Talk:Veiled Prophet Parade and Ball

Many of the references have a paywall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondback3000 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Caption is too long

The caption for the image of the VP is too long. Discussion more properly belongs in body of article, and I'm moving it there.Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's reasonable stuff, just too long to fit in the caption. Make a section describing portrayals of the prophet and changes over time. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashing There's been some recent editing aimed at deleting unhappy but well-documented history. Reverted. 150.243.14.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

KKK-like image

I've removed the image showing a figure dressed like a KKK participant. The information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veiled_Prophet_Ball#/media/File:Veiled_prophet.jpg does not give a source or any background in the image at all. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just re-added this image to the article - I've added additional relevant details to the caption, and have linked this directly to the image's metadata (which also will aid in substantiating that the image is in the public domain). For reference, the etching was referenced in Thomas Spencer's book that is cited extensively in the article on pg 6. The relevant page of the book can be viewed on the internet archive. I plan on updating the citation scheme on this page in the upcoming days to both reference this book in a more substantial fashion, as well as incorporate this link to the source material for folks to cross-reference citations. --Bpmcneilly (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

To the contention that the image in question is not indicative of a KKK uniform, due specifically to the popularity of The Birth of a Nation, I would point to the very well documented political cartoon Worse than Slavery from 1874, which is definitively before Birth of a Nation, and visually points to the advent of white hoods & dress by the KKK before 1915. If there is significant proof that the Veiled Prophet Ball invented the character of the Veiled Prophet & did not reference, in part, this uniform, I'd be happy to include it in the article. However, barring sufficient evidence that this was created without influence from existing uniforms, claims like "the image of the Veiled Prophet displayed in the Missouri Republican bears resemblance to the uniforms of the... it predates the adoption of the uniforms" seems inaccurate (especially when the Nash cartoon occurred 4 years before the authoring of the Missouri Republican article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpmcneilly (talk • contribs)

• @Bpmcneilly: Sure, yes, I am familiar with the political cartoon- but I would refute that this outfit was uniform throughout the KKK throughout this time period. I would bring attention to other examples from the time period encompassing the first KKK such as Here and Here and contrast them with cartoons from the second KKK era such as Here and Here. I have no doubt that many participants in the Veiled Prophet Ball were racists, and that the event itself was Black-exclusionary for most of its existence (and likely still has issues today). I don't, however, see any evidence that the organization and event had ties or were adjacent to the KKK, and I worry that this image provided without context gives a false impression that it was. In fact, I do see many mentions of this picture in the news implying this. The all-white uniforms with the pointed tops were a later addition Ku Klux Klan#Costumes and the burning cross that also functioned as a fundraising mechanism. Prior to this, there was a wide variety of costumes used to disguise the identity of the member, a common item used would be a potato sack, for example. In other areas where racism was more accepted, costumes were not used. I would compare this situation to use of the Swastika - prior to adoption by the Nazis, it had positive connotations. I would not suspect those cultures and peoples that used the Swastika prior to its adoption by the Nazis as having similar values (anti-semitic or otherwise). Should new organizations adopt the Swastika in their imagery today, given the common knowledge of history in the Western World- there would be reasonable grounds for questioning. So in the case of the Veiled Prophet Organization, in the absence of any direct linkage to the KKK- at a minimum context for this image would be very helpful to clarify, otherwise I would advocate for the image not being used at all. It's not particularly constructive and appears to be very misleading. Sorry for the long explanation, hope this helps! CatDamon (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Update- Snopes just released this today (since this event has become newsworthy), they're very thorough. Are we okay with clarifying this on the page? I'm okay with some context given, or removing the picture- whichever seems best. Thank you all. CatDamon (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@CatDamon: No, thanks for the reply, and sorry for just getting back now! I think the addition noting the fact the Klan didn't standardize its uniforms in 1915 makes sense, but I think it is also important to note that academic sources have interpreted the image's use as "an expression of class and racial control" (Spencer, pg 7). In discussing the woodcut, Spencer also notes: "The Veiled Prophet never wore a pointed white Ku Klux Klan-like cap and robe in the [first] parade [in 1878]. While the earlier representation [in the Republican] was clearly intended to send a racial control message, the first parade focused more on class control as its message" (pages 32-33). Similarly, noted on page 19, in the first parade the Veiled Prophet appeared alongside "a 'villainous looking executions and a blood curdling butcher's block'. Combined with the newspaper's written warning, this simple symbol effectively conveyed to working-class and black spectators what could happen to them if they went against the 'natural' class order". I think these quotes get to what I was trying to articulate previously, while yes there is no direct connection, the implications of the image & the parade itself where clear, if not directly linked in a clean line. Hope that helps explain where I am coming from.

