Talk:W. E. B. Du Bois/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

EDIT REQUEST

Major Flaw: DuBois is buried at his home in Accra, Ghana. The home is now the location of the W.E.B. Du Bois Memorial Centre for Pan-African Culture. (I was there yesterday.)Trinarina (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

a couple of crucial flaws: "subtler" thinking, and "father"...

the passage about dubois's "subtler" thinking has no place in the wiki. Dorr's paper is a poorly written piece of scholarship resting on the thesis that if we don't argue that DuBois was kind-of-a-racist, then we've stripped him of his agency. notably, most (or all) of Dorr's quotations of DuBois are cut short, stripped of context, and Dorr adds in his own editorial context to construct his argument. (for example: in one piece of his essay, for Dorr's argument to work, "spiritual ideals" must be thought by DuBois to be genetically endowed. if you refer to Dorr's essay, you will you see what i mean.) and, precisely that phenomenon has appeared in the wiki. notice how there is NO QUOTE given for the nonsense about the talented tenth and DuBois encouraging them to marry. we could just as well assume that he was afraid they'd commit themselves so strongly to public service that they wouldn't allow themselves the personal or spiritual pleasures of family life. can anybody really argue why interpretation is less appropriate than projecting "subtle hereditarian" ideas onto DuBois, using nothing but the vague unattributed reference to his encouragement of marriage?

the point is: no. so the whole thing has no place, unless somebody finds something of substance to contribute.

furthermore, the line "and indeed, is considered the father of African-American culture" makes an absurd claim. most importantly, for the purposes of the wiki, the following question must be raised: considered BY WHO? the passage is a very shoddy piece of journalizing; it's unattributed and sensational. but secondly, it's obvious to anyone who has read DuBois's work that he would never accept or agree with the description "the father of african-american culture." the effective entirety of Souls of Black Folk is a sociological study detailing the characteristics and nuances of black culture(s) in America. therefore it's completely nonsensical to consider him to somehow be the father or originator of "african-american culture." obviously he was a member of it and a scholar of it, not the "father" of it. that's an absurd and meaningless claim.

but i'm not going to waste my time changing the wiki when some self-appointed steward is going to retrieve and reinstate those severely flawed passages that are in serious need of remedy.

(additionally, the discussion or article were apparently completely erased recently by somebody at my IP address (or spoofed address?). i have to admit that by some really unfortunate mistake, i COULD POSSIBLY HAVE deleted it-- NOT ON PURPOSE. i'm on dial-up, and my computer has serious RAM/swapspace issues, so i deal with major lag and herky-jerkiness, and it seems plausible that i somehow accidentally highlighted the entire text-box and accidentally scrubbed it. because it doesn't seem likely that a vandal, from my same IP, would vandalize the article ON THE SAME DAY that i contributed to the discussion page... so i'm sorry if i'm somehow responsible.)128.119.132.42 22:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Du Bois or DuBois?

Sources differ. Google says DuBois, by a small but significant margin. --The Anome 11:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just finished writing a research paper on W.E.B. Du Bois for a Southern politics class. Every single source I used for the paper listed his name as "W.E.B. Du Bois" --Naked Yoga 20:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article now has it both ways -- clearly the worst answer for someone seeking clarification (as I was). Someone should decide and make it consistent.

--priceyeah

I wouldn't trust google on this one. It should be Du Bois, this is how it is spelled on most of the editions of his books on Amazon.com and all of the ones on Project Gutenberg as well as in the title of the Pullitzer prize winning biography of him. The W.E.B. Du Bois Boyhood Homesite is a National Historical Landmark. If there aren't any objections I'm going to change it. GabrielF 23:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What is with the initials anyway? I mean, one would expect it to be "W. E. B. Dubois" not this "W.E.B. DuBois" or whatever it is. --Maru (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well Romania has alternated spellings, too. Is it really important to haggle over the spelling of the name? "Du Bois" is pretty authoritative, but the wiki should probably mention something like "often seen written as "Dubois" and "DuBois"". that seems appropriate, and informative.128.119.132.42 22:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

On the principle that everyone has the right to spell their name how they want, there's no doubt that it is Du Bois. In the magazine he edited, and in his signature, it is clearly Du Bois. (unsigned)

---

The page spelled "DuBois" needs to be a redirect to this article, which should be titled "W.E.B. Du Bois". This would require a move. --Iggle 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dew Boyce?

The pronunciation guide says Dew Boyce. I've always heard it with a voiced final consonant -- dew boyz. The sound file here confirms this. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That source actually gives the more uneducated-sounding /du:'bɔɪz/ rather than what you said: /dju:'bɔɪz/. However, if the man said it was pronounced /dju:'bɔɪs/, we should go with that. — Helpful Dave 11:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my dialect of English, "dew" is pronounced IPA /du/, not IPA /dju/. Apologies for the confusion -- I should have written "doo" instead. (I do not believe anyone, ever, says /dju:'bɔɪz/, nor that WEB Du Bois intended this pronunciation by writing "Dew" himself as a guide.) -- Rbellin|Talk 03:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, he should have written "doo" as well, if that's what he meant. I've no idea how he said it. I just know about English and French pronunciation. :) — Helpful Dave 07:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be Du Bois (doo bwoh)...where did this dew boyce start anyway?

It's the way he pronounced it. The "correct" or usual pronunciation of the name is irrelevant. Fan-1967 05:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

According to a source I used on a recent research paper on Du Bois, his name is pronounced "Due Boyss" with the stress on the second syllable. --Naked Yoga 20:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link to the sound file provided by Rbellin, here, does not append an "s" or "z" sound to the "Bois" portion of the name, pronouncing it as "boy". Also, the source listed in the article states, "...Bois, as oi in voice. " I would assume that if it were pronounced "boyce" the quotation would read "as oice in voice"; or if it were pronounced "boyz" as currently stated in the article, a different word such as "boys" or "poise" would have been used as a comparison, and likewise would have included the "oys" or "oise", respectively. As neither case is true, I deduce this as a second source implying pronunciation as "boy" and not "boyce" or "boyz". Would anyone else like to confirm this logic and move for an edit? Elbreapoly (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Both the text and the sound file in the Bartleby link you provide include an /s/ sound at the end. As for the source listed in the article, people who are not linguists often give confusing explanations of pronunciations. His intent was presumably mainly to clarify the pronunciation of the vowels, which he thought of as the tricky bit, but he chose "voice" rather than, say, "boy" because of the rhyme. It seems to me that the evidence favors /s/ rather than the /z/ the article currently has. —KCinDC (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

recent edit

W.E.B. DuBois visited Communist China during the Great Leap Forward and never supported famine-related criticisms of the Great Leap. Another author visiting China during the Great Leap named Anna Louise Strong wrote a book titled When Serfs Stood Up in Tibet based on her experience. Both these authors, however, had been taken through Potemkin-village style tours of China, never travelling outside of the supervision of the authorities. Both DuBois and Strong's are infamous for their rose-coloured depiction of the unfortunate events of that era, famine and the invasion of Tibet.

