Template:Vital article

Is the terrorist language WP:FRINGE?

The body of the article lists some historians who call him a terrorist. The lead also attributes the pov that he was a terrorist. I checked one of the sources for the terrorist designation in the body and it argues he was a terrorist because the author considers John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry to be terrorism. I'm no John Brown expert so I may be missing pertinent historical episodes where he did commit terrorist acts, but terrorism typically entails violence targeting civilians, not military outposts, and there seems like a major qualitative difference between using violence to free people whom violence is being inflicted and other political goals. Is the article elevating WP:FRINGE assessments of whether Brown was a terrorist or is the weight in the article WP:DUE? More importantly, do actual scholars of terrorism consider him a terrorist (as opposed to generalists who do not study terrorism)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pottawatomie massacre is an example of an act Brown performed against unarmed civilians, and the attack on the U.S.S Cole is clearly considered an act of terrorism even though it was perpetrated against a military target. My personal view of a controversial claim or subject matter is WP:OR by definition; I'm not a subject matter expert. That's why we value sources on such issues. Given the sourcing applied to each instance of the word "terrorist" and the relatively even-handed way the term is used in the page as of this datestamp, such language is clearly not FRINGE. Further, in no case do I see Wikipedia's voice being used to plainly label him as terrorist, but instead to objectively raise the issue of whether such language is accurate. In the lead, "He has been both remembered as a heroic martyr and visionary, and as a madman and terrorist." (relevant sources follow). The historiography section gives several scholars' views discussing this very issue, and I see no conclusion drawn in the section or the sources which proposes calling the subject a terrorist a wacky concept (if arguably inaccurate by 2021 standards). Following the sources, it would be UNDUE to omit language and sources which discuss such a labeling, since such terminology is often used in modern descriptions (and frequently used in older descriptions). The fact that the label is explicitly discussed by such sources as Finkleberg and Gilbert demonstrates that such language is not at all FRINGE. BusterD (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed two words in the lead from "both remembered" to "variously described", a change which is, IMHO more precise. BusterD (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'm not that familiar with Brown's full history nor the historiography. I'm putting it out here just to verify the contents and ensure that deliberation produces the best outcome for the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert myself, but I've been aware of the subject since I was in 2nd grade (American Heritage ACW books--I was a big library guy even then). As I got my degrees I've become more aware. I was looking at User:Attic Salt's recent work to strip a bunch of unnecessary stuff from this article. They seem a good sort. I saw you make similar assertions (FRINGE and DUE) elsewhere and IMHO those questions are often important to raise (to move the pagespace forward). Here the controversy (so to speak) is already being represented by diverse reliable sources in the article itself. I agree with your query about where scholars of terrorism stand on this subject; I'm likewise interested in such views. BusterD (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BusterD, the perception of Brown as a terrorist is not necessarily the main view, but it is a notable one, and should be included in any comprehensive aticle. As long as it is only used in the context of specific individuals views of him, it is fine. BSMRD (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always find it tricky to look at historical persons from today's perspective. Terrorist has a modern characteristic to me, I would rather prefer the world rebel if making a judgement from the perspective of the latter Confederate States of America. Keksfresser12 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps / article tag

BSMRD and all interested parties,

It is seeming from the timing of this conversation that the reason for the ((tone)) tag on the article has to do with Brown being labeled a terrorist. From the discussion in this section, it seems appropriate to provide different viewpoints of Brown's role in American history. I wonder, though, if the information in the Views of historians and other writers and Historiography sections can be combined and the information summarized. I am going to take a stab at that.

I see that there has also been a lot of clean-up work on the article since the tone tag was applied. Is there anything else that needs to be tackled to remove the "tone" tag? –CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I finished merging the two sections... but decided against summarizing. It seems it would water-down the content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a ton of quotations. I am a quotation fan, but they are use too often. See MOS:QUOTE. So, I will work on them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I paraphrased a number of quotes. It would probably be best to do more... and add more of the missing citations, but it's a good start.
As far as the ((tone)) tag, I think that the article is in better shape and removed the tag here. If there are any concerns, though, please say so.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

In the section "Back to Ohio", it incorrectly states that four of John Brown's children (Charles, Peter, Austin and Annie) died of dysentery in 1843. But the source cited ("The Wives and Children of John Brown") states that only the three boys died in 1843; Annie lived until 1926. In addition, the article shows a photo of Annie with her mother and sister Sarah in 1851, so she clearly hadn't died eight years earlier.

Also, the Infobox states that he had 21 children, but all sources say he had only 20: seven with his first wife, Dianthe, and thirteen with his second wife, Mary Anne. Please correct these two errors. Thank you. 208.125.85.106 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

The last paragraph in the section "Time in Pennsylvania" states that his "youngest son" died at age four in 1831. This was Frederick I, who died March 31, 1831. It says later in the paragraph that after his wife Dianthe died in childbirth, "He was left with the children John Jr., Jason, Owen, and Ruth." He was actually left with five children - those four and another son also named Frederick (Frederick II) who had been born December 21, 1830. The second Frederick lived to adulthood and fought slavery alongside his father, until he was shot and killed in 1856.

