Talk:Rebecca Latimer Felton

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 May 2018 and 23 July 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cholliman0919. Peer reviewers: Mrbigg08, Randoelin11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rebecca Felton Unlikely to Have Owned Slaves

Georgiaa did not adopt a Married Women’s Property Act until 1869.see "Woman Suffrage," New Georgia Encyclopedia. Prior to that time, any property owned by a woman at the time of her marriage, and any property acquired by her during the marriage, belonged to her husband. Since slavery was abolished in 1865, any slaves would have been owned solely by Mrs. Felton’s husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Springstea (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Racial politics

"Newspapers reprinted[18] a transcript of Felton's speech to garner support for the Democratic Party (which was at that point in history the Conservative party in America)". This comment is very editorial and not appropriately written for a Wikipedia submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeTheWritingOnTheWall (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems a little unfortunate that there's no real discussion of her attitude toward racial politics, especially in light of her agitational role in inciting the 1898 violence in Wilmington... maybe something that ought to be addressed in something a bit more than just a few comments buried in a long list of quotes. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is sad that a bigoted general statement -- that "most Americans" were white supremacists in Feltons' times -- would be allowed to stand. The same can be said of the statement that most white Americans considered young blacks to be half-civilized gorillas. Such statements demonstrate an ignorance of the America of the period. Historians cannot limit examination to the vocal minority, such as the KKK, and attribute their passions to all who share their race. Felton may have been a white supremacist, but most Americans were not. Slavery did not end by slave insurrection. It ended because "most Americans", free Americans, white Americans, wanted slavery to end so badly that they were willing to die for the cause. Do not rewrite history. Stop looking for a citation to such absurdities -- no legitimate citation exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn Acree (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the preceeding comment. I cannot believe that this article is allow to stand as written and will rewrite the absurb statement myself soon if it is not corrected.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Slanted section of article

Most of the article is good, but I'm going to take out the section on "political views." It reads like something a Northerner put in to make fun of Southerners. It is based on only one source, and its length and placement up front - before basic biographical information - suggests someone has an agenda to push about this relatively obscure and unimportant person. She was a U.S. Senator for one day, in 1922, so her opinions about local events from a hundred years ago are irrelevant now.Catherinejarvis (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Catherinejarvis perhaps should explain a little more about her own anti-Yankee or other biases. She seems unaware that Felton was quite negative about blacks in politics. Felton is famous primarily for her political views and they of course need to be covered. The WIKI rules are pretty clear about not erasing fully sourced scholarly material. In this case Litwack's expertise has been certified by his winning America's top awards for history writing (He won a National Book Award, the Pulitzer Prize, and the Francis Parkman Prize ) ... and there is a second historian who also gets erased. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Many white people in the South were "quite negative about blacks" a hundred years ago, but they don't get a Wikipedia article. I suggest Fenton would not have one either if she had not been a Senator for one day. She was no different than thousands of other people at that time and place, so her commonplace views have no relevance. The larger question is, why are the random remarks placed at the front of the article, unless it's designed to smear her in advance?Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Felton was a major political and reform leader in Georgia for many years and certainly deserves an article. (she is given extensive coverage is standard histories of Georgia like that of Numan Bartley (1983) She was one of the best influential women leader in the south for decades according to Notable American Women (1971) vol 1 pp 606-7; Bartley reports that by 1915 she "was championing a lengthy feminist program that ranged from prohibition to equal pay for equal work." (p 123). The section in question describes -- usually in her own words-- her views on a major issue of the day that she lectured and wrote about: race relations. There is no "smear" involve; her position is accurately described-- she expressed views that as Catherinejarvis suggests were very widely held. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The new section above it on her suffrage work is a nice improvement to the article.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

White supremacist

The writer makes a bold claim that Felton was a white supremacist. However there is only one source and the link to it doesn't provide details. A better source is required before making such a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeTheWritingOnTheWall (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

An edit of mine is being repeatedly reverted by a user for referring to the subject of this article in the lead as a “White supremacist”. They told me it was a conspiracy theory and original research. How is that so? It’s highlighted in the many sources used. There’s an entire section explaining how this person is in fact a white supremacist. All my edits did was add “White Supremacist” to the lead and change one section of the article referring to “Women” to “White women” since the sources used, as well is the fact “White women” are specified everywhere else in that area make it clear her sympathy only applies to white people. Why this is being removed as “Conspiracy” and “Original research” is beyond me, as well as how it breaks any rules. @Eccekevin: 2603:8080:F600:27A2:213D:2619:D608:8877 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a whole section in the lead already present discussing white supremacy, doubling it would be WP:UNDUE. And what your engaging in is not "conspiracy" (which I never said) but WP:SYNTH. Eccekevin (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the WP:SYNTH page and it essentially says that any user accused of it is pushing a wild and unfound conspiracy theory without any sources. I am merely reiterating what is already clarified in the sources.

I can compromise with my additions to the lead but I see nothing wrong with my First intented edit considering what you are telling me. Changing "While seeking suffrage for women, she decried voting rights for black people, arguing that it led directly to the rape of white women" to ""While seeking suffrage for white women, she decried voting rights for black people, arguing that it led directly to the rape of white women"" was the first thing I did but I admit I airheadedly opened another editing tab and performed my actual first edit after reading the sources more, before reloading and re-doing what would become the second.

I still don't see where I am doing any "Original research" if this information is both verified by existing sources and common sense given the context of a white feminist who was also extremely racist towards black people. 2603:8080:F600:27A2:1DA2:38E:D664:79A4 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Eccekevin (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: After reading SYNTH further, I'm still seeing it as dubbing whatever edit it's invoked against as using a source to push a conclusion that was not reached by the article. On the first intended edit I made, the conlusion was made that Rebecca supported all women's suffrage but hated black men specifically, this is not implied by the source as the source implied she hated black people as a whole and was a white supremacist. I had pinged you previously in an IP talk page that I can no longer locate about this matter since I was blocked for 7 days while trying to resolve a content dispute under "Vandalism" and had said some other things I can no longer recall, but can you explain to me how I am pushing an idea that is not supported by the sources? 2603:8080:F600:27A2:70C3:A56D:B03C:1AF8 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Everything you add has to be supported by a source, and not a synthesis of multiple sources. You need a good academic source to claim she fought for the suffrage of white women to the exclusion of all other women, you can't assume it just because a separate source says she was a white supremacist. It might be true, but without s source it is SYNTH. Eccekevin (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well there's no point in continuing this then, because it's quite literally in the source. And on my second intended edit, "Slave owner" and "White supremacist" are supported by multiple sources and thus deserve a spot in the lead. And content disputes are not vandalism, which is something I read in the temp ban reason I was given. I attempted to resolve it here. 2603:8080:F600:27A2:70C3:A56D:B03C:1AF8 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Contents disputes can absolutely be vandalism, specicially in the case of repeated violations or edit wars, or insisting on the same edits when other users are trying to discuss. I am guessing this is why you were temporarily banned. Finally, both those things you mentioned are already in the lead, so not sure what you're trying to say. Eccekevin (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You haven't discussed anything with me. You just repeatedly accused me of original research and vandalism then told someone to block me for a week. I even tried to discuss this with you and you ignored me most of the time. Solely because you disagreed with something that was in the sources, and are now making snide remarks.

Seeing the current state of the page, and the fact theres 2-3 other users are restoring similar edits I made to this page on the grounds they are backed up by the sources used, you can't really tell me I was arguing with "Other users" I was arguing with you specifically. You are not a group. Like I said, no point in continuing this if we can't agree on anything. 2603:8080:F600:27A2:6C94:8FC0:CC79:265A (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not "ask anyone to block you", I didn't even know you had been blocked. Eccekevin (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is impartial, as admins explained to you we cannot accept your edit because it is not NPOV. As in other page other people explained to you, you cannot edit on your emotions, please respect the work of all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.95.91 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

First off Admins have not explained anything to me. Just some random user who insisted on disagreeing with me. Second off. Aren’t you repeatedly removing and minimizing a section of the article that I haven’t even touched to imply a murder victim committed murder and rape when the sources only say he was *accused* of murder and rape by a racially motivated crowd who then murdered him? And in addition to that, removing the description of his murder. Tell me why this is necessary, and why you want to accuse me of editing in my own emotions when you are removing something everyone agreed to being there? 2603:8080:F600:27A2:5915:B910:4EAD:D68B (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Same Hose Section

@87.15.95.91: An IP is repeatedly altering the section describing the subject's views on the unjustified lynching of Sam Hose to imply that he truly did commited the crimes he was accused of, which led to his lynching, despite the source used saying those were simply accusations that led to the death and were perpetuated. The reverts also remove the description of his murder and the fact his body parts were sold as souvenirs, despite rollbacks from other users like @DuncanHill:. Can you explain to me why you're doing this? 2603:8080:F600:27A2:6C94:8FC0:CC79:265A (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Date of Infamous Tybee Speech

The current Wikipedia entry, as well as many other secondary sources, incorrectly date Felton's infamous Tybee speech as August 11, 1898. In fact, it was delivered on August 11, 1897, in Tybee, Georgia. A version of it again appeared in newspapers in 1898, which prompted further strong responses from the public.

As to the 1897 date being correct, see such news reports and transcripts appearing in the The Atlanta Journal (August 12, 1897); The Age Herald [Birmingham, Alabama] (August 14, 1897); and The Atlanta Constitution (August 20, 1897). As to the speech being reprinted and updated in late 1898, "nearly two years" after being delivered at Tybee, see, for example: The Morning News [Savannah, Georgia] (November 16, 1898) and The North Carolinian [Raleigh] (November 17, 1898).

Numerous authoritative secondary sources correctly report the date of the Tybee speech as occurring in 1897. For example:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-nations-first-woman-senator-was-a-virulent-white-supremacist-180981150/

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/brearley_margaret_e_201008_ma.pdf

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/rebecca-felton-and-one-hundred-years-of-women-senators.htm

https://history.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/assets/News_Images/racism_history_profession.pdf

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-05915-4_11

https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5743&context=facpubs

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3593&context=dissertations_2

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674893313 [page 411] Don Columbia (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)