Regarding this edit: This reverts changes I made to attempt NPOV on DuBois and China. I believe the paragraph it reintroduces (quoted above) is self-evidently biased (check out those adjectives: "rose-coloured", "Potemkin-village-style", "infamous"?) and needs to be NPOV-ed. In addition, Anna Louise Strong is irrelevant here: this is an article on DuBois. This edit also pointlessly reverts several apparently uncontroversial header changes, and the paragraph is badly formatted in any case (needs itals, invasion of Tibet is a non-functioning link, etc). I won't engage in a revert war, but I'm trying once more to fix this. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If by "fix" you mean pro-DuBois revisionism, understood. The man was a communist who visited communist china during the height of the red scare, and wrote rose-tinted depictions of what was both one of the worst man-made famines in human history, and one of the most obvious disasters of central planning and communist economics. I excused him somewhat, given his chaperoning, but his actions were reminiscent of Jane Fonda in Vietnam (well, not that bad, but you get my point). Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not the job of a Wikipedia article to make editorial value-judgments. Remember: articles must use a neutral point of view. That DuBois was a Communist at the end of his life is indisputable; but to write that his writing on China was "rose-tinted" and that the Great Leap Forward was an "obvious disaster" is pure POV. Anyway, arguments about the Great Leap Forward belong in that article, not here, as does Anna Louise Strong. Removing obvious bias is hardly "pro-DuBois revisionism". What this article badly needs is more content on DuBois's life and work, anyway; but this paragraph only hurts the article (and Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy source of information rather than partisanship). -- Rbellin|Talk 21:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that to be neutral in your eyes, ones statements must be completely lacking in substance and insight. If you have contrary information, I would be glad to hear it, and I am willing to accept different turns of phrase than "rose-tinted" and "obvious disaster", so long as they remain factually accurate. Mention of Anna Louise Strong is of value here, she shared a similar tour of China at about the same time. As far as POV, POV might have been calling DuBois a traitor to God, country, and humanity for his treasonous actions at that time. Instead, I chose to at least partially excuse him, by emphasizing his theoretical ignorance of the Chinese plight of that era. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 17:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's fair to call it a "disaster", though it wasn't "obvious" to all, so we might leave that out. — Helpful Dave 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does the term "Stalinist" appear in the article other than his kind words spoken at Stalin's death? nobs

FBI file

Removing the following text:

J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo to the FBI on October 6, 1950 that while he is a "strong believer in free speech," a report of a speech made by DuBois seemed to be "subversive to a degree that makes [his] blood boil," and that he wishes the government "could squelch some of the people who are talking like this DuBois."

The letter in question was sent to Hoover, not written by him (page 43 of the FOIA PDF of DuBois's FBI file, linked at article bottom). The sender's name and address are redacted. It seems to me a bad idea for Wikipedia to report anonymous slanders which may well have been sent to the FBI by cranks or rivals, so I am removing the text. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dispute

For the benefit of TDC, I'm posting here the text of the listing on RfC for this page and Pablo Neruda: "Were these historical figures actually "Stalinists"? If so, is this fact important enough to include in the introductions to these articles? Is it true that they actually performed the pro-Soviet activities listed in their articles? How much space should be devoted to such activities compared to the activities they are famous for to the general public?" Gamaliel 18:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well he was a communist during stalins regime. Maybe he is better classified a maoist? Sam Spade 19:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion both DuBois and Neruda can be called "Stalinists" only by enormously expanding the meaning of the word, to the point where (as Sam Spade has it above) a "Stalinist" is not an explicit backer of Stalin's policies and positions, but instead, by default, anyone who was a Communist or sympathetic to Communism, and not a Maoist or Trotskyist, during Stalin's time in power, and/or anyone who ever said a nice thing about Stalin. To use this broad a sense of the word is a tendentious distortion of its usual meaning. Therefore, my opinion is (a) that it makes little sense to call either one a Stalinist and (b) that their pro-Soviet positions are not the most significant points about either one, and should be treated only briefly in their articles. I have little taste for the partisan bickering and edit-warring which characterize most of the edits to this article, so I'm unwatching it and moving on to other topics. But it seems a shame to allow the kind of naked POV-pushing that might be expected on current politics spread into articles on major intellectual and artistic figures. Let's not waste more time re-fighting the Cold War when a better article on either DuBois or Neruda would be so easy to create. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

American?

It seems a little POV to me that Du Bois is constantly listed as American in this article, when he angrily renounced his citizenship and moved to Ghana, where he gained citizenship. That he was born and lived in the United States doesn't seem to really be applicable; we don't consider Albert Einstein's 54 years in Germany enough to categorize him German, nor do we consider Ayn Rand a Soviet. Calling Du Bois an American seems to me just a denial of his pointed objections to and renunciation of the United States. He should be listed as a Ghanaian, as he was legally classified when he died. Sarge Baldy 16:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