Why he had two sons named Frederick at the same time, I don't know, but they are both listed in numerous sources including the National Park Service's "The Wives and Children of John Brown" https://www.nps.gov/articles/wives-and-children-of-john-brown.htm Please add Frederick II to the list of children he was left with when Dianthe died. Thank you. 208.125.85.106 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done lmao, who has two children at the same time with the same name??? Of the universe (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't know this to be a fact, but my suspicion is that the first Frederick was already ill and not expected to live (there are no records that state his cause of death, but he died only three months after the second Frederick was born). As John Brown had named the boy after his own brother, to whom he was close, he perhaps wanted to give the name to another son who would survive. 208.125.85.106 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right... I feel bad for laughing now. Of the universe (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about Michigan

There is no mention of how he moved from Southern Michigan to Leavenworth, Kansas prior to Bleeding Kansas. As per the Honorable Henry Waldron's address on April 8, 1856, in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

The relevant bit is in the last paragraph, but here's the text source: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/kansasaffairsspe00wald/kansasaffairsspe00wald_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.211.43.209 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

The ending quotation mark should come AFTER the comma and not BEFORE. This happens in several places in the article. <Brown, however, often requested help from these donors with "no questions asked", and it remains unclear how much of Brown's scheme was related to his financial backers.> Jondelia (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's the other way round, MOS:LQ. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2023

– John Brown the abolitionist is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as shown by WikiNav stats (what people click on after they reach the disambiguation page). This is also shown in comparison with the next 3 articles in the WikiNav stats:

Even the disambiguation page lists him at the top: John Brown most often refers to John Brown (abolitionist). 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In America. They mean this John Brown in America. StAnselm (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware of the criteria for determining a primary topic. However, the argument you're misusing is "not what comes first to (your) mind", not "it doesn't matter what most people think of". I'm not speaking of my personal experience, because the subject of this article is the person I think of when I hear "John Brown". However, I think that this would mainly be the case in the United States, as he has very little significance anywhere else—he's a legendary figure in American history, although mainly a symbolic one, and not so much elsewhere in the English-speaking world. That's a perfectly valid reason to oppose the proposed move. I don't appreciate being condescended to as "bruh" and spoken of dismissively in the third person in a reply to me, and I doubt anyone else would either. I stand by my opinion. P Aculeius (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would never intend to offend; I'm sorry for having offended you. I see that the manner I wrote the reply in was definitely too course. Again, I'm sorry.
The reason that WFCTM is such a bad criterion, as I'm sure you know, is in part that it is unknowable (who really knows what Joe Shmoe in Canada or Australia or India or wherever thinks of first when hearing the name "John Brown"?). But even if we did know that, WFCTM is terrible because we are trying to build an encyclopedia. Primary topic is determined not based on top-of-mind status but based on historical significance and/or pageviews. That's why Java is about an island. It does not matter even in the slightest that most English speakers don't think first about an island when they hear the word "Java". It does not matter in the slightest that most English speakers think first about programming or coffees. It doesn't matter if most people think about a bird when they hear "turkey", or even if they don't. It doesn't matter at all.
John Brown the abolitionist is primary for both pageviews and long-term significance, and nobody has even attempted to address these claims. Red Slash 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTWHATFIRSTCOMESTOMIND is, in fact, a reason to oppose the move. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing we have stats to back up the move, then. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NWFCTM just says that "what people first think of" doesn't matter one way or the other. What matters is A) pageviews and B) long-term educational significance. The abolitionist wins handily on both. Red Slash 17:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you overestimate John Brown's historical significance based mainly on his legend. He is a significant figure in the abolition movement, and through his actions both prior to and in the raid on Harper's Ferry he certainly drew a lot of attention to that movement—not all of it positive, in the sense that many abolitionists also disapproved of his actions—but he was only one part of the story, and he would not be very widely remembered if not for the failed raid, which really achieved very little apart from inflaming tensions more than a year before the war began. The raid took place in October 1859, and failed to produce any immediate change in the status quo, with Brown and his accomplices hanged that December.
The proximate cause of the Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, in response to which several southern states initiated the process of voting to secede from the Union between late December 1860 and February 1861. Even then, the war did not begin until the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. Had it not been for divisions within the Democratic Party in 1860, a Democratic president opposed to abolition (likely Stephen A. Douglas) would almost certainly have been elected, and there would have been no secession—which is not to say that the Civil War would never have occurred, merely that the circumstances that brought it about in early 1861 would not have prevailed, and there would be even less of a nexus between it and John Brown.
John Brown's historical significance is primarily one of iconography. To some—though far from all—abolitionists, he was a martyr and a symbol of the fight to end American slavery. But many other figures who worked to bring about the end of slavery were just as iconic and as significant—for instance, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Henry Ward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (of whom Lincoln himself reportedly said, "so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war"), William Lloyd Garrison, John Greenleaf Whittier, Wendell Phillips, Sojourner Truth, Julia Ward Howe, and of course, Abraham Lincoln, among others. So while John Brown is a figure of folkloric stature, he did not instigate the Civil War—though he certainly would have liked to. He is one of many notable John Browns, and the present title does nothing to discourage readership. There is no pressing need to award him primacy over all of the others. P Aculeius (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the mere existence of other topics that share a name isn't sufficient to establish a lack of primary topic. And nobody said it is. The point is simply that the notability of John Brown the abolitionist is not enough to outweigh that of the combined notability of all the other John Browns, most especially the Scottish ghillie who is also exceptionally notable. In the USA, the abolitionist is absolutely the primary topic, agreed, but Wikipedia is not only written for Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories