Talk:Underground Railroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Underground Railroad was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on December 12, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
align="left" This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

Contents

[edit] License violation

Contributors to this page may wish to know someone has stolen the content without credit, violating our license. See Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (low degree of compliance), section Civil-War.ws. You may wish to contact the site at info@civil-war.ws to voice a complaint. Derrick Coetzee 00:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems kind of hard to believe that something written as poorly as this article still is was ever in a published book or article but who knows, naive me, it could happen! lol Jaberwocky6669 06:25, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wesleyan

Hi, your "Wesleyan" link goes to a Disambig page, so I piped it to "Methodism" (there are currently no pages on the Wesleyans as a group). If I misinterpreted your usage, feel free to pipe it to something else.
--Asbestos 01:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link has been redirected from Methodism to Wesleyan Church on Dec 12, 2004.

[edit] Niagara

Hello, "Niagra Peninsula" should be spelled "Niagara Peninsula."

Cheers.

[edit] Re-write

Hi, I tried to smooth out the sentence structure. It seemed a little too piled on top of its self. If you feel I made any edits which are bad then feel free to change them and I'll try not to cry! =) Jaberwocky6669 03:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, so many great edits in so little time. I remember just as if it were last night when this article was a retarded jumpble of awkward sentences LOL! Jaberwocky6669 18:36, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance movement

I rewrote the sentence "The Underground Railroad consisted of secret safe-houses and other facilities owned by anti-slavery sympathizers, and operated in much the same as any other large-scale resistance movement, with independent cells that only knew of a few of their neighbours". The Underground Railroad does not appear the meet the definition of resistance movement as described in Resistance movement; "any irregular armed force that rises up against an enforced or established authority, government, or administration". Anyone knowing better is free to change it back. Frank101 16:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point Frank. I think the article correctly defines the UR not as a movement but a network of routes (could add that the term is a type of "euphamism"). Maybe should discuss the difference in the intro then mention some events that more accurately meet the description. --Rj 19:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
The flaw is not in this article, but in the narrow (and somewhat POV) definition of resistance movement in that article. Social activism which involves breaking laws is generally considered a resistance movement; an armed force as above is considered an insurgency. I'll have to look over there and see what happened; it needs fixing. --Dhartung | Talk 18:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Christiana Tragedy

No mention yet of the Christiana Tragedy? It's one of the best documented parts of the underground railroad movement. It'd be nice to see at least a paragraph or two about what happened and what effects it had on the movement. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 18:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christiana (September 11, 1851) and Boston (1854) --Rj 04:55, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Public domain art and photos here. Also do a search on that site for more besides the two pages listed. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 16:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mason-Dixon Line

Just curious, is that worth mentioning? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point; it should be worked in somewhere. You said Mason-Dixie but the name Dixie derives from the Mason-Dixon Line. --Dhartung | Talk 18:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Metro

Why is the article link "Metro" present? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the reference is there because some people might interpret "Underground Railroad" to mean "Subway" (North American sense). --Big_Iron 17:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is more confusing than a proper disambiguation. It should probably reference the best-known subway with that name, the London Underground. I'll try to improve it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why have it there at all, if it's completely unrelated? Why not a disambiguation page? (But I'm a newbie. What am I not getting?) deeceevoice 10:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types_of_disambiguation, where it notes "Primary topic" disambiguation: if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at "Mercury", the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings, or if there are a large number, to a page named "Mercury (disambiguation)". For example: the page Rome has a link at the top to a page named "Rome (disambiguation)" which lists other cities named Rome. The page Cream has a link to the page Cream (band) at the top. I think this is clearly one of these cases, and I don't think it's likely we'll have an edit war over the point with any of the trainspotting ;-) crowd (which would necessitate a separate disambig page). --Dhartung | Talk 17:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I added the following text: The Underground Railroad's importance is in its connection to the abolitionist movement; the Railroad was a radical direct action which created moral conflict for Northern whites, constructed a defining myth for a national political movement, and built moral justification for the Civil War. I believe this is salient but it may be too much for the opening paragraph, and it sounds a bit POV even to me. I'd like to rework it into a whole section on the cultural place of the UR, but I don't want to overlap too much with the abolitionism article, either. If someone wants to take this ball, be my guest. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second paragraph is a mess; it just doesn't make sense. It talks about how many blacks traveled the Railroad during the peak years (giving dates) and then says that number was merely a fraction of the number who did so during the same period. What? As an African American, I'm thinkin', "Naw, the importance of the Railroad is that a whole buncha black folks made it out of slavery!" You're correct the statement about the importance of the Railroad is POV. Further, moral justification for abolitionism existed without the Railroad -- in fact, moral outrage is what built the thing in the first place. Virtually the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten. deeceevoice 17:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just reread that fist sentence in a more leisurely manner (I'm not on a deadline now) -- and it makes perfect sense about "during the same period." My concerns about the rest of the paragraph remain. No time to fix, but I'm sure others will contribute. Peace. Happy holidays. deeceevoice 22:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Importance" is the wrong word; "historical prominence" comes a bit closer. It's like a Hollywood movie about apartheid with a white star -- the whites were involved in this fractional number of escapes, so they have outsized publicity. I'll have to think about it a little more. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I came back to this and, since I couldn't figure out how to fix it and keep it, I simply deleted it. I think it's terrible. It bugs the hell outta me. Sorry.
  • "The Underground Railroad's importance is in its connection to the abolitionist movement; the Railroad was a radical direct action which created moral conflict for Northern whites, constructed a defining myth for a national political movement, and built moral justification for the Civil War."
deeceevoice 15:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but in the interest of continuing improvement to the article, I think there does need to be some political context -- at a more personal level than reciting the various Fugitive Slave acts. I'll consider it some more; maybe it just won't work without its own section. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

what does pov mean?!?