This seems silly to me. He is most known for his work in America. He only spent two years in Ghana. Britannica identifies him as American, as does every biographical database and reference work I've looked at. Gamaliel 01:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What I meant to say in my edit summary was "calling him Ghanian in the intro creates a false impression". Of course the entry/article should mention this fact. Gamaliel 01:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I never changed anything in the article, I wanted to put it up for debate in the talk page first since I was sure there'd be conflict as to the matter. Certainly I want people to recognize that he was born and lived much of his life in the United States, but he chose to become Ghanaian and did. I think the current wording makes both points fairly evident. Sarge Baldy 01:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the newest version at all. Why does that point need to be segregated from his other descriptions? I don't see why it matters that it was "at the end of his life". "American-born" clarifies enough where he was originally from, and "naturalized Ghanaian" clarifies that he himself no longer regarded himself as American at the end of his lifetime. The current wording just makes it sound like he emigrated to Ghana to retire and die. Sarge Baldy 06:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I added "African American" to the short bio, because I feel that info was missing (I came to that page not sure of whether he was or not, and the picture didn't really help). I don't think it conflicts with this dicussion on nationality since "African American" is more about ethnicity than nationality (if you want, at the end of his life he was a ghanian african american ^-^ ) Flammifer 09:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He didn't renounce his American citizenship when he became a Ghanian citizen. He couldn't get a U.S. passport, so the Ghanian dictator gave him dual citizenship.

So was he born in Ghana or Mass.?

The intro says he's a naturalized citizen, but then it says he was born in Mass... Which is it?

Naturalization means changing citizenship to that of a state you weren't born in. He was born in Massachusetts, but became a Ghanian citizen in 1963. Having been born in the U.S. and immigrated to Ghana, that makes him a naturalized citizen. Sarge Baldy 21:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I added "at the age of 95" to the first paragraph. i think it helps put the fact into perspective, and won't allow to anyone to mistakenly think that he lived a significant portion of his life as a citizen of ghana, (and certainly not that he was born there.)128.119.132.42 22:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Education Controversy?

The page on Edward Bouchet states that Edward "..resigned in 1902 at the height of W.E.B. DuBois' controversy over industrial vs. collegiate education.". But I couldn't find anything about this controversy in the article on DuBois. Can anyone add something about this? -Feb 6, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I disagree that the page should be moved. Nobody ever refers to the subject as "William Edward Burghardt Du Bois". He is alsways called "W.E.B. DuBois". We should certainly include the full name in the text, but the title should have the most common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). -Will Beback 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. I agree. I mean, sometimes there is some question about just how common a person's name is, but he is almost universally referred to as W.E.B. DuBois (with minor variations in punctuation and capitalization). older ≠ wiser 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the move. Article title should be the common name of the subject. The opening should contain the full name. --Tysto 04:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the move for reason stated by Tysto. skywriter 11:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert reason

16:10, 19 May 2006 210.84.5.184 Current revision 210.84.5.184 (Talk)

+ *"[I]t takes extraordinary training and opportunity to make the average white man anything but a hog." [1]

The above text added by first time anonymous user 210.84.5.184 is now reverted because the text does not derive from a reputable source for quotations by the subject of this article.Skywriter 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It does now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Article title/body name spelling

Can someone please make consistent the spelling of the name in the article title and the article itself? Whether or not this has been beaten to death, they ought to be the same... (and I'm voting W.E.B. Du Bois) Outriggr 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is properly Du Bois. However, some references use DuBois and can not be located without that spelling. Skywriter 03:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of your point. The redirects are in place for either spelling, so moving the article to W.E.B. Du Bois should present no problem... Outriggr 05:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Skywriter 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

"In an article published June 8, 1997 and titled "A New and Changed NAACP Magazine" by James Bock in The Baltimore Sun, the Crisis, under the stewardship of Du Bois, set the agenda for the fledgling NAACP."

