Talk:Silent Parade

Lead paragraph factuality

"when between 40 and 250 black people were killed by white mobs who were whipped into a frenzy by labor unions in order to resist strike breaking efforts."

Is this factual, or yet another attempt at Wikipedian editorializing and POV? Dynasteria (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

High Traffic - Google Doodle

The Google doodle for 28 July 2017 depicts the Silent Parade on its centenary. The Wikipedia page appears at the top of the search results if you click on the doodle, but there is no specific url featuring it, hence not appropriate for using the {{high traffic}} template. Link for page view analysis. Already more than 65 edits today. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Just wanted to send a shout out to everybody that helped improve the article today.. It looks much better than this morning! Haxwell (talk)

How is this decision made? Google definitely is linking to this article, albeit through their search results. Why is this not considered sufficient for including the {{high traffic}} template. --2A01:5A20:100F:110:0:0:0:DC4 (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject African Diaspora

Can we raise the class of this article from 'start' to 'B' ? Haxwell (talk)

GA2 review

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This review is transcluded from Talk:Silent Parade/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 17:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Reviewer: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 11:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC) GARC. // Chchcheckit (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail: · · · Broad pending Prose Definitely parts in need of copyediting, i'll go through The lead is a little jank, so here's a hypothetical copyedit you could use: The Negro Silent Protest Parade, commonly known as the Silent Parade, was a silent march in New York City on July 28, 1917. The march was organized by several African American organizations, including the recently formed National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), in response to several recent episodes of murders of African Americans, including the East St. Louis massacre and recent lynchings in Waco and Memphis. The East St. Louis riots occurred in May and July 1917 and resulting in the killing of an estimated 39 to 150 African Americans by white mobs. The organizers of the parade aimed to protest violence directed towards African Americans, and to prompt the federal government of the United States, led by president Woodrow Wilson, to enact anti-lynching legislation. The parade route proceeded down Fifth Avenue starting at 57th Street. An estimated 8,000 to 15,000 African Americans marched in silence, accompanied by a muffled drum beat. The parade was widely publicized and drew attention to violence against African Americans, but failed to prompt Wilson and his government into enacting anti-lynching legislation. The federal government would not pass an anti-lynching law until 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was passed, over a century after the Silent Parade. Idk how good this is or if I missed something. Call me out if there is // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Done. Used that exact wording. Noleander (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC) I suck at writing gh // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Aftermath and legacy section should be made tighter. I feel like the information from the NYT article ("To the beat of muffled drums...") is bog standard and not worthy of being emphasized in a quote. Is there a way to incorporate it into the paragraphs above it? References Does not appear to be any unreliable sources Page numbers for DuBois 1917a appear to be incorrect- tagged as 242-243 when it should be "pp. 241, 244" Copyvio Earwig Copyvio: Potential violation: with this source, 48.2%. (comparison) Please redo parts affected in your own words etc. Done. Paraphrased where possible. That copyvio tool still issues a warning (40%) for that particular source, but that is a false positive (after my edits) because the remaining "copy vio" text is either (a) quotes from notable parade organizers; or (b) proper names/phrases like "The Negro Protest Silent Parade". Noleander (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC) The rest of the sources do not pass the copyvio threshold Images used that are in public domain (including newsreel) are good/pass Google Doodle: has fair use rationale, but not sure whether it is necessary for inclusion. I'll think about this Spotchecks Federal discrimination against African Americans significantly increased under the Wilson administration. Provide supporting text from source. One notable banner displayed an African American family in the ruins of East St. Louis, pleading with Wilson to bring democracy to the U.S. before he brought it to Europe (WW I was in progress at the time). Police deemed the banner in "poor taste", so parade organizers withdrew the banner before the parade began.[22][45] and note [g]: The banner was an enlargement of a political cartoon from the The Kansas City Sun.