there are only 27 states listed. I'm just wondering what the other state is... I can't seem to find a source with the states listed. ¢rassic! (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

creates wrong impression

Articles needs fixing. It is on the main page (right side). Then the article says it's a state holiday or celebration in 27 or so states. In most states, it is not a holiday. The state congress just called it a special day for political reasons. Most people, especially foreigners, may be misled into thinking it is a holiday like July 4th.

This should be corrected and written more accurately. Model710 (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

States where it's an official state holiday: refs and map.

The article only has sources for it being an official state holiday in 7 states: AK, CA, CT, NJ, NY, TX, and VT. Based on that I've made the map on the right. If someone knows of sources for the other states, we can fill in the the rest of the map and then post it to the article. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-19t21:21z

Origin of the name "Juneteenth"

https://www.al.com/news/2020/06/what-is-juneteenth-why-is-it-called-juneteenth-how-to-celebrate-history-facts.html

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/juneteenth-history-it-was-not-the-end-of-slavery/65-d66f0cda-2f11-4011-97a9-f200ab1cd543

https://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/2010/06/the_story_behind_juneteenth_th.html

National Juneteenth leader responds

As the leader of the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign, as we add more and more states that officially recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday or state holiday obervance, I have posted this information on our official campaign website at http://www.Juneteenth.us:

http://www.19thofjune.com/archive/052302.htm

The information will give you the year and the name of the state legislator that sponsored Juneteenth legislation. Just go to the state legislative web site, pull up the passed legislation archives for that year, reference the legislator's name with Juneteenth, and the legislation should come up for your review.

"DOC" Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneteenthDOC (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader clarifies "holiday"

Juneteenth is officially recognized as a "state holiday" only in Texas. All other states, including Connecticut, officially recognize Juneteenth as a "state holiday observance", "commemorative state holiday", or "special day of recognition", etc. Our official campaign website (http://www.Juneteenth.us) has information about Connecticut's Juneteenth legislation listed at:

http://www.19thofjune.com/archive/052302.htm

"DOC" Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneteenthDOC (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader listing of states

I have posted this information on our official campaign website at http://www.Juneteenth.us:

http://www.19thofjune.com/archive/052302.htm

The information will give you the year and the name of the state legislator that sponsored Juneteenth legislation. Just go to the state legislative web site, pull up the passed legislation archives for that year, reference the legislator's name with Juneteenth, and the legislation should come up for your review.

"DOC" Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneteenthDOC (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader recommends web site

The official web site of the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign can be found at http://www.Juneteeth.us. Lots of good information about states that officially recognize Juneteenth can be found there. See reference below:

http://www.19thofjune.com/archive/052302.htm

The information will give you the year and the name of the state legislator that sponsored Juneteenth legislation. Just go to the state legislative web site, pull up the passed legislation archives for that year, reference the legislator's name with Juneteenth, and the legislation should come up for your review.

Juneteenth is officially recognized as a "state holiday" only in Texas. All other states, including Connecticut, officially recognize Juneteenth as a "state holiday observance", "commemorative state holiday", or "special day of recognition", etc.

Like "Flag Day" or "Patriots Day", our goal is to have "Juneteenth Independence Day" recognized in similiar fashion, as a special day of recognition of the end of slavery, not a paid federal holiday.

We have worked with members of congress for over 9 years resulting in annual legislation passed by congress recognizing Juneteenth. I find your comment about what we have accomplished in congress as misinformed. Please go to http://www.Juneteenth.us and review the facts about our "Modern Juneteenth Movement" efforts in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

"DOC" Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneteenthDOC (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader request ref. map update

I think the map of states that officially recognize Juneteeth as a state holiday or state holiday observance is a very useful visual reprsentation of our efforts to make Juneteenth a national holiday and a state holiday in all 50 states. The official web site of the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign can be found at http://www.Juneteeth.us. Please update your map after reviewing the information as follows:

http://www.19thofjune.com/archive/052302.htm

"DOC" Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneteenthDOC (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is Justin Wooley?

And what is his significance to this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneteenth#Traditions 24.98.20.220 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I think the "recent years" section is a non-neutral selection of facts that are unrepresentative of the topic. Hundreds of Juneteenth celebrations occurred across the country this year, all but a fraction of them peaceful. Celebrations of other major holidays or events, such as the Fourth of july, Mardi Gras, spring break, and the NBA finals, have been marred by violence. Are we going to list each of the 308 arrests of NFL players since 2000 in the National Football League? These articles do not have such "police blotter" sections; they stick to the essential facts of the events. By selectively choosing facts, this section creates a false impression. Studerby 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I lived four years in Galveston, the epicenter of juneteenth celebrations. Taking into account the increased numbers, Juneteenth celebrations were no more Rowdy than any other summer weekend. As a card-carrying white-boy, I was never nervous about joining the festivities along the seawall or at the beach. The celebrants tended to be families. The celebration was also a great source of revenue for the island. Traffic was a PITA though.

Most reported incidents (never saw one myself) seemed to be related to the universal causes of young males and alcohol. Similarly, just like the white-boys, occasionally somebody would get drunk and drive their car over the seawall, a unique Galvestonian source of injury.

In the end, the city of Galveston mostly controlled excessive drinking by prohibiting the open consumption of alcohol in public places. I.e., you could drink in your car or any other circumstance where you could not be observed drinking, but no keg parties, for which you had to go over to Bolivar.Vaultdoor (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok

This I just absurd. I find it not only bizarre, but also disrespectful that Abraham Lincoln is not mentioned once on this page. I will be adding it now and am utterly dissapointed it is not here already. --WTF23434 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a "state" holiday in New York

I've lived in NY my whole life, and juneteenth being a state holiday was news to me. Here is an official reference: http://www.cs.state.ny.us/attendance_leave/2010_legal_holidays.cfm 69.119.207.171 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

"Many see roots tying back to Texas soil from which all remaining American slaves were finally granted their freedom." - Could some-one who understands this sentence please re-write it. Kdammers (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

National Juneteenth Leader Responds to New York Holiday Observance

In June of 2004, New York Governor George E. Pataki signed into law legislation establishing June 19 as "Juneteenth Freedom Day" in New York State <http://www.nycanal.com/pressrelease/juneteenthfreedomday.html>. Senate Resolution 2202, sponsored by Senator Sampson, on June 5, 2001, urged Governor George Pataki to proclaim the "19th of June" as Juneteenth Freedom Day in the state of New York. It was soon be followed by legislation by Senator Sampson, S 1519-A, passed by the New York State Senate and New York House of Representatives, then signed by Goverbor Pataki, to establish Juneteenth as a state holiday observance in 2004 <http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/frmload.cgi?MENU-54715637>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.145.246 (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing should be noted

I think it should be noted that some (or alot) of Black Americans are forgetting the meaning of juneteeth. My dad said that the last juneteeth there was a shooting, and I think 5 people got killed or wounded...Angelofdeath275 11:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but it would have to be sourced, and worded like "It is less prevalent" or something like that.--24.45.179.54 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Woolbright, Matt. "They 'found a way to be free' Volunteers bring history alive this Juneteenth, telling an oral history of those who survived and succeeded in the turbulent Civil War era." Houston Chronicle. June 18, 2010
• Rockett, Ryan. "Juneteenth parade a 'day of freedom' Despite local opposition, group hosts 38th annual celebration." Houston Chronicle. June 18, 2011.
• "Celebrating Juneteenth." Houston Chronicle.
• "Press Release for January 25, 2011." Texas Historical Commission. January 25, 2011.
• http://www.africanamericansintexas.com/pdf/AATX-booklet-2011.pdf
• Feldman, Claudia. "THC booklet touts hot spots in African-American history." Houston Chronicle. June 16, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hill Country

For some reason, there is a specific reference to the Hill Country in the history section: "Texas, as a part of the Confederacy, was resistant to the Emancipation Proclamation, and though slavery was very prevalent in East Texas, it was not as common in the Western areas of Texas, particularly the Hill Country, where most German-Americans were opposed to the practice." It is true that the German immigrants there did not support slavery (the same is true of the Tejanos in South Texas at the time), but I don't think this is related to the celebration of, or development of, Juneteenth. I don't know of any evidence those immigrants had any influence on Juneteenth. This specific, unsourced, and distracting information does not belong here. Please delete or revise. (Also, even in 1865, the Hill Country was not "West" Texas. There were already over 25 organized and populated counties west of the Hill Country.) --Kipito (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maafa Juneteeth Needs RS looks promotional

Ref added to a Maafa Juneteenth look a little promotional with no RS to support their inclusion. This site National Juneteenth looks very self-published and I have googled and only found a Facebook page for it. 50 fan Facebook page as well as a sister site Jazz with a very unprofessional design and content. Seems like a problem here also promotional agenda--Inayity (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Flag image, improper display of the US Flag.

"When one flag is used with the flag of the United States of America and the staffs are crossed, the flag of the United States is placed on its own right with its staff in front of the other flag." The National Juneteenth Flag's staff needs to be behind the staff of the US flag. United States Flag Code Bizzybody (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I will inform the creator of the Juneteenth Flag, Ben Haith, Founder of the National Juneteenth Celebration Foundation (NJCF), of your concerns. (JuneteenthDOC (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

National Juneteenth leader responds to self promotion accusations

Your accusations of self promotion are disgusting and an insult. What is your problem? Don't you know how to use a search engine like google or yahoo? Did you even review our web sites to read published articles about our historic efforts?

The main web sites for the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America are http://www.NationalJuneteenth.com and http://www.Juneteenth.us. The web sites for the National Day of Remembrance of the Maafa in America are http://www.NationalDayofReconsiliation.com and http://www.njclc.com. If you review these sites, there is a recent June 2012 USA Today article about our Juneteenth wreaf laying ceremony that was part of the annual National Juneteenth Black Holocaust Maafa Memorial Service, as well as many more creditable newspaper and magazine articles.

You should also review our historic work with former Congressman Tony Hall on the Congressional Apology For Slavery, on the "19th of June", Juneteenth, 2000, at the U.S. Capitol. This was the first National Day of Reconciliation and Healing from the Legacy of Enslavement. 2013 will mark our 14th year as a part of the WASHINGTON JUNETEENTH National Holiday Observance. You should also review all the many published articles from the web sites from the Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. about our movement.

http://www.JuneteenthJazz.com is the site for "June is Black Music Month!' - CELEBRATING JUNETEENTH JAZZ -"Preserving Our African American Jazz legacy!" and "June is African American Jazz Legacy Month" through the National Association of Juneteenth Jazz Presenters (NAJJP).

What problems are you talking about? You can reference articles about historic efforts concerning Juneteenth Jazz, including Jazz Times Magazine on www.JuneteenthJazz.com. If you have problems with the "very self published", "very unprofessional" web site (you can always make a donation to pay for what you might call a "professional site" because our movement can't afford a "professional web site builder" right now), or with me personally, as the National Juneteenth Jazz Artist (http://www.JazzMississippi.com/press.html & http://www.RonMyersJazz.com) and historic leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America, please let me how to resolve whatever problems you have with our historic efforts.

Maybe the problem you have is with me, as the leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America. As far as my credibility goes, just go to the partial awrds listing on the wikipedia site for Ronald Myers. The Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC), the U.S. Congress, the Governor of Wisconsin, etc., and many more awards and special recognitions should be enough.

Maybe not. After all, you feel that it is all self promotion. What is a grass roots, modern day black movement leader supposed to do? Keep quiet about the true history and legacy of the enslavement of our people in America?

Why don't you go to the "4th of July" wikipedia site and write a complaint about the fact that Americans of African descent were not free on our nation's Independence Day? Why don't you go to other wikipedia sites that talk about the loss of millions of life through man's inhumanity against man and write a complaint about the omission of the Maafa?

I have no problems standing up and being falsely accused by you or anyone else about our "self promoting" historic efforts correct the mis-information and false facts concerning the legacy of enslavement of Americans of African descent.

"DOC" Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. Founder & President National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign (http://www.Juneteenth.us - http://www.19thofJune.com) National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) (http://www.njof.org,

 http://www.NationalJuneteenth.com)

National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC) (http://www.njclc.com,

 http://www.NationalDayofReconciliation.com & http://www.WorldDayofReconciliation.com

National Association of Juneteenth Jazz Presenters (NAJJP) (http://www.JuneteenthJazz.com,

 http://www.JazzMississippi.com, http://www.JazzOklahaoma.com, http://www.JazzNebraska.com,
 http://www.JazzIllinois.net, http://www.JazzIndiana.net, http://www.JazzLouisiana.net,
 http://www.JazzArkansas.com,  http://www.NationalJuneteenth.com & http://www.JazzWisconsin.com

(JuneteenthDOC (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

All you have to do then, is put in secondary sources to independent sites which verify the claims. Having a few godaddy domain names all pointing to very unprofessional looking sites is not proof of notability. Not one site is notable per google search or rank, none are back linked, only to each other. Just follow wiki policy and add reliable sources. The Myers Foundation owns them ALL. Anyone else specifically and independently talking about it? I am doing you a favor, b/c that content should never even be allowed in period.--Inayity (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader request an apology

What favor are you doing for us with your insulting commemnts about our black grass roots movements web sites being "unprofessional"? I am doing you a favor by not exposing your insults to more people across the country who love the celebration of freedom through Juneteenth. Tell the WikiProject Houston, the WikiProject Holidays, WikiProject United States/Texas, WikiProject African diaspora, etc. that "content should never even be allowed in period."

An apology is indeed in order for your continued attacks on our websites as not being "professional". If you wish to donate some money to the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) to spruce up our web sites to make them more "professional", according to your standards, please do so. Your comments about what is not "professional", from a black grass roots perspective, borders on the "bias" of "racism".

We could care less about google search and rank. That's important to your critical, so called "professional" biased standards. You mean to tell me that you didn't get the basic information needed to understand what we have accomplished as a grass roots black movement from our so called "unprofessional" web sites? By the way, what is wrong with the Myers Foundation, an African American owned entity and historic Juneteenth affiliate organization, sponsoring our web sites? Again, we will not turn away a financial donation from you to assist us with our web sites.

Are you denying the accomplishments of 41 states, the District of Columbia and eight unanimous resolutions passed passed by the U.S. congress since 1997 as "unprofessional" clearly listed and referenced on our web sites? What web sites are we supposed to have as secondary sources when most people, especially white folks, have no clue what we are accomplishing through the passage of Juneteenth legislation in state legislatures across the country by the "Modern Juneteenth Movement"?

Your degrading statements about not being "professional" are out of character. You can easily make your point without calling our grass roots, maintained mostly by volunteers, web sites as "unprofessional".

Go to the "4th of July" web sites and tell them they are "unprofessional" for celebrating freedom when Americans of African descent were trapped in the tyranny of enslavement. Go to the George Washington and Thomas Jefferson wiki sites and tell them they are "unprofessional" because they do not emphasis that many of the founding fathers of America were slave owners.

Agian, you can make your points without your insulting comments about our web sites being "unprofessional". It looks like our web sites are not acceptable to your white racist culturally biased standards. Just go to http://www.NationalJuneteenth.com and tell me that our major site concerning the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America is "unprofessional". Your "bias" is quite evident for all to see.

I keep telling you we are one of the most accomplished grass roots black movement in modern American history. There are planty of references to the New York Times, Time Magazine, the Washington Post, etc. on our so called "unprofessional" web sites.

Perhaps you are not aware of your own "bias" and being in violation of wiki standards because of your insulting and offensive comments. (68.111.115.108 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC))

What are you on about??? Mdann52 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You get these problems when people do not really understand, or care to understand how wikipedia works. I am 100% sure racism and all of that exist, but this has no bearing on the objections raised to the 10 domains owned by 1 person being pushed as RS. They cannot see themselves and how it looks from a 2nd person pov. BTW I am not White, I am African from Africa where we also have high standards of aesthetic and content. --Inayity (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

National Juneteenth leader responds to "bias" claim

The main problems created were from your biased and insulting comments about our "unprofessional" web sites.

It's good to know that your are from Africa. However, being African does not necessarily give you the sensitivity necessary to understand what we go through as Americans of African descent, especially when we work hard and sacrifice to get our history straight about the legacy of enslavement in America.

SO, PLEASE STOP THE INSULTING COMMENTS ABOUT OUR WEB SITES BEING "UNPROFESSIONAL!" You come across as a insensitive babbling white racist. Intepretation of high standards of aesthetic and contant are in the eye of the beholder. As an African, you may not understand what a black grass roots movement in America is all about.

We welcome anyone's attempt to RESPECTFULLY and COURTEOUSLY assist us in our efforts to get the history of our "Modern Juneteenth Movement" correctly documented on wikipeadia. We have no problems with complying with wikipedia standards. Just let us know what is needed to comply with whatever rules or standards we need to follow and time to correct or improve whatever needs to be done.

However, we do not appreciate the insults. (JuneteenthDOC (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

Improve your contribution by reading this WP:CONFLICT. And happy Kwanzaa--Inayity (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Return of the Self Published Juneteeth sources

Please refer to WP:V and WP:SIGCOV and only add sources which are RS, and secondary or at least corroborated by a NPOV source and not by WP:CONFLICT.This has come up before, I see it is coming up again. Nothing has changed with Wikipedia's rules since last time. If the sources are RS then do a request for Reliability. With all the EL on this topic someone put 4 URL to the same organization which is not even a notable EL for the Juneteenth. So now this affects the quality of this site. If it continues further action will be taken --Inayity (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

It is inappropriate for User:JuneteenthDOC to insert references to himself into the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless they are from Reliable secondary sources (100% independent) and the insertions do not violate NPOV or weight. the flag has to go and it is not notable according to a 2ndary source--Inayity (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. House of Representatives official Congressional Record

Wikiepedia editor continues to delete verifiable and documented U.S. House of Representative floor statements by Congresswoman Barabara Rose Collins when introducing House Joint Resolution 195 in 1996. All statements by members of the U.S. Congress when speaking from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives are recorded for the public record.

Congresswoman Barbars Rose Collins statement was verified with a reference at the end of her statement on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page. The U.S. Congressional record is not inappropriate to reference nor is it a Conflict of Interest.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Does the Wikipedia editor have a problem with what Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins said as a part of the official U.S. Congressional Record?

It appears that the Wikipedia editor has a problem with what the congresswoman said in her verifiable and documented floor statement when introducing the historic first piece of Juneteenth legislation introduced before the U.S. Congress in 1996.

Why? Does the name Ronald Myers when mentioned by a member of the U.S. Congress a Conflict of Interest? Is this what Wikipedia calls self published?

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the secondary source for this claim? Outside of your website? i.e. not self-published. not COI.--Inayity (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. House of Representatives Congressional record - JUNETEENTH (Septembwr 19, 1996)[edit]

Per your request (since you question the validy of the National Juneteenth web site):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r104:2:./temp/~r104yp6vGA::

Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Congressional Record > Search Results

Congressional Record 104th Congress (1995-1996)

---

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help

               Contents Display

---

Print Subscribe Share/Save

Congressional Record article 2 of 8

       Printer Friendly Display - 4,058 bytes.[Help]       

---

JUNETEENTH (House of Representatives - September 17, 1996)

[Page: H10435] GPO's PDF The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.

Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will recognize the significance of the oldest black celebration in American history, June 19--known affectionately as `Juneteenth .' This bill would recognize Juneteenth as the day of celebrating the end of slavery in the United States and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country.

Juneteenth is the traditional celebration of the day on which the last slaves in America were freed. Although slavery was officially abolished in 1863, news of freedom did not spread to all slaves for another 2 1/2 years--June 19, 1865. On that day, U.S. General Gordon Granger, along with a regiment of Union Army soldiers, rode into Galveston, TX, and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free. Vowing to never forget the date, the former slaves coined a nickname for their cause of celebration--a blend of the words `June' and `nineteenth.'

June 19, 1865, has been traditionally associated with the end of slavery in the Southwest. However, because of the importance of the holiday, it did not take long for Juneteenth celebrations to spread beyond the States in the Southwest and into other parts of the country. Today, due in large part to the hard work and dedication of individuals, like Lula Briggs Galloway and Dr. Ronald Meyer of the National Association of Juneteenth lineage, who have fought hard to revive and preserve the Juneteenth celebration, the holiday is celebrated by several million blacks and whites in more than 130 cities across the United States and Canada. In Texas and Oklahoma, Juneteenth is an official State holiday.

As we prepare to revitalize the observance of Juneteenth as the true day of independence for African-Americans, it is important that we acknowledge the historical as well as political significance of the celebration. We must acknowledge, for example, that while the slaves of Texas had cause to celebrate the news of their freedom on June 19, 1865, the truth is that at the time of General Granger's historical pronouncement, the slaves were already legally free. This is because the Emancipation Proclamation had become effective nearly 2 1/2 years earlier--on January 1, 1863.

From a political standpoint, therefore, Juneteenth is significant because it exemplifies how harsh and cruel the consequences can be when a breakdown in communication occurs between the Government and the American people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dehumanizing and degrading conditions of slavery were unnecessarily prolonged for hundreds of thousands of black men, women, and children, because our American Government failed to communicate the truth.

As Juneteenth celebrations continue to spread, so does a greater appreciation of African-American history. We must revive and preserve Juneteenth not only as the end of a painful chapter in American history--but also as a reminder of the importance of preserving the lines of communication between the powerful and powerless in our society.

Juneteenth allows us to look back on the past with an increased awareness and heightened respect for the strength of the African-American men, women, and children, who endured unspeakable cruelties in bondage. Out of respect to our ancestors, upon whose blood, sweat, and tears, this great Nation was built, the bill I introduce today acknowledges that African-Americans in this country are not truly free, until the last of us are free.

The bill I introduce today, Mr. Speaker, recognizes June 19, 1865, as a day of celebrating the end of slavery in America and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country.

I ask all of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

---

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help

               Contents Display

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the historical term "Modern Juneteenth Movement?"

Does Wikipedia editor have a problem with verifiable third party grass roots black people movement history terms like "Poor Peoples Movement" - "Civil Rights Movement" - "Modern Juneteenth Movement", "Reparations Movement", etc.? All these movement lead to the introduction of legislation in the U.S. Congress for social and historical changes in society.

What is wrong with the verifiable, according to Wikipedia standards, "Modern Juneteenth Movement?"

Do Wikipedia rules allow for the posting such informatiom? Which wikipedia rules are being violated?

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What self published information are you refering to on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page?

Would the wikipedia editor please be specific about any "self published" information on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page?"

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take the time to read Wikipedia policy already given to you. As opposed to ask What self-published sources. If you put them back they will be taken out. Please see WP:RELY and WP:USESPS Learn the rules of Wikipedia to develop this and other articles.--Inayity (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Do Not add references to organization controlled by Myers Foundation

Any ref must have an independent source. It cannot, CANNOT be to your own site which you control. In plain lay terms Do not put this site in there http://nationaljuneteenth.com/House_of_Representatives.html but something other than you, put CNN, put BBC, anything but not only your own site. We cannot verify information you put up there and then come here and edit. But this was explained and there seems to be a Failure to get the point of Wikipedia and listen to the rules. WP:LISTEN Others have advised you to limit your inserts from your own site.--Inayity (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My problem isn't with the citation (we can fix that by instead using the Congressional record, as Mr. Myers suggests), but the noteworthiness of the quote itself. Quite frankly, the fact that Congresswoman Collins mentioned Ronald Myers by name in her remarks is far more important to Ronald Myers than it is to anyone else reading this article. It should be mentioned on Ronald Myers, because being mentioned on the floor of the House is noteworthy information about him, but it does not tell the reader anything interesting about Juneteenth.

Mr Myers, please read User:Smallbones advice (emphasis added): "I'll suggest 2 things you can do to help us make Juneteenth and the bio article more accurate: 1) limit your contributions to short comments on the article talk pages; and 2) write up exactly what you'd like to see in the articles, post them on your own website with the CC-BY-SA license (perhaps saying "This page licensed CC-BY-SA"). That way we'll be able to know exactly what you want, and be able to judge independently whether it should be included." We aren't your enemies (though you seem to prefer to think that). But we aren't your friends either, and that actually makes us better qualified than you to judge what should be said about you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was wondering why that quote was in there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have less of a problem with his name and more DID she actually say it? I cannot trust the text from that site (RS). Esp when I see how the person is editing here. But why then does he not just add the congress record? (I dont get that) It is some serious vanity issues. If you have done all of this work then you should have no problem with 2nd sources verifying this work. I have googled and only found Myers on Myers. No Blackvoice,Ebony, Huff, even in forums it is Myers on Myers. But the point also stands, why is it even being inserted here?--Inayity (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote is in the CR; I looked it up. She either said it, or she asked to have it added as if she had (a common practice). Myers is trying to cite it, just clumsily. But it doesn't matter, because the only point of relevance to this article is the fact that Ms. Collins added comments about the holiday to the CR, which indicates some token acknowledgement from Congress; repeating it here would serve only to put a spotlight on Mr. Myers. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, so good ref or not, there is no need for mention of Myers.--Inayity (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on my character not appreciated! Enough said! Please cease from the character assassination of an African American grass roots leader! Stop the wikipedia censorship of the Myers Foundation. "National Juneteenth" (a gress roots black movement representing humdreds of grass roots black folks across America and the world that was founded Myers) (www.nationaljuneteenth.com) is not Myers Foundation (focus on an individual person, Myers) (www.myersfoundation.net).

BTW, Myers has been published on the front page of the NY Times (x2), Ebony Magzine, Time Magazine, Washington Times, People Magazine, Baltimore Sun (I can go on and on); featured on Nightline with Ted Koppel, CNN, Saturday night with Connie Chung, Today Show, Good Morning America, Direct TV, etc. (If I need to provide links to some of these "2nd sources verifying this work" let me know.)

Let's be real, "Vanity is in the eye of the beholder!" I would hope that everyone would be respectful to a key contributor to the modern history of Juneteenth on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page and the trailblazer of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America. Are you in denial of the historic accomplishments of the movement because you have problems with how the leadership expresses himself? Folks who review the Juneteenth wikipedia site should be given the true history of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" and it should not be censored.

National Juneteenth Holiday Chairman Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You are doing far more to harm your reputation with these outbursts than anything any other Wikipedia editor has said or done. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your comments. When you speak of "outburst" and "harm your reputation", as a progressive African Americaan history advocate and leading voice in America for the accurate documentation our nation's legacy of enslavement, my supporters are telling me "right on brotner, get them folks on wikipedia straight when it comes to our history!"

Now that I know your Wikipedia editing rules better, let's work toward the common goal of getting the most accurate and up to date information up on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page. I am encouraging others to get involved on Wikipedia. Please do not accuse me of removing material on the page when that is not true. Please understand that I do seek out wikipedia editors for discussion and input before I do anything. Unfortunately, it was not you or the other wikipedia editors who are more familiar with me from past interactions.

National Juneteenth Holiday Chairman, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to hear you are learning the rules. But do us a favor and not sign your name, titles and position or write on behalf of any organization when editing or commenting. Our focus as editors is not on who we are (I maybe also a PhD in something important), but our focus is the article exclusively and not our personalities, or how famous we are in the real world.--Inayity (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you censure my comments on the Wikipedia Juneteenth talk page? Am I breaking any Wikipedia rules by how I sign my name? By censuring my comments, it is obvious that you do not understand or care to understand black cultural expression.

National Juneteenth Holiday Chairman, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The links to WP:TALK have already been given, go and read. Ignorance of Wikipedia is not an excuse to continue.--Inayity (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Independent links and references to sources not controlled by the Myers Foundation documenting Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. as the leader of "National Juneteenth" in America

http://baltimoretimes-online.com/news/2014/may/30/juneteenth-officially-recognized-maryland/

http://racerelations.about.com/od/historyofracerelations/a/What-Is-Juneteenth-And-Why-Is-It-Celebrated.htm

http://www.guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000006323

http://www.fannielouhamer.info/juneteenthi.html

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Juneteenth-moving-from-Texas-stage-to-national-3638382.php

http://juneteenthamerica.wordpress.com/tag/national/

http://kcjuneteenth.wordpress.com/category/national-juneteenth/

http://www.inquisitr.com/257340/juneteenth-on-its-way-to-becoming-a-national-holiday/

http://www.jazzedmagazine.com/2610/articles/jazz-forum/reverend-dr-ronald-myers/

http://jazztimes.com/sections/news/articles/29792-juneteenth-jazz-honors-african-american-jazz-legacies

http://www.africandiasporatourism.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=928:president-obama-on-hot-seat-with-juneteenth-leaders&catid=113:featured-4

http://www.modernghana.com/news/334096/1/will-president-obama-make-juneteenth-a-national-da.html

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/060609/loc_447973608.shtml

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815936,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701516.html

JuneteenthDOC (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you censure my comments on the Wikipedia Juneteenth talk page? Am I breaking any Wikipedia rules by how I sign my name? By censuring my comments, it is obvious that you do not understand or care to understand black cultural expression.

National Juneteenth Holiday Chairman, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I might care more about African culture far more than you do, I promise you, you are becoming an embarrassment to the African liberation with these outburst. Serious contributors do not go on like this. What your vanity is doing is discussing you and how important you are, not African American issues for the benefit of enlightenment, Pan-Africanism, or Black consciousness. This is not a WP:FORUM, not all your comments are needed as we need to discuss the specifics of this article. If you continue to rant on and misuse the WP:TALK you will be reported. Constantly contaminating a talk page with your own agenda has nothing to do with making Wikipedia better. PLEASE STOP. Do not sign your name and org, or discuss your org, just sign your Wikipedia signature. --Inayity (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from your continued character assassination! PLEASE STOP! You need to be civil and respectful according to Wikipedia guidelines. If you continue to embarrass yourself by your rants and personal attacks against me, I will report you. Let's focus efforts to improve the Juneteenth Wikipedia page.