I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say; it seems to be missing a connective phrase somewhere. Was the article about how "Crisis" set the agenda for the NAACP? If so, there needs to be something like "according to" somewhere to make the relationship more clear. Gershwinrb 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"set" is the verb or connector word. "established" might remove the ambiguity. Skywriter 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then is that date right? Or was the subject of the article how Crisis established the NAACP's agenda. I don't mean to seem dense, but I'm honestly not seeing this one. Gershwinrb 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Darkened skin color

I think that his image has been manipulated to give his skin tone more darkness than nature imbued in him. People want to claim that the colored man with the Caucasian features was a " black," but he was not. GhostofSuperslum 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Buried history

The article features so many exclamations of the words "African American," "Black," and so on that they blur the descriptions of Mr. Du Bois. Someone should strip away those silly words. The article is named W.E.B. Du Bois, not Adjectives which are employed to describe them darkies. Other articles which describe men aren't slathered with the people's skin color. The article on Mao Tse Tung doesn't relentlessy call him a "yellow." GhostofSuperslum 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen the phrase "descendant of slaves" in any wikipedia article. I have never seen the phrase "descendant of slaveowners" in any wikipedia article. Why are people reluctant to utilize those phrases in Wikipedia? W.E.B. Du Bois looks like a typical American Negro who is a descendant of slaves and slaveowners (perhaps with some American Indian admixture). Where is he entombed? I'd like to see someone go out and sample his DNA to see what "race" or "ethnic group" he belonged in. I am not convinced that he was a black." GhostofSuperslum 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Childhood section

We just had an anonymous IP make a major change to what was a large section concerning Du Bois' childhood. I edited some of the grammar just for clarity, but I'm thinking the older one was better, though I can't tell if it's quoted from the book. I think we ought to edit from where Jarfingle had it and go from there. --Gpohara 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Having just signed up, and being hopeless at computer stuff, I don't know where or how to put this. Please forgive my ignorance! The article says that his great-grandfather James DuBois of Poughkeepsie was "a person of color." W. E. B. Du Bois makes it clear in his Autobiography that James DuBois was a white descendant of Jacques DuBois, a 17th century Huguenot settler in Kingston, NY. (Brother of Louis DuBois, a founder of New Paltz. See the DuBois Family Association web pages, which mention W. E. B. Du Bois.) The Autobiography also mentions that some of his DuBois cousins were "passing."Wikisirius 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You did just fine. If you want to edit the paragraph so that it doesn't describe James Du Bois as an "ethnically mixed free [person] of color," go ahead. Another editor may challenge you, so you might want to make a footnote with a reference to the page or section in the Autobiography. If you need any help, just ask. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Roxannelawson edits copied from other website

I googled a portion of Roxannelawson's edits and found a biography being copied word-for-word. I'm going to start reverting these unless an admin asks me otherwise. [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gpohara (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Apologies for not signing.--Gpohara 03:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another website with copied info. [3] --Gpohara 04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm done reverting for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Request some admin assistance in getting this sorted out. Happy New Year all. --Gpohara 04:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The first quotation by David Levering Lewis in the section: American Historical Association is marked as needing a citation. It is from the same pdf source as the second quotation in that section. ChrisFAF 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Put the Spelling/Pronunciation Issue in the Article

I think it's appropriate that the matter of "'doo boyz' or 'du bwa,'" "'Du Bois' or DuBois'" be mentioned in the article. It's a common question people develop when learning about the man, and if there are reasonably "correct" answers out there (which there seem to be), they ought to be mentioned in an encyclopaedic article about him.

(Commando303)

You're right; there is some confusion about the correct pronunciation of Du Bois. The first sentence of the article identifies the correct pronunciation, which is the one used by Dr. Du Bois himself: William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (pronounced [dʊˈboɪz]). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article says /duːˈbɔɪz/, but the source referenced says "My name is pronounced in the clear English fashion: Du with u as in Sue; Bois, as oi in voice." That doesn't directly say how to pronounce the "s", but the choice of "voice" as an example implies the correct pronunciation is /duːˈbɔɪs/ (with "boyce", not "boys"). —KCinDC (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Due Boys" it is. Please see this for more about the pronunciation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Japanese Imperialism?