POV stands for "Point of View" as in "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV), which is one of the goals of wikipedia. The express everything with a little bias as possible. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 04:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario's Black Population

The article states, "Approximately 30,000 slaves successfully escaped to Canada. Fugitive slaves were a significant presence in the then underpopulated Canadian colonies and formed the basis of the present-day black population throughout Ontario." To my knowledge, the majority of black residents of Ontario are of Caribbean origin, making this statement a little misleading. I don't want to change anything, as my knowledge of the subject matter isn't great, but are there any Ontarians who can verify this? 64.231.191.236 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

im not sure of anything else sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.205.195 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Cut

I removed the lyrics to Follow the Drinkin' Gourd as they can be found in that article. Seemed redundant to have them here too. B00P 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Why has all the information about the terminology been moved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.173.169.249 (talk • contribs).

Good question. I hadn't noticed it was missing. I've restored it from an older version of the page. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20,000 or 30,000?

There appears to be a discrepency in this article. In one section it says that 30,000 slaves escaped to Canada, yet later in the article it says 20,000. Which is correct? Please confirm to maintain accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .

This appears to be a difference between an estimate for all of Canada vs. Upper Canada alone (i.e. just Ontario). I've clarified the one figure to help the reader.--Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistic Quote

To say 30,000 to 100,000 blacks used the railroad to freedom is a worthless statistic. The margin of error is so huge it doesn't qualify as meaning anything, especially when the census is quoting 6,000. This needs to be cleaned up or cited, as it stands it has no meaning —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.142.141.203 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that the estimates are insufficiently cited, but I disagree that they have "no meaning" -- they're just different estimates. I'm not sure why there should be a margin of error when they come from different sources, methods, etc. The true figure will never be known. It's clear that Canada believes five times as many blacks reached Canada alone compared with the official census figure. --Dhartung | Talk 11:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd name for a portal...

I'm not exactly sure, but I think the portal link in the article has been vandalized (or badly misspelled). Right now it says "Africansex American Portal". The link doesn't actually go anywhere, so I put it through google to check and see if it was actually something. I got about ten links, 7 of which were about porn and animal sex. As I'm not exactly Wiki-literate, I'll let someone else take care of that. 70.113.79.34 05:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good for you for doing some research and checking. Just so you know, if you had checked the article history, too, you would have seen that it was vandalized about four hours before you viewed the page. Someone else fixed it shortly after you posted here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capture & return of fugitives

I tend to agree with Dhartung, those edits also strike me as somewhat dubious, but... they're not so implausible that they require immediate deletion. I think, in the interest of following a more open process, that there's sufficient uncertainty to leave them for the time being -- with the "dubious" tags -- in hopes that the questions can be resolved. Obviously, I'm open to other views on this. Comments? Cgingold 11:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Liberated slaves were pursued by all manner of people, including patrols ("pattyrolls"). What was the official status of the patrols? Were they "police officers"? I think the statement about the police should stay, or be modified to refer to the patrols.
The whole article is written without references. I would remove the statements about bonuses (for judges and police), but I would not put any "fact" or "dubious" tag on the statement about police. It's not on any other assertion in the article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The main point of my reversion wasn't the participation of police per se. I'm sure they did in many cases under the Fugitive Slave Acts, but non-participation was why those acts were passed in the first place, and there were many parts of the North where the police had utter contempt for the law and treated escaped slaves the same as freedmen. This wasn't an appropriately comprehensive treatment of the issue. The flag for me was the claim that judges were paid to find slaves "guilty" of escaping. That isn't the reading of the act that I have. Not 1793, not 1850. The latter act speaks $10 and $5 fees for the marshals in the event of a successful delivery -- not the same thing as a judge being paid by the verdict at all. Given that particular inaccuracy I felt the entire edit was grossly misleading. That said, I'm sure the editor who added that didn't make it up themselves -- that sort of misinformation is obviously out there.--Dhartung | Talk 18:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with those edits comes from the way the anon. editor threw a bunch of things in together, some of which comport pretty well with the facts, but mixed in with other things which are dubious or confused at best. For instance, when he says that "police officers" pursued fugitives as far as Canada, that doesn't make sense, since local police would be highly unlikely to cross into other jurisdictions. Looks to me like he confused "police" with "Federal marshalls", who did have authority to cross county and state lines in pursuit of fugitives. (Just like he apparently confused judges with marshalls, as you pointed out.) I'm going to take a shot at re-writing his edits, so we can get rid of those "dubious" tags -- I think they've already served their purpose. Cgingold 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that improvement. I went a bit further, expanding on the point that slave catchers were not treated sympathetically in all places. Ultimately I think this is better treated in detail in the other articles. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Good addition, and I hope you don't mind my modification. Stating that "the Fugitive Slave laws were necessary" is extreme POV, though probably unintentional. Stating that "Congress believed the Fugitive Slave laws were necessary" is a fact. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I actually meant something like "politically necessary", so your wording is better. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/d/Talk%7EUnderground_Railroad_5704.html"