[22][16]. Provide supporting text from both sources NPOV pending Stable Has undergone several recent and rapid changes by nominator alone starting on March 28; no edit wars have taken place in that period. @Chchcheckit: If you prefer that I stop working on the article during the GA review process, let me know. Otherwise, I'll keep working on it ... my plan is to nominate it for FA after the GA review is over. So I have lots of FA-type work to do. But I can pause that FA work, if you prefer. Noleander (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC) If that is your plan, then I think the article is far from FA status, as I feel it is lacking in scope and prose. I'm not an expert of prose and writing and at this rate, I'd much rather I fail the GA review so you can keep working on it. Before nominating for GA again, you should instead put it up for peer review and comment and/or submitting it for WP:GOCE. That being said, I'm not immediately failing this. I'll provide comment regardless. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Woah, slow down. This article is up for GA, not FA. I only mentioned FA to explain why I was still editing the article (even tho I feel it meets GA standards). Please continue with the GA review. Do you want me to pause editing or not? Noleander (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC) @Chchcheckit - On second thought, after reviewing your work on WP, it appears that you do not know how to do GA reviews. Can you please fail this GA review immediately, so I can re-submit it and get a competent reviewer? Thanks. Noleander (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC) I'm still obliged to give you feedback, but thank you. // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC) @Chchcheckit I'm not going to respond to any further issues you raise in this review. You can fail it now, or later. I'm only trying to save you the wasted effort. Noleander (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC) I hope you won't be so rude the next time someone reviews this article. I stopped wanting to work with you the second you tried to flag the copyvio as a "false positive" instead of figuring out how to rewrite stuff yourself. Thank you for giving me an out, dealing with stubborn people one time is enough. // Chchcheckit (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC) For the record, here is what happened: Article was nominated for GA, via Review Circle Reviewer was assigned to review it; reviewer posted three quick, excellent suggestions Nominator addressed the three suggestions promptly Three days went by, and reviewer did not respond to the fixes, not add any more comments. Nominator examined the reviewer's edit history, and sees that the reviewer is making 100's of edits per day on their own articles (which they are preparing for GA nomination) Nominator posts a query "Hey, if you want me to pause editing on the article (which I'm doing to ready it for FA), let me know and I'll be happy to pause the editing." Reviwer does not reply to the query Another day passes; Nominator posts a polite reminder about the query. Reviewer finally replies with the comment "I think the article is far from FA status ... I'd much rather I fail the GA review". Nominator is confused by this comment: the reviewer apparently thinks that the nominator is asking for an FA review here within the GA nomination? Not sure. Nominator examines reviewers edit history and discovers some unsettling behavior. Nominator asks reviewer to fail the nomination, so they can get a new reviewer. Reviewer complies and fails the nomination. Regarding the reviewers comment: "I stopped wanting to work with you the second you tried to flag the copyvio as a "false positive" instead of figuring out how to rewrite stuff yourself." The 40% copyvio figure reported by the copyvio tool was becuase there is a large block quote (from a historical figure (primary source) related to the article).The copyvio text was not from the secondary source. That was clearly explained in my response to the copyvio issue. Apparently, the reviewer is not able to grasp the distinction between a primary source (historical figure) and a 2ndary source. And that is what happened. Noleander (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Silent Parade/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant - Hi. No pressure, but I wanted to make sure you haven't forgotten about this GA review. Noleander (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• "president Woodrow Wilson" President should be capitalized

Done. Noleander (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Background

• Under St. Louis massacre the second mention of "W. E. B. Du Bois" should be "Du Bois"

Done. Noleander (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 18 has a CS1 error

Done. Noleander (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The parade

• "New York City" should be "New York City, New York"

Done. Noleander (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Link "57th Street"

Done. Noleander (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath and legacy

• Could more detail about the Emmett Till antilynching act be added?

Done. Noleander (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Misc

• Several images are missing alt text

Done. Noleander (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think World War 1 is abbreviated to "WWI" not "WW I"

Done. Noleander (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Linking source publishers is inconsistent

Done ... I removed the few publisher links, so they are now all consistent.