1. What are the Wikipedia rules on signing your name at the end of an article? Did I violate any rules by the way I sign my name?

2. "National Juneteenth" needs to be placed back on "External Links" with a reference. I listed several links that are not controlled by the Myers Foundation. I suggest the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) web site - http://www.njof.org. I left several links that could also be used.

3. "Maryland" needs the following reference added: http://baltimoretimes-online.com/news/2014/may/30/juneteenth-officially-recognized-maryland/

4. "Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D." needs to be appropriately added to the page as the leader of the "National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign" with emphasis on legislation to make Juneteenth a state holiday or state holiday observance in all fifty states and through legislation in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. I have listed multiple links and references not controlled by the Myers Foundation and will be happy to provide more.

5. The image of the "Juneteenth Flag" needs to be added to the page. I will be happy to provide links and references not controlled by the Myers Foundation about the flag.

Again, please civilly and respectfully proceed with your response without personal attacks to improve this page. It will be greatly appreciated! Please do not censure or erase my comments on the talk page. I now how many Juneteenth supporters throughout the African Diaspora, especially our African Juneteenth Celebration leaders in countries like Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, etc., now reading the Juneteenth Wikipedia talk page. They will read the page and draw their own conclusions.

JuneteenthDOC (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they will draw their own conclusions. The more you seek to build up your reputation here, the more tarnished it becomes.

I think it's time to request a topic ban on Mr. Myers (based on conflict of interest), for his benefit as well as Wikipedia's. A full block for repeated civility issues would be appropriate too, but since he seems to have only one interest in editing Wikipedia, is probably unnecessary. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not editing anything! I was told to seek discussion and consent on editing and not to post any changes. I have done so on this talk page, most recently with you.

I sought out discussion and consent on editing about making changes from another editor who was the most recent editor on the page at that time. I did not receive any criticism from that editor. When I made the changes (just a reference edit on "National Juneteenth" that was much more proper) you accused me of doing something wrong.

If I am not editing anything on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page before seeking discussion and consent (as I have provided solid links and references that are not under "control of the Myers Foundation"), what am I now being accussed of doing wrong?

Please respond to my suggestions about making editing changes on the page. I would also appreciate a response to my questions. Thank you.

JuneteenthDOC (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to respond to any party other than Ronald Myers who suggests that more attention should be given to Ronald Myers. He's wasted so very much of my time and goodwill, but demands more ... and I'm finished with him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

Is Juneteenth an official holiday in any state other than Texas? If it is, we should name those states. If it isn't, we shouldn't imply that it is by saying that it is "an annual holiday in some states of the United States." - Nunh-huh 03:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC) - adding info from what I've found to article. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of states that "As of May 2013, 43 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have recognized Juneteenth as either a state holiday or special day of observance...." is deceptive. Most of those were part of a library partnership celebration. I am unaware of any entities celebrating it in Idaho currently.--IdahoUrtica (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

On PBS, Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., leading black historian from Harvard University, validates Rev. Ronald Myers and www.nationaljuneteenth.com as pertinent to modern Juneteenth history

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/what-is-juneteenth/

In an article published by PBS, Dr. Henry Louis Gates, making reference to an article published by Time Magazine, Rev. Ronald Myers and www.nationaljuneteenth.com are included in his article. PBS and Time Magazine are references "not controlled by the Myers Foundation" or Ronald Myers. However, along with the many other links provided previously, wiki editor removed "Ronald Myers" and "National Juneteenth" from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page citing Wikipedia rules.

Taking everything into consideration, will you please answer my previous questions and respond to my request for "Ronald Myers" and "National Juneteenth" linked to "www.nationaljuneteenth.com" to be added back on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page? JuneteenthDOC (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Let someone with no WP:COI make this request. Wikipedia is about collaboration which improve the total article not those which promote a particular campaign.--Inayity (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I must humbly and respectfully disagree. Wikipedia is about the accurate documentation of information and history on its web pages. Who makes the request should have no bearing on facts.

You label me as "those which promote a particular campaign" when, as clearly documented by Dr. Gates and the many other reputable links "not controlled by the Myers Foundation" and Dr. Myers, that a major part of the modern era of Juneteenth was initiated by the black, African American, grass roots "Modern Juneteenth Movement" led by Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.

Historic iegislation has been passed in 43 states, the District of Columbia and over 9 pieces of legislation in the U.S. Sente and U.S. House of Representatives, because, as congress clearly stated in 2013 legislation, of "the leadership of the National Juneteenth Observnce Foundation", which again, according to Dr. Gates, historic congressional floor statement by Congresswomn Barbara Rose Collins, and many reputable links "not controlled by the Myers Foundation" and Dr. Myers, is "Ronald Myers" or "Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D."

"National Juneteenth", most accurately referenced through "www.nationaljuneteenth.com", according to Dr. Gates, and many reputable links "not controlled by the Myers Foundation" and Dr. Myers, should be placed back on "External Links" on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page.

"Ronald Myers" or "Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D." referencing Dr. Gates and many reputable links "not controlled by the Myers Foundation" and Dr. Myers, should be placed back on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page as the "leader of the 'Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America with appropriate refrence links.

Since you were the main wiki editor to remove important historic information about "Ronald Myers" or "Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D." and "www.nationaljuneteenth.com" from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page, that you now know Dr. Gates and many other reputable links have validated, just simply correct the page by putting the information back up with references to the appropriate links.

JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a single sentence. [10] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditor please correct the eror "As of May 2013, 43 U.S. states...", that should be "As of May 2014, 43 U.S. states..." I also recommend you add my suggested link to "Maryland". Thank you! JuneteenthDOC (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditor please remove "Use in popular culture" from Juneteenth Wikipedia page. Absolutely no relavence to Juneteenth history. Appears to be a self promotion! JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditor, the suggested link to "Maryland" (on the listing of states that recognize Juneteenth) follows: http://baltimoretimes-online.com/news/2014/may/30/juneteenth-officially-recognized-maryland/ Please attach the suggested link to "Maryland". JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The pop culture section, while not self-promotion, was poorly sourced trivia and has been removed. The Maryland source you list was added last week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ID states that have not adopted Juneteenth

It is more simple to use the source of the May 2014 Baltimore Times article (cited in article on this issue) and note the seven states that do not officially recognize Juneteenth rather than to list the 43 states that do have some form of observance. This observance includes ceremonial dates and not only state holidays that affect employment and school schedules. Parkwells (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory statements?

The following unsourced sentences, which I deleted from the Observation section, seemed to contradict the History section:
"An important side note to be made about Juneteenth should be that the holiday's name is derived from the little known fact that people did not know they were free when implemented on June 19, 1862. It took a while for word to spread that people were free because the slave owners did not necessarily tell anyone and so because not all people knew they were free on this date, is the purpose for this name Juneteenth. The significance of the name can be traced back to the word of mouth announcement of people's freedom and so is the reason for the generalized date, due to historically not being always on the 19th of June as to a particular person's freedom."
Where was the June 19, 1862 coming from? The History section clearly explains that the relevant historical date is June 18/19, 1865. Moreover, what does the holiday's name, Juneteenth, have to do with the state of knowing or not knowing that one was free? This is at best poorly explained and at worst a total non-sequitur. Poldy Bloom (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally confusing. Juneteenth originated as a holiday in Texas, associated with the day a Union general in Galveston, who had arrived with federal troops to occupy the area, announced the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of the slaves. This is documented. The other material above shows confusion.Parkwells (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is an "enunciated public reading"?

The article says "Traditions include an enunciated public reading of the Emancipation Proclamation as a reminder that the slaves have been proclaimed free."

What does "enunciated" mean in that sentence? --Tbanderson (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess read out loud, which the term "public reading" to me seems to express.Parkwells (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Add this interview's info into the content of this article?

I heard this interview on NPR earlier today (Fri. 19 June 2015) about Juneteenth. It may have some content that might not yet be in the article, and thus could potentially be added. Anyone interested in listening and/or adding content accordingly? http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/19/juneteenth-history-150-years Bush6984 (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Bush6984 (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juneteenth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122071819/http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/46366-juneteenth-celebrated-in-coachella.html to http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/46366-juneteenth-celebrated-in-coachella.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 14:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Context of the American Civil War

I noticed that the main text of the article does not make any explicit mention of the war, and seems to unsufficiently provide its context as it relates to the subject of the article. "President Johnson officially declared a virtual end to the insurrection on May 9, 1865" (as quoted from American_Civil_War#End_of_war). Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant in Virginia on April 9, 1865, "with that the Confederacy effectively collapsed" (quoted from Confederate_States_of_America). The last main battle related to the war that took place in Texas was the Battle of Palmito Ranch (May 12, 1865 – May 13, 1865). It seems like the "virtual end" of the war was proclaimed a real end by President Johnson only on August 20 (see Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#Presidential_proclamation_ending_the_war), especially as it relates to Texas (the multiple instances of "except in Texas" in that proclamation are remarkable).

So the Confederacy had ceased to exist (effectively) months before Granger's troops arrived in Galveston. But the article maintains that "Texas, as a part of the Confederacy, was resistant to the Emancipation Proclamation." Wouldn't it be better for the article to say that Texas was resistant as a part of the former Confederacy? Also, what were the actual manifestations of that resistance? Was it just the same white supremacy asserting itself through states' rights as before? Did people appeal to the emancipation proclamation? If so, how were their efforts thwarted? A curious reader would like to know. --91.61.52.46 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the text to make this more clear. In the future, feel free to do so yourself; that's how Wikipedia works. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As I was basing my understanding of the issue solely on content of Wikipedia articles and not reliable sources, I felt myself unable to edit upon my own wishes. For sure, I could have acquired the competency and literacy neccessary for that. But I felt more comfortable with simply raising the issue on the talk page of this article and let the more studied among the Wikipedians take care of it (or not). That is also how Wikipedia works. Thank you. --87.150.87.154 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading the above, I still find it confusing that this article says "As news of end of the war moved slowly, it did not reach Texas until May 1865", but the Wikipedia article on the American Civil War lists the end date as the proclamation on May 8, 1865. I can do some more reading and take a stab at it, but thought I'd see if someone had ideas. "Although Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant in Virginia on April 9, 1865, and President Johnson officially declared the war over of on May 8, 1865, the Army of the Trans-Mississipi did not surrender until June 2, and Texas was not under Federal oversight until Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston on June 18, 1865. On June 19, standing on the balcony..." is pretty long but that's the starting idea - Pbackstrom (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Richmond photo misleading

The source for the photo (see link on photo page) states: "This image shows a parade of Richmond's African Americans celebrating 'Emancipation Day' on Monday, April 3, 1905. (...) The parade marked the fall of Richmond and not the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation." So why is the photo used in an article on Juneteenth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:302:177A:A40F:27DD:3731:5F7A (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

edit

A lot of typos Annonnyyymmoou (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Wikieditor keeps deleting verifiable by third party Juneteenth historical information?

Is there a problem with Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins U.S. Congressional Record historical statement when introducing the nation's first Juneteenth legislation before congress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneteenthDOC (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Official status

The Official status section says it's official in 43 states, and mentions 4 states where it's not. That's only 47 states. As I recall, we hit fifty a few decades back. What about the other three states? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It also says In 1997 Congress recognized the day through Senate Joint Resolution 11 and House Joint Resolution 56. But how did it "recognize" the day? It's not an official holiday. Was it a "day of remembrance," or something else? And was it an annual thing, or did it just apply to 1997? The paragraph isn't very clear. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No part of this article addresses the democrat party's support of slavery.

That's interesting. From the perspective of historical accuracy, the democrat party kept slaves, fought to keep slaves, formed the KKK, passed Jim Crow laws, and fought segregation. This is not an issue of maintaining NPOV, this is an issue of factual accuracy.

You showed a picture of Gov. Wolf (D) signing a document to celebrate Juneteeth. Maybe he feels guilty because of his party's long-standing (and still current) stance on people of African descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2B70:B380:E8CC:4017:7BD3:351A (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't address that because this isn't an article about slavery; it's about a holiday celebrating emancipation. Other articles cover slavery in the U.S. and it's ongoing effects, and I encourage you to read them to get a more complete understanding of American history. Civil rights movement would probably explain a few things you don't understand about more recent history and the roles political parties have taken in the past half century. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

lede grammar.

The lede needs to be fixed by someone with better grammar skills. Fragmentary and run-on sentences make it very difficult to read. I read it a dozen times and still cant figure out what actually happened on June 19.

Gjxj (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Gjxj, If the lede doesn't make sense, you are welcome to re-write it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Its been fixed by someone. I don't personally know enough about the topic to fix it myself. Gjxj (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I made more substantial grammar revisions to the lede (including changing from passive voice and clarifying what happened on the date). I also added citation to Msherby (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

This page often refers to Black people as simply "blacks," which is at best a dated way of doing so. Additionally, with the social push to capitalize Black to reflect its status as a valid culture/ethnicity, the instances where that is used should perhaps be made to reflect that. As such, I propose that "blacks" be replaced in all cases with "Black people" and that instances of "black" referring to the race and/or culture be capitalized. Katubug (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia should capitalize "Black" is a much bigger question than this article, but using "blacks" as a noun is definitely poor writing. I've fixed that to "black people" except where it's part of a direct quote. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Two weeks ago is not "dated," guy. --User:Commonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.173.129 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add TX governor

The legislation making Juneteenth a holiday was signed by Bill Clements (R), governor of TX. Please add that in. 192.107.159.198 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

North Dakota to recognize Juneteenth Celebration Day <https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/North-Dakota-to-recognize-Juneteenth-Celebration-Day-571333781.html> 199.21.245.9 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up. I've made the change, but page watchers might choose to tweak my format. BusterD (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt regarding the status of North Dakota. The governor issued a proclamation covering 2020 only, declaring it a day of celebration. Source: So I would suggest the map is still correct, and the table should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141E:D4B7:24C1:E77B:F05E:A39B (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

This day is now recognized as an official national holiday. 2600:1002:B105:413B:480C:AFCC:7470:CD83 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. RudolfRed (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Juneteenth is a state holiday in multiple states, not just Texas. Texas has a bad track record with white supremacy and stating that they are the only state in which Juneteenth is an official state holiday gives them undue credit. 174.45.63.74 (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article already lists all the states where it is either an official or ceremonial holiday. RudolfRed (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

New Mexico recognition

According to the table, NM recognized Juneteenth in 2006. But the map shows NM in blue, among those states that did so in 2010 or after. Does anyone know which is correct? 174.28.112.114 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The map correctly shows New Mexico in orange (between 2000 and 2009). Neighboring Arizona is in blue. Msherby (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(I corrected the map) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Eddie891 -- and thanks IP for pointing out the issue. Msherby (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If Hawaii and SD dont follow it, then isnt that 48 states not 49? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CF80:C330:1D55:4192:4C9D:29B1 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Change "A common misconception is that this day marks the end of slavery in the United States. Although this day marks the emancipation of all slaves in the Confederacy, the institution of slavery was still legal and existed in the Union border states after June 19, 1865.[7][8] Slavery in the United States did not officially end until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States on December 6, 1865, which abolished slavery entirely in all of the U.S. states and territories.[9]" To: "A common misconception is that THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION marks the end of slavery in the United States. Although this day marks the emancipation of all slaves in the Confederacy, the institution of slavery was still legal and existed in the Union border states after June 19, 1865.[7][8] Slavery in the United States did not officially end until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States on December 6, 1865, which abolished slavery entirely in all of the U.S. states and territories.[9]" 2605:A000:1203:6084:D007:DCF7:36F0:FF4E (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Statement is correct as is. This is a statement for people who don't understand what the date for Juneteenth signifies. Ckruschke (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Why not add the part about the union owning more slaves than the confederate army, and made slavery illegal in the United states. 107.242.113.4 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is not about the practice of slavery or about who was more egregiously stupid in its practice therefore your point would be immaterial to the article. Ckruschke (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Clarification on the first line: "Juneteenth is a Texas state holiday celebrated annually on the 19th of June throughout the United States" Isn't "throughout the U.S." an oxymoron since it's a State Holiday. We don't celebrate state holidays throughout the U.S. 208.53.199.248 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Good point. Let me see what I can so. Ckruschke (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Reorganization and Addition of Sections

The article covers the foundational information about Juneteenth and its history, but since it was most significant to African Americans in Texas a new section should be added about every aspect of Juneteenth relating to Texas. Another section should then be made covering the significance of Juneteenth and its annual festivities in states other than Texas.

Also, a section should be made revolving around the purpose and intention of Juneteenth in the modern day. That includes stating the purpose behind certain Juneteenth events, and the message the African American community intends to showcase or advocate for through Juneteenth celebrations. -- Tayl0rthesail0r1 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As a registered editor, please feel free to Be Bold and add your expansion ideas in. Ckruschke (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thoughts for expansion:

Expand celebration section. Expand cultural impact and modern-day expansion sections. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

As a registered editor, please feel free to Be Bold and add your expansion ideas in. Ckruschke (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Flag etiquette. Propose for consideration that the graphic “American and Juneteenth flags” should be changed to display the staff of the U.S. flag in front of the staff of the Juneteenth flag. Thank you for your time and consideration. Reference: US Flag Code. 65.35.111.117 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: If you want to design that image and post the file here for insertion, that would be great. Ckruschke (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

It was a trivial change to make, and I've already adjusted the image accordingly. (Image caching may delay the update for some readers.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

change:

   which abolished slavery entirely in all of the U.S. states and territories.

to:

   which abolished slavery except as a punishment for crime in all of the U.S. states and territories. Ptancredi (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you pointed out where in the article this statement occurs to simplify review of your request. Ckruschke (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Most web browsers have a "find" function. This text has been revised. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Remove unofficial, it is an official American holiday and is recognized in 45 states. 2600:8807:AC00:12C0:E06C:7B9A:F94D:4D22 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This text has since been changed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

It is mentioned on the page that 49 states observe this holiday but the source only mentions 46 do as of June 17, 2020. 108.3.175.54 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to "most". The problem is that there's inconsistency in how the states recognize it, so people count different numbers. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

After- held as slaves in the United States (add), with the exception of crime which is stated in the 13th Amendment. 24.217.116.151 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done. The article already explains this, and it isn't the point of the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The Emancipation Proclamation only applies to states that had not seceded from the US. The EP did not apply to Texas.

Please modify the first paragraph to either remove the ambiguity. 2600:1700:7980:F20:3818:E0F8:5571:5345 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Please read up on edit request policy: you must suggest exact language to be removed and replaced. Also, your claim is unlikely and unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs)

Texas was mentioned by name in the EP. The rebel states' "secession" was not recognized by the federal government, and subsequent legal decisions have maintained that they were never not under the jurisdisction of the United States. There was war over it and everything. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Suggest removing Donald Trump's quote.

From: "In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the worldwide protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd, a controversy ensued when it emerged that Donald Trump had scheduled his first political rally since the pandemic's outbreak for Juneteenth in an arena in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which was the site of the 1921 race massacre in the Greenwood district. In response to the controversy, the rally was rescheduled for the following day. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump said, 'I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous. It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.'[50]"

To: "In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the worldwide protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd, a controversy ensued when it emerged that Donald Trump had scheduled his first political rally since the pandemic's outbreak for Juneteenth in an arena in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which was the site of the 1921 race massacre in the Greenwood district. In response to the controversy, the rally was rescheduled for the following day."

Context about the historical significance of the rally and resulting backlash is sufficient. The quote has little substance and actively detracts from the article by including the opinion of a politician who is not involved in Juneteenth commemoration, civil rights, or BLM.

(Grammar could also be fixed to address run-on sentence, but that's out of the scope of this request.)

StalwartQuail (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed this to make it more brief and stick to the facts. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

In 2020, state governors of Pennsylvania, Virginia and New York signed an executive order recognizing Juneteenth as a paid day of leave for state employees.[33] [34]

This needs to be changed as Pennsylvania governor declared Juneteeth a paid state holiday in 2019, not 2020.

2601:987:280:27D3:D109:8C98:92A2:4242 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Done Texaseliz (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

South Dakota is listed in the text as celebrating the holiday but not in the map. 64.46.10.92 (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

South Dakota does not recognize it as a holiday: "South Dakota remains one of three states that don't recognize Juneteenth as an annual state holiday or observance. Noem's proclamation only recognizes Juneteenth Day for 2020 and doesn't make it a permanent state-recognized holiday." https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/18/noem-issues-juneteenth-proclamation-some-south-dakotans-push-state-recognized-holiday/3212781001/ MargorieJames (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Same point that it would need to be revised to accurately reflect. Nicklanners (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

FIXED. Texaseliz (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

New related article: General Order No. 3

I have created a very basic new article for the general order referenced here as part of the origination of Juneteenth. The order itself is significant as legal history, and the original record has been newly digitized by the National Archives and is currently being reported in the media today. If anyone is interested in the subject, I have written a bit about the order's text and the surviving versions, but the article could also be expanded to discuss its historical background and legacy. Any help appreciated!

Also the new image I have uploaded from the National Archives, at right, may be better than the image currently used in this article, which does not have a source or date for the original publication, and lacks context. This version is the handwritten official record from the day of the order's proclamation, recorded by the Union Army itself. I would suggest we replace it. Dominic·t 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits by user:Mechanical Keyboarder

I do not believe this unilateral edit[11] without an edit summary by user:Mechanical Keyboarder was constructive. It undid quite a few good-faith edits by me and other editors, some of them at the request of Talk page edit requests. His later rationale on reverting back to that version – "The verbiage of the edits were political in nature rather than historical/informational. This article was heavily politicized through semantics due to recent events in the United States" – is overly broad and vague to the point of being meaningless. The insulting accusation needs to be justified. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly your ego is more important than historical/informational accuracy. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Doubling down on the insults by making them personal is not helpful. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

On June 17, 2020, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued an Executive Order recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday for state employees, in recognition of the official emancipation of African Americans throughout the United States. The Governor will also advance legislation to make Juneteenth an official state holiday in 2021. Johnnylakis (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Governor Andrew Cuomo made a speech today where this was stated: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1531543183686162&notif_id=1592612153728771&notif_t=watch_follower_video&ref=notif WordwizardW (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Description

I think the description of the holiday isn’t totally getting all the characteristics of the holiday within the current description. I feel like something like Black/African American celebratory holiday of freedom or something along the lines of that. I’m not an expert but it’s like it put all the emphasis on Texas and yes the holiday originate their but does it define the description? Jerry Steinfield (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

2020

174.26.78.86 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 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)} 04:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Slavery ended on December 18, 1865

Slavery was legal in Kentucky under federal and state law until December 18, according to Wikipedia!

Juneteenth may signify the end (as the article says), but the actual end of slavery in the US came later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadamsmar (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's my understanding, based on the Juneteenth article and the 13th amendment article: Juneteenth celebrates the freeing of Texas slaves, which (I believe) were the last slaves freed by the emancipation proclamation. That proclamation only freed slaves in states under rebellion. So the new state of West Virginia and the four slave states that did not join the rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri) did not free their slaves until the thirteenth amendment was ratified. Ratification was certified by the Secretary of State on December 18, 1865. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, slavery is still legal under the 13 amendment for prisoners. All language about slavery ending in the US in this article is inaccurate.73.225.220.227 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 220.227 above; it looks like there have been edits recently to try to correct the record on the continued existence of slavery as explicitly stated in the 13th Amendment, but they've been rolled back as "editorializing". Juneteenth is specifically a celebration of the end of *chattel* slavery, and anything else is incorrect or misleading. NateTheGreat68 (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Number of states recognizing

There are conflicting sources regarding the number of states that recognize the holiday, which seem to be the result of writers using different standards for "recognition", such as whether a one-time proclamation counts. I would suggest that we find a way to handle this that doesn't involve edit-warring over the number. The simplest would be to omit a number altogether. Another option would be to report the range of numbers given, explaining why they differ. Third we could dig down and do a count of the various kinds of recognition and tabulate them. The duck-season/rabbit-season approach isn't helping. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Jason, I greatly appreciate your help and work on this article, especially this week. I would say a state recognizing the holiday is more than a one-off declaration from a governor (for example). Particularly for the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not as interested in the topic of the day, state recognition should mean codified by the state in a way that endures. Msherby (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cross reference National Freedom Day

The Wikipedia page on National Freedom Day references the page Juneteenth. In the interests of symmetry, should this page reference National Freedom Day? Also, I have found no mention noting the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (either December 6 or December 18) which seems an odd lacuna. Is anyone aware of any such commemoration which would be also worthy of referencing in this article? Jmarsh48 (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The 13th amendment is mentioned at least in the second paragraph of the intro. Msherby (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Juneteenth Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

13th Amendment abolished slavery

I removed a bit of out-of-place editorializing from the article: [12]. The article previously stated,

ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished non-penal slavery nationwide

(emphasis added)

The phrase "non-penal slavery" cannot be stated in Wikivoice, because it implies that penal labor is slavery. I understand that there are political activists who claim that penal labor is slavery, but however any editor feels about these claims, they are activist claims, and cannot be stated in Wikivoice. The nuances of the 13th Amendment, including the exception for penal labor, are discussed at the main article: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We don't need to shove a controversial political statement into this article (especially in Wikivoice).

Unfortunately, my edit has now been reverted, so the political statement is back in the article, again in Wikivoice: [13]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a political statement, it's a correct description of what the 13th amendment does. Have you tried reading the amendment? It abolishes slavery, but it has a clear exception. Similarly, the first sentence of the article Thirteenth Amendment is The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime (my bold). This is how one gives an accurate one-sentence summary of a blanket rule with an exception. --JBL (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

First, your rudeness is really out of line. Yes, I have obviously read the 13th Amendment. Calling penal labor "slavery" is extremely controversial, and that bit of editorializing in completely out of place and unnecessary in this article. A discussion of this subject is not out of place in the article on the 13th Amendment, but here, stated in Wikivoice, it's an obvious breach of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you believe it is true or false that the 13th amendment abolished slavery but made an exception for penal labor? --JBL (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe that it is false to say that the exception allows slavery. It allows a form of involuntary servitude, just as it says in the amendment. At the time of the passage of the amendment, labor as a punishment for a crime was not viewed as "slavery," and I would guess that today, most people still do not consider it "slavery." Calling it "slavery" here is unnecessary editorializing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that clear response. Since you are clearly on an ideological mission here, I have nothing further to discuss with you, and I invite you to seek a third opinion or begin an RfC. --JBL (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Just the opposite: I object to obvious, ideological editorializing. When you read through the lede, this one phrase seems completely out of place, because it's obviously written by an editor who is trying to make a very controversial point about the 13th Amendment in Wikivoice, and it's completely tangential to the purpose of this article - which is to discuss the Juneteenth. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's an editor trying to be legally and literally precise. The way the amendment is written and punctuated, the exception applies to the entire previous phrase. That's how "neither A nor B, except in situation, shall exist" parses. The phrasing was borrowed from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, where the repeated use of the phrase "labor or service" makes it clear that "slavery" referred to the former and "involuntary servitude" referred to the latter. This is not "controversial", it's textual orthodoxy, and it's how the amendment was understood at the time it was ratified. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The way the amendment is written and punctuated, the exception applies to the entire previous phrase. From the text alone, it's ambiguous. This is not "controversial", it's textual orthodoxy: Can you provide any sources that demonstrate that that is textual orthodoxy, or how the amendment was understood at the time it was ratified? There is a legal history in the United States of construing the meaning of "slavery" very narrowly (e.g., the military draft is not slavery), not to mention the common use of the word "slavery." What you're saying sounds extremely implausible -- that it was (or is) widely accepted at the time that penal labor was (or is) "slavery." This is certainly a rhetorical device used by some prison reform advocates. There's nothing wrong per se with them using that emotive language, because they're trying to convince people of a political cause. But it's not something that should be done here in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent/current state ballot proposals reflect the reading to which I refer, and seek to remove the exception from their state constitutions specifically because it allows penal slavery (even if not currently practiced): Colorado[14] Utah[15] Nebraska[16]. Please note that Ballotpedia breaks down the state constitutions which mirror the 13A phrasing and allow penal slavery, and those which are phrased the way you want to read 13A and limit it to penal servitude.[17] It's worth noting that these amendments have not been "prison reform" measures. They received legislative support across the political spectrum, demonstrating that they were not fringe "political activism". They're efforts to clean up their state constitutions, and coverage of them notes that they would have no impact on modern prison practices, so your "rhetorical device used by some prison reform advocates" inference is just an assumption of bad faith on your part. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be in the article. Wikipedia's not supposed to be a venue for political activism (though it so very often is). - DoubleCross (‡) 02:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not "political activism" to acknowledge that a form of slavery continued to exist under the terms of the 13th amendment: former slave states openly used the Exception Clause as an allowance to charge former slaves with crimes, so they could hold them, "rent" them, etc. in ways that are indistinguishable to modern sensibilities as slavery. It took time and additional legislative/judicial measures – not just 13A – to end those practices. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Request For Comment on description of 13th Amendment

Should this article refer to the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as "ending non-penal slavery" or as "ending slavery" altogether? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note the phrase in the Lead for some time is neither of those, it is "ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished chattel slavery nationwide." Markbassett (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• After reading the discussion above, I would prefer the third option "ended slavery and non-penal involuntary servitude" or "ended slavery and involuntary servitude (except inside prisons)". But between the two options given I would go with "ended slavery", because that's the understanding of both the people who wrote it and most people now. I think calling prison labor "slavery" is an exceptional claim, and if you want to point out the 13th amendment allowed prison labor it should be in a separate clause. Loki (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Let's actually use the language from the Thirteenth Amendment page, which is "abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime". Loki (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with "ended slavery and non-penal involuntary servitude" is that it is not what the amendment says. While some editors might be certain that's what it's supposed to mean, it is also widely held that the Exception Clause also applies to slavery. (This is not a fringe reading: Note how many of the references just in this quick Google search are from academic and/or legal sites: [18]) Likewise, the categorical claim that it "ended slavery" is also disputed. If we shouldn't state controversial claims "in Wikivoice", then these phrases shouldn't be used. Furthermore, the phrase "non-penal slavery" doesn't actually identify anything as slavery. It merely states that penal slavery could legally exist (which again: is a widely held reading of the amendment). It literally says nothing about the modern criminal justice system... except as an alarmed inference. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I like Loki's suggestion. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist" could be fairly summarized as "ending slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime". I looked at the Google search, and the two articles in law journals that I looked at (one by Ghalil and the other by Raghunath) both said that while courts in the past had ruled that being convicted of any crime meant that any amount of labor could be forced, the courts were likely wrong. They seem to hope that the courts will change their minds.

However, even if you think that truly ending "ending servitude except as a punishment" means that a convict's sentence would have to directly say something like "thirty years at hard labor" instead of "thirty years in prison" (and the judge presumably knows something about which unethical labor practices going to prison entails), it's still banning slavery for people who aren't being punished for crime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The 13th Amendment is widely described as having ended slavery, and that's how it was seen at the time. The exception is for penal labor, which was not then and is not now generally viewed as being the same thing as slavery. Including an extra statement about penal labor is not needed in an article that's not primarily about the 13th Amendment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Your assumption is not a fact. The Reconstruction-era incarceration of freed black men for petty crimes and leasing them to plantation owners was seen as slavery, and abolitionist Republicans objected to it. But it was legal.

Regardless, Loki's suggestion of a slightly longer summary of the amendment is an acceptable solution, because it does not state Thucydides411's POV in Wikivoice. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the 13th Amendment carefully does not abolish slavery in the US. It abolished slavery "except as punishment for a crime". Since upwards of 2,000,000 people in the USA are imprisoned at any one time, and as many of half of those are subjected to slavery (i.e. forced labour without pay), slavery is a fact of life for upwards of one million Americans daily. (Not to mention the second-class citizen status thrust upon former inmates, depriving them of civil rights, voting rights, and employment opportunities, not least in the former Slave States.) So no, Juneteenth cannot be considered the "end of slavery", not by a long way. GPinkerton (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a substantial revision to the generally accepted history of slavery in the United States. There are many articles that will have to be "corrected" to reflect this new view of what constitutes "slavery," including Irish slaves myth - which I assume will now be renamed to Enslavement of Irish people in British America. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I try to keep my personal views out of discussions here to the maximum extent that I can, but honestly, you put it quite succinctly: its a very well put together summary of the situation. Problem is we can't use it for our purposes here. Don't get me wrong, in a more stable time in a different context from this project if you and I met and you said that to me I'd respond "Yup, more or less." But here we can't just introduce your or my perspective on the matter into the article in Wikipedia's voice. But the thing is, because this is such a no brainer, we should be able to find scholars and popular figures who are willing to say it, whom we can quote and attribute to. So if you want full recognition of this basic feature of the situation, find those sources. You could certainly try law review articles for a start, if nothing else. They would be most ideal as secondary sources. This is also though a rare case where primary sources of law would be fair game (with very careful attribution in these cases). Snow ^{let's rap} 15:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not see an issue here. The 13th abolished TWO things: a) slavery and b) involuntary servitude except prisons. The point was that in a number of cases (Illinois, Texas come to mind) in the past where slavery was illegal owners required their people to sign statements they were in "servitude." Rjensen (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

None of which is relevant. Whether it exists or not, source after source after source states that the Thirteenth Amendment allows slavery as punishment for a crime. That's literally what it says. The fact that Thucydides411 has come to this article with a huge chip on his shoulder about prison labor, and insists that his reading be enshrined in Wikivoice, doesn't change that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for the article not to make an extremely controversial statement in Wikivoice about the 13th Amendment that isn't really relevant to the article. This article is about the Juneteenth, not about the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment is briefly mentioned here, along with an extremely controversial and - for this article unnecessary - interpretation of the amendment. JasonAQuest, it may be obvious to you that the 13th Amendment continues to allow slavery, but you have to recognize that that's a contentious issue. It flies in the face of how slavery is usually defined. If penal labor were generally considered slavery, there wouldn't be an article on the Irish slave myth. That article would instead be called Irish slavery in British America. But there's no reason for this argument to be fought out at this page, because we're only obliquely mentioning the 13th Amendment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It maybe be "obvious" to you that the the penal exception applies only to indentured servitude, but that POV is disputed. If it weren't we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't want your controversial declaration about it to be presented as Holy Writ, either. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

JasonAQuest You edited my comment here to change its indentation level and make it appear that it was in response to a different editor than I was in fact addressing, completely changing its tone and to some extent the position it was meant to endorse. I'm trying to think of some well-intentioned reason for why you might have chosen to do this so I can WP:AGF here, but regardless, you are most certainly not allowed to do this, and if the objective was to actually change the apparent target of my support it would be a pretty blatantly WP:disruptive thing to do. Do not do this to my (or any editor's) post ever again: changing indentation levels on another editor's post should only ever be done if one is refactoring the whole conversation or the circumstances make it 100% clear that the OP meant the response to point elsewhere. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I change the indentation level because I thought you had made a mistake in counting. Apparently it was I who made the mistake, and I apologize. But the fact that you can't imagine that obvious good-faith reason for it and immediately assume the worst reflects poorly on you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Jason, first off, my comment very clearly and expressly did leave open the possibility that you thought you were being helpful. For that matter, I take it for granted that you are being honest when you say as much now. But let's be clear here: you edited another editor's comment in such a way that it changed who I was responding to and, as a consequence, a substantial part of the meaning of that post. You did this without any particularly good reason to expect I didn't intend my message to reply to exactly who I replied to, and you didn't even make the effort a leave a ping or a note for me to let me know you had done it, in case your "correction" was in error. So, intentionally misrpresentative or not, you are not being mistreated here for having it pointed out that this is a problematic thing to do, that it violates an express prohibition in WP:Talkpage Guidelines, and is something you should not do in the future. The better course of action in such circumstances is to leave a note for the editor in question, asking if they meant the comment to respond to someone else, and allowing them to fix the post if appropriate. As I said before, editing another editor's post in this manner should only be done when refactoring a larger conversation, or when there can be absolutely no question from the context that they meant to respond to someone else--and even then I would strongly recommend you leave it to them. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to understand how or why "slavery" and "servitude" could be considered different. One is merely a more Latinate word. The Amendment treats them as interchangeable. GPinkerton (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Thirteenth Amendment provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1. The amendment's exemption applies to both slavery and involuntary servitude. See "Slavery as Punishment: Original Public Meaning, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and the Neglected Clause in the Thirteenth Amendment," 51 Ariz. L. Rev. 983 (2009) ("[T]he Thirteenth Amendment authorizes slavery as a punishment for crime"); see also "Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities" at 267 ("The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited slavery 'except as punishment for crime'."), "No Slavery Except as a Punishment for Crime: The Punishment Clause and Sexual Slavery," 55 U.C.L.A L. Rev. 607, 2008 ("The [thirteenth] amendment mandates that there shall be no slavery “except as a punishment for crime."). Either "abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime" or "ended non-penal slavery" would be accurate and due (I prefer the former over the latter). Per the above sources, however, a statement that the Thirteenth Amendment "ended slavery" would be inaccurate. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC

Senator Jeff Merkey is introducing a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit slavery as a punishment for a crime. It is a mainstream reading of the 13th Amendment that it did not do this. [19] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ending non-penal slavery or some similar qualification. I don't see the neutrality issue. At the GA Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution we open with ... abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime and the amendment itself literally says Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. There's no question here: non-penal slavery was the subject of the amendment. If I want to call a particular example of prison labor "slavery", then that's another matter, but in general the amendment says nothing about how people can or can't be enslaved as punishment for a crime. — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  If I want to call a particular example of prison labor "slavery", then that's another matter, but in general the amendment says nothing about how people can or can't be enslaved as punishment for a crime. Thanks, Bilorv, this is extremely clearly stated. --JBL (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from above, I think that the qualifier is accurate, appropriate, and well-sourced. --JBL (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no question here: non-penal slavery was the subject of the amendment. The people who wrote and passed the 13th Amendment believed they were abolishing slavery - period. Not non-penal slavery. They did not view the labor imposed as punishment after the application of due process to be a form of slavery. The language about penal labor in the 13th Amendment was a standard formula used in previous laws banning slavery, and was meant to make it clear that penal labor was not being banned. The distinction between slavery and other forms of unfree labor is important - see the Irish slaves myth article for an explanation of how historians view slavery and penal labor differently. If they were the same thing, that article would be called Irish slaves in America. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, is there a dispute that the amendment prohibits heritable chattel slavery -- are RS claiming one can be pre-born 'duly convicted of a crime'? Also, are RS claiming that the convicted become, in law, personal property of someone else (please note the opening sourced statement in the slavery article)? In such a fraught area, it is best to be careful. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ending slavery That's how the overwhelming majority of sources describe it. We don't need to get into the technical details; this is an article about African-American culture not a constitutional law exam. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ending non-penal slavery, or something similar: The Constitution specifies there is an exception for the use of slavery in penal circumstances, and that must be reflected. If the text itself specifies there is an exception on the ban of slavery, we cannot claim slavery is fully banned. This has come to public prominence with films like 13th, but we can really refer back to the original text and conclude that slavery was not fully ended. PickleG13 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the existing language which in the lead is "ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished chattel slavery nationwide." For the slavery context of this article where people were bought and sold, it is not needed to mention involuntary servitude and penal servitude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the existing language as "abolished chattel slavery" per discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Use "abolished chattel slavery" per discussion below and my comment above. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can discuss focusing on what it did do, not what it did not do?

