Talk:Quilts of the Underground Railroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep and discuss possible name change for article.

	This article is part of 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.)
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Importance within African diaspora.

[edit] NPOV

The tone and text of this article seek to persuade the reader that quilts were not used as a part of the underground railroad. This is the reason for the NPOV tag. futurebird 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

if you follow up on all the research that has been sited in the article, you will see that quilts were truly not a part of the underground railroad but a whim made up for a children's fiction book. while the tone may seem to be leading, it is only starting what has been documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.71.41 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the article, from the first sentence, is mocking of the quilt theory. While the majority of historians may disagree with the theory — and I'm extremely skeptical myself — the article should describe the theory in an NPOV fashion before it presents arguments against it. Instead, the tone of the article attacks the quilt theory from the very beginning ("a theory has been advanced", "theory was promoted", "story ... is based on only one source").

I don't have time to work on this article right now, but a more neutral article might start by describing the theory in the first sentence, even with the follow-up that many or most historians of the period have questioned the theory and regard it as myth. Then the article might describe the quilt theory on its own terms in the first section, followed by a section about criticism of the theory by historians. It might conclude with a section about why a story regarded as a myth by historians attracted so much attention and gained such widespread acceptance. That would be a more NPOV presentation of the same material. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it myself but someone might want to view this lecture and write something up. She addresses why this story has such appeal. She is a scholar of folklore and sees the value in this as folklore.

Lecture, "The Underground Railroad Quilt Controversy: Looking for the 'Truth'" by Laurel Horton. http://www.quiltstudy.org/connections/resources/podcasts_video.html Scroll down the page a ways to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.45.15 (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Malik, I agree with making these changes. futurebird 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

While the article is slanted, slanted against what should be asked? Nothing. The quilt story is pure myth, and should be dismissed as such. You would expect a strong POV when the alternative view is pure rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.232.191.216 (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not one single scrap of objective evidence for the so-called "quilt code." It has been thoroughly debunked by Underground Railroad scholars and quilt historians for years. Jacqueline Tobin has repeatedly refused to release her complete research, and fellow vendors at the same antiques mall where Ozella Williams had her stall have stated that Williams loved to tell outrageous stories to naive tourists about her quilts.

Don't change a word of this article.

Lisa Evans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.236.63 (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)