This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
We currently have a split between the infobox/lede, which gives 1919, and the main text, which gives 1921. This appears to reflect a split in the sources; the Library of Congress Chronicling America project[1] and Danky & Hady[2] give 1919, while Gershenhorn and local sources appear to consistently give 1921. In my experience, it's not entirely unusual for Chronicling America and Danky & Hady to take their data from the same underlying bibliographic record, which can cause that information to appear to have more authority than it actually should. There is some weakness in the 1921 authorities as well; Gershenhorn qualifies the 1921 founding by C.J. Arrant as "according to most accounts" (without further explanining what those alternative accounts are, AFAICT). But in this context I'm still inclined to think 1921 is the more reliably-sourced date, particularly given that Gershenhorn's is by far the most thorough scholarly treatment available. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