• Several SFNs are missing page numbers

For one cite (to a book) I added specific page numbers. Another cite to a book I removed entirely ... there was another cite there that was already sufficient. The remaining "sfn" cites that do not have page numbers are either web pages or small magazine articles under 4 pages. If there is a specific cite remaining that you feel needs a page number, let me know which one.

@OlifanofmrTennant: I implemented all of the suggestions that were listed above. Noleander (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: I implemented the two additional suggestions you made on 16 April. Let me know if any more work needs to be done to meet GA requirements. Noleander (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I made more than two notes Olliefant (she/her) 22:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant - I implemented all of the suggestions listed above. Noleander (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif talk 02:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1917 over 8,000 African Americans protested lynchings by marching down New York City's Fifth Avenue in silence, accompanied only by the sound of muffled drums?

• Source: Du Bois, W. E. B., ed. (September 1917). "The Negro Silent Parade" (PDF). The Crisis. 14 (5): 241-244. ISSN 0011-1422. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 February 2018. Retrieved 2 August 2017.

• Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sunset_Dunes

Improved to Good Article status by Noleander (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Note that the Earwig copyvio tool will produce two false positives:

1) https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1285996040&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeinecke.library.yale.edu%2F1917NAACPSilentProtestParade

2) https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1285996040&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boweryboyshistory.com%2F2017%2F07%2Flistening-silent-parade-1917-forgotten-civil-rights-march.html

Those were reviewed during the GA review, and they do not indicate plagiarism or even close paraphrasing. One is a block quote from a leader of the parade (a primary source). The other is a list of parade leaders' names.

Noleander (talk)

• Great job with this. With the false positives discarded, no sign of copyvio, well sourced, and recently promoted GA. Source checks out and is cited in article. I fixed one minor innacuracy I spotted about the Dawson Film Find, but beyond that everything looks ok! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank-you so much! Noleander (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Silent Parade

.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Feature Article status, and I'd like an independent review before doing that. I'd appreciate any comments on prose quality & MOS compliance.

Thanks, Noleander (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Tarlby

Heyo. I'll just be skimming the prose. Note that I'm not experienced with FAC.

• Link "discrimination and violence faced by African Americans" in the lead to Racism against African Americans.
• You can also link Anti-lynching movement in the lead. Maybe with "to enact anti-lynching legislation". [I dunno, links are discouraged in the Lead, except for major topics. Noleander (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)]
• Lynchings is linked in the lead but not in Background. Consider doing so.
• "...in the 1830s and continued until 1981." ---> "...in the 1830s and continued until 1981 with the lynching of Michael Donald." MOS:EGG (the period was also linked). [Done (period). Noleander (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)]

  Given Michael Donald wasn't accused of any crime, and the List of lynching victims in the United States article lists more recent examples, by what standard could his murder be the last lynching in the USA? 61.69.163.132 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• "...lynching was one of many forms of racism inflicted on African Americans." ---> "...lynching was one of many forms of racism inflicted on African Americans." Like the lead. [Done. Noleander (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)]
• I believe the NAACP should be unabbreviated and introduced in Background like the lead again.
• Moreso personal preference, but I think efn A should say "This photograph" rather than "The photograph". [Done. Noleander (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)]
• "...the United States declared war on Germany and joined the allied powers in World War I." ---> "...the United States declared war on the German Empire and joined the Allied Powers of World War I" [Done. Noleander (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)]
• "Unlike the anti-war parade of 1914 and the red cross parade of 1917..." Know any links?
• "Men, women and children alike were invited..." Missing an Oxford comma.
• "During the week before the parade, major newspapers in several states published articles announcing the parade." ---> "During the week before the parade, major newspapers in several states published articles announcing it."
• "...prepared a flyer which was distributed before the parade as an invitation, and during the parade to bystanders." ---> "...prepared a flyer which was distributed before and during the parade as an invitation to bystanders."
• 57th street, Fifth Avenue, and Madison Square are linked in "The parade" but not the lead.
• "People of all races looked on from both sides of Fifth Avenue. The New York Age estimated that 15,000 African Americans watched the parade." ---> "People of all races looked on from both sides of Fifth Avenue, including an estimated 15,000 African Americans according to The New York Age."
• "...white people stopped to listen to African Americans explain the reasons for the march and other white bystanders expressed support..." ---> "...white people stopped to speak to the marchers as other white bystanders expressed support..."
• Unlink World War I per my suggestion earlier
• Jim Crow is linked again.
• "In July 1918 Wilson issued a..." Comma.
• "In 2022, 67 years after the murder of Emmett Till, and after the end of the lynching era, the United States Congress passed the Emmett Till Antilynching Act..." Personal preference, but I'd mention that it was the 117th Congress.
• "The report urged the U.S. congress to take action. The report identified..." ---> "The report urged the U.S. congress to take action and identified..."
• Unlink lynched in "Red Summer".