Maybe shift focus?

Using this source[20], we could say, 'outlawed chattel slavery in the United States.' How's that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This would be fine with me. --JBL (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Chattel slavery is more accurate, yes. GPinkerton (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

words have changed meaning. In the 19th century "slavery" always meant "chattel slavery" = a permanent status that coule be inherited and slaves could be bought and sold. The 19c used "servitude" to refer to temporary labor contracts that could be voluntary. 21st century usage seems to equate the two terms. Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: In the 19th century "slavery" always meant "chattel slavery" a permanent status that coule be inherited and slaves could be bought and sold. Can you support this extraordinarily sweeping and unlikely-sounding statement with reliable sources? Is that, for instance, what is intended in this (19th-century, pre-US Abolition) tract: "Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they the slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State, they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine"? GPinkerton (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the USA where chattel slavery existed. The quote is from Marx's Communist Manifesto and deals with Europe--where there was no chattel slavery remaining. Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1911 Supreme Court decision went into the matter: "The words involuntary servitude have a 'larger meaning than slavery." Holmes quotes the Slaughter-House Cases: "It was very well understood that, in the form of apprenticeship for long terms, as it had been practised in the West India Islands, on the abolition of slavery by the English government, or by reducing the slaves to the condition of serfs attached to the plantation, the purpose of the article might have been evaded, if only the word 'slavery' had been used.' " Holmes goes on: "The plain intention [of 13th amdt] was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude." [Holmes in BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)] Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I suppose the shorter answer you could have given to my question is "no". A 20th-century American court case proves nothing about 19th century English, still less about 21st century English. Just because the Supreme Court of the US decided that slavery can continue under another name because it was too costly to abolish penal servitude (recte: involuntary servitude) does not mean English Wikipedia needs to repeat this view or define the English language word "slavery" exclusively in the way some Americans of the 19th century might sometimes have done. Your assertion "where there was no chattel slavery remaining" is also very badly wrong. Slavery was never formally abolished in the Ottoman Empire; the head of state (a resident of Europe) freed his own personal slaves in 1909. In the very year Marx and Engels wrote, slavery was abolished in Austria, Denmark, France and the French Empire. Slavery continued to exist in Moldavia and Wallachia until 1855 and 1856 respectively. Poland abolished slavery the year after the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery in Russia was abolished only in 1861, in Georgia in 1864, in Portugal in 1869, in Spain in 1870, Bulgaria in 1879, and so on. All this happened in Europe and in all cases chattel slaves were involved. GPinkerton (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually this article is about Juneteenth in USA and serfdom in Europe in 1848 was not involved at all. The US Supreme Court spends a lot of effort on close reading of the Constitution, which is the issue here (I cited it in 1873 as well as 1911). Rjensen (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There are MANY Wiki pages on the general subject of slavery or involuntary servitude. This page is about the Juneteenth holiday - not slavery in general. After the short explanation about the source of the holiday, further exposition on slavery in the US or the rest of the world is not germane to the page. This whole thread is beyond the scope of the page. Ckruschke (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There is something to that, I think. One does get the sense that there is an argument trying to be made that what happened is nothing to celebrate, that the people who started this celebration and those who held onto this celebration, continue this celebration and grow this celebration, are very wrong to do so. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I don't see that interpretation. Wikipedia is not and should not be written from an American perspective, still less from a 19th century American perceptive. This Wiki is in English and should reflect that fact, not use the word "slavery" in a way which only 19th century Americans would recognize. On the contrary, the argument appears to be being made that after (the first) Juneteenth everything was a bed of roses in America and those "liberated" were suddenly granted equal status with their white contemporaries, which is not something that did, or could, or would, happen overnight. Nor should the article suggest slavery does not exist in the post-Juneteenth US, which is pure denialism, since the history of slavery in the America (not least as a tool for the subjection of racial minorities) continues to the present day and is specifically allowed for in the 13th Amendment. GPinkerton (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The "further reading" and notes section and this talk page contain the main worldwide reliable sources on Juneteenth in 1865 and since. That is what the editors rely upon. mystery reliable sources are no help. If GPinkerton knows additional reliable sources then please provide them -- he has so far only not mentioned any that he is using. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No one has made anything like an argument that anything was a bed of roses or equality. Talk of 'American perspective' makes no sense -- it's celebration that originated in the African American community. These Americans celebrate, and the purpose of this article is to explain the celebration. As for the rest, it's really on the wrong page, this article is about a celebration of something. Answer the question, what are these Americans celebrating. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In Dyson, Omari L.; Jeffries, Judson L.; Brooks, Kevin L. African American Culture: An Encyclopedia of People, Traditions, and Customs: Juneteenth. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-6244-1 – via Google Books. and "Juneteenth - History & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-07-07. there is no mention or discussion of penal. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There may be no discussion of "penal" there nor in the introduction to Britannica's "slavery" article but there most definitely is reference to "chattel" in the latter article, which is what I'm arguing for. That is why we should qualify the term slavery in this article as "chattel slavery" and that the celebration commemorates the end of chattel slavery as a legal institution in the United States: "end of slavery" is too general for this encyclopaedia (notwithstanding Britannica's omissions) because of the massive "except" word in the 13th. So, Juneteenth would accordingly be the celebration for end of chattel slavery in the US (or its continuing non-existence) and not of the end of slavery in all its forms in the US, since it is specifically provided for "as punishment for a crime" under the constitution. Or, alternatively, it would be celebration of the liberation of those slaves whose bonds as chattels were broken and Americans' continued freedom from chattel slavery. It obviously doesn't have to be qualified in all cases, but prominently at the beginning to suggest the reality that Abolition was not the end of slavery broadly defined or even narrowly defined as a legal institution per se. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

One source might be:

"the most obvious pivot from its more conspicuous history to the present in the United States lies within the modern transposition of chattel slavery—from the Three-Fifths Compromise of the U.S. Constitution to the penal slavery instituted by its 13th Amendment. While abolishing slavery on the surface, the 13th Amendment moved it into the prison, abolishing slavery in all cases “except as a punishment for crime.” Instead of subordination coming as a condition of birth, this maintains enslavement by transposing their subordination to the indictment, to the suspicion, conviction, and assignment of guilt." Hunt, Ashley (2018), "Politics of Vision in the Carceral State: Legibility and Looking in Hostile Territory", The Oxford Encyclopedia of Crime, Media, and Popular Culture, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780190494674.001.0001/acref-9780190494674-e-137, ISBN 978-0-19-049467-4, retrieved 2020-07-07

Another might be:

"Juneteenth is a “black English” colloquialism that is a combination of two words—a contraction of the words “June” and “nineteenth,” and it signifies a festival of freedom—an annual celebration to remember the end of chattel slavery in America." Morehouse, Maggi M. (2009), "Juneteenth", Encyclopedia of African American History 1896 to the Present, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780195167795.001.0001/acref-9780195167795-e-0679, ISBN 978-0-19-516779-5, retrieved 2020-07-07

(emphasis added) GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, on 8 July, I updated the article with "abolished chattel slavery", per this discussion - see also WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

District of Columbia does not celebrate "Juneteenth"

Correction: As of 2021, Washington DC DOES celebrate and officially recognize Juneteenth. It also has a different public holiday called "Emancipation Day". Fredlesaltique (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker:

The District of Columbia celebrates a similar but different holiday called "Emancipation Day" on June 16. This holiday is covered in a section on the Emancipation Day article. According to the DC government website:

"The DC Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862 ended slavery in Washington, DC, freed 3,100 individuals, reimbursed those who had legally owned them and offered the newly freed women and men money to emigrate. It is this legislation, and the courage and struggle of those who fought to make it a reality, that we commemorate every April 16, DC Emancipation Day."

Texas celebrates a holiday called "Juneteenth" on June 19. According to the Texas State Library and Archives:

"Juneteenth, celebrated on June 19, is the name given to Emancipation Day by African Americans in Texas. On that day in 1865 Union Major-General Gordon Granger read General Order No. 3 to the people of Galveston.

"The celebration of June 19 as Emancipation Day spread from Texas to the neighboring states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. It also appeared in Alabama, Florida, and California as African American Texans migrated."

Currently, this Wikipedia article only covers the Texan holiday Juneteenth (which spread to other states, and may be known by other names). The article says:

"Juneteenth...[originated] in Galveston, Texas, it is now celebrated annually on the 19th of June throughout the United States... It is commemorated on the anniversary date of the June 19, 1865 announcement by Union Army general Gordon Granger, proclaiming freedom from slavery in Texas."

Right now, DC is outside the scope. I would like to exclude DC, and put a sentence in the article explaining that some states/the district celebrate slightly different holidays.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes DC celebrates Emancipation Day, but what makes you think that somehow prevents DC from also celebrating Juneteenth? Places are allowed multiple celebrations throughout the year. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, DC has long celebrated Juneteenth. "District residents have observed the day [of Juneteenth] in official and unofficial capacities for decades." [21] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: My bad, I was conflating celebrating and officially recognizing it, when I meant to stick to the latter. But either way, you're right; I did more digging and found a source for DC officially recognizing Juneteenth here. Thanks, Fredlesaltique (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Note also, the article has for a while now had a detailed report on official actions. [22] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)