In terms of a suggested change, would it make sense to keep the disclaimer with the Snopes link as it appears now (or perhaps slightly modified) & add in a sentence referencing one of the above quotes from the Spencer book? Bpmcneilly (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bpmcneilly: Yeah, I think that would be fine. It's fairly challenging to disentangle some of the class and racial issues from this period of American history, and in a location like Missouri. I definitely see this organization as class-exclusive (which seems to be the point of it), which for this particular time period would mean almost zero Black representation. As long as we clarify the points regarding connection to the KKK, I'm happy with that! I just see a lot of false parallels being drawn, particularly with the whole Ellie Kemper situation. Nuance is big here- definitely an organization where I'm sure racism was a widely held belief.....just unlikely to be engaging in KKK-like atrocities. Hope this explanation helps, and thanks for the response! CatDamon 19:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

According to this info, the image is from 1875 and is not that of the Veiled Prophet. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing image. It has nothing to do with the actual VP celebration, being done in advance of the first VP Parade and Ball as a journalistic joke. The Failed Joke of the Veiled Prophet, ISBN 0999014226. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Queens

I restored the list as of importance to this article. The title of the section does not say that these women are WP:Notable in any measure. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• BeenAroundAWhile, without secondary sourcing there no reason at all to assume they are of any encyclopedic value. What sourcing there is is mostly from the St. Louis Dispatch, indicating that this is really just of local interest; you're familiar enough with journalism to know that what appears on the society pages, the things that seem so important to some of the readers, is hardly ever important in the grand scheme of things. And all the unverified names are also possible BLP violations, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Good to hear from you. Being of "local interest" is no bar to inclusion within Wikipedia, or am I missing some Rule? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • Not a rule; common sense. The article itself is questionable in terms of notability in the sense that coverage is only local--and yes, that is a thing that counts in AfD discussions. Article content verified only by run of the mill coverage, or not verified at all, is even more questionable; this kind of listing supports the idea that everything is encyclopedic as long as its verified, or as long as it's related to something with some notability. You might could add the list of caterers too by that rationale. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Lucy Ferris as a reliable source

Ms. Ferris is a former VP Maid who wrote an interesting book about her experience as such. She did quite a lot of seminal research, but her conclusions are not to be taken without being examined very carefully for her prejudices. (Like anybody's of course, but Ms. Ferris is particularly inclined to mix fact with feeling.) BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

January 13, 2004

There is or was info in the article attributed to the STL Post-Dispatch for January 13, 2004, but I checked Newspapers.com for that date, and I couldn't find any such article in the P-D, so I removed the info as unsourced. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

== Proposed split ==

This organization is 144 years old as of this date, so its recent history should be detailed in a separate WP:article which can be referenced here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I propose that the section now headed Civil Rights be split to Desegregation of Veiled Prophet organization, St. Louis, Missouri. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A better possibility might be Fair St. Louis, which could include the political and social actions that led up to the current nomenclature, and then everything after the new name as well. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried combining the VP article with the Fair St. Louis article, but I found that the past and the present celebrations are entirely too different to be under one roof. You can see the result at User:BeenAroundAWhile/sandbox3. Now I think the VP yarn should stay separate up to the point that both the parade and the ball are abandoned, and it should end there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Which Bengal Lancers?

The Bengal Lancers term goes to a WP:Disambiguation page (at present) because the spoof Lancers of the VP world were simply a generalized parody and not a reference to any particular British Lancers detachment. So, until there is a Wikpedia article about the Lancers in general, we have to link to this page. I hope this helps you to understand the situation. If you can find a better landing page, please fix this to your satisfaction. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the target page so that it is no longer a Disambiguation page. It is now an Article page (or should be, if I've done it right). Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Confirm that the parade has been replaced, update tense in article necessary

I updated the article to include the following;

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/veiled-prophet-st-louis/

I would like to have more support, then see if the article can be edited to reflect the update. I welcome comments and helpFlibbertigibbets (talk) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Momento from Veiled Prophet dated Oct 1894

Four by 5 1/2 china dish with emblem of prophet 2601:600:C900:2A0:C81F:BCBD:BA7A:C1DB (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)