Good luck with getting that brown star. History like this needs it.

Consider reviewing my own peer review for FAC! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby - Thanks so much for taking the time to make these suggestions. I'll process these comments soon! Noleander (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby - Thanks again. I've finished implementing most of your suggestions. I skipped a couple suggestions you made to add links into the Lead, per MOS:LEADLINK ... which asks editors be careful with links in the Lead, otherwise the Lead could end up being 80% blue. Noleander (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Phlsph7

Hello Noleander, happy to have a look at this nomination. I'm not very familiar with the topic so I'll focus on prose and other FA-relevant aspects.

WP:EARWIG finds a few potential copyvios with the websites https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/negro-silent-protest-parade-1917-anthony-houston-open-networker- (see [1]) and https://www.thecenterforruleoflaw.org/rule-of-law-blog/category/civil-rights-movement (see [2]). In some cases they are just unproblematic stock phrases and quotes, but not all of them. You could check whether the sentences appeared first on Wikipedia to evaluate who copied from whom or simply reformulate the problematic parts.

A few other other observations:

• African Americans soldiers of replace "Americans" with "American"
• worked with a group of influential community leaders at the St. Philip's Church in New York I think there should be no "the" before "St. Philip's Church in"
• the red cross parade of 1917 uppercase for "red cross"?
• African American boy scouts handed out flyer uppercase for "boy scout"?
• In 1968, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 created defined new federal crimes for violent acts based on the race of the victim. this sentence has two verbs: "created defined"
• the one hundredth anniversary should it be "one-hundredth"?
• in New York on the evening on July 28, 2017 I think it should be "evening of"
• country.... remove one period
• Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings which began in the United States' pre–Civil War South I think this is a restrictive relative clause, so it should have "that" instead of "which"
  • members of a mob which conspired to injure a victim. Same here. Use "who" in case the pronoun is supposed to refer to the members.
• violence faced by African Americans; especially the recent I think this should be a comma since the following clause lacks a verb.
• marshalls replace with "marshals"
• The march began at 57th Street , and remove the space before the comma
• according to The New York Age." unnecessary quotation mark at the end
• them to due another appointment. replace "to due" with "due to"
• During the summer 1919 add "of" after "summer"
• for a prearranged appointment with the Wilson. remove "the" before "Wilson"
• In the citations section, you mix shortened footnote style with full citations. For consistency, it would probably be better to stick to one style. I have seen mixing in other FA nominations as well, so I'm not sure how central that is.
• I note that some commas are not where I would expect them to be. I remember we had an earlier conversation on this topic and I think it was not an obstacle for the nomination back then.

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Thanks for the excellent feedback. I've corrected all of the issues (except cite format). I need to start using some kind of grammar checking tool :-) Regarding cite format: I arrived at this approach after balancing three goals (1) consistency of cite format; (2) minimizing # of clicks reader's must perform to reach the detailed cite info; and (3) limiting "Sources" section to include only major/significant sources (i.e. leave trivial/minor sources in the "Citations" section). After balancing all those goals, I arrived at this approach, which successfully passed FA in my prior FA article Margaret Sanger. I admire the elegance of the "100% short cite" layout seen in Value theory and many other FA articles, but it drives me crazy to have to click twice to reach the cite details (especially for sources that are cited only once). Noleander (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)