If he truly supported Japan in its invasion of Manchuria on the basis of "race," then how is he any different from Marcus Garvey , who supported Tojo of Japan in his infamous Rape of Nanjing , and also in Tojo's usage of Korean women as "comfort women" ie raping prisoners, and using them as sex toys, by the Japanese army?JBDay 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Du Bois

According to the article, Alfred Du Bois was born in 1825 in "Santo Domingo, now Haiti and the Dominican Republic." But from 1820 to 1844 the entire island of Hispaniola was under Haitian rule (see History of Haiti), so Alfred Du Bois was born in Haiti, no matter what part of the island he was born in.

The statement in quotes above is attributed to the Lewis biography, which I haven't read, but it seems to contradict both the history of Haiti (as I have noted) and the quote from the autobiography that follows: "Of grandfather's life in Haiti from about 1821 to 1830, I know few details. From his 18th to his 27th year he formed acquaintanceships, earned a living, married and had a son, my father, Alfred, born in 1825. ... Also why he left Haiti in 1830 is not clear."

All the facts seem to indicate that Alfred Du Bois was born in Haiti, not "Santo Domingo." I'm going to change the article to say that, and if somebody can explain why Alfred Du Bois was not born in Haiti she/he can change it back. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it meant he was born in the city of Santo Domingo during the Haitian occupation of the Eastern portion of the island. Which would make him born in Santo Domingo, Haiti but is currently (and for most of history) part of the Dominican Republic/Santo Domingo. Karayan1103 (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rivary with Garvey no where in article

What about the conflict between him and Garvey why isnt this in the article?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party activist

I deleted the phrase "Communist Party activist" from the lede, and I wanted to explain why, because it was recently restored by an anonymous editor with the following edit summary:

For some reason this was edited out again; DuBois was a proud Communist at it is a disservice to his memory for him to be remembered otherwise.

Yes, Du Bois was a Communist, and I have no doubt that he was a proud Communist. But the question of his pride isn't the issue here. The issue is what belongs in the lede. The reasons why Du Bois is notable are that he was "an American civil rights activist, leader, Pan-Africanist, sociologist, educator, historian, writer, editor, poet, and scholar." He is not notable, nor is he remembered, for being a Communist.

WP:LEDE says that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."

In an article of nearly 40 paragraphs, only 3 of them discuss Du Bois' association with Communism, Communists, or alleged Communists. Only a single sentence refers to his joining the Communist Party at age 93. I don't think that makes his association with, or membership in, the Communist Party important enough to belong in the lede. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics and POV

The section on eugenics is being given undue weight. It is as long as the section on civil rights activism (which would be shorter without the images and navigation template) and longer than the section on criminology. Whatever Du Bois' views on eugenics, they were a footnote in his career. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, everyone remembers that Woodrow Wilson was an eugenicist at the same time as Du Bois.Why to place Du Bois' eugenics in the footnote?To be an eugenicist in 1910 and 1920 decades was so normal as to be an ecologist today.Agre22 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

It is important to discuss Du Bois' views on eugenics for two reasons. For one, it goes against "common sense" that a prominent African-American intellectual would find any favor with eugenics whatsoever. Therefore, it is an interesting addition to the article. Also it is important, in that it offers another perspective on Du Bois' essential elitism. Furthermore, it broadens the reader's perspective on the surprisingly wide appeal of eugenics in the interwar period.Ostiaiii10 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ostiaiii10; this is an important topic today and his views are quite important. Note that Margaret Sanger enlisted many prominent black intellectuals in her birth control movement. Rjensen (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics

I put the section in on Eugenics because its absence created a large void in this article. On the whole, the article lacks comprehensiveness and fails to touch on many important points--his personal life (two wives, children, etc.), his conflict with Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey, his growing disillusionment with the US and his decision to move to Ghana, his political involvement, a real overview of his philosophy of race and equality, etc. The section on Eugenics is not too long, the rest of the article, including Civil Rights and Criminology are too short. I even added a short section to his education section, which I thought everyone knew about--there's even a play about his summer in 1888 in Minnesota working at a resort hotel with rich white southerners and European royalty. I'll try to expand some of this article to make to include much needed information about this important man. 63.87.116.131 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Mural

I don't know how significant this would be to anyone who has never been to Great Barrington, MA, but a sa resident of the area, I think that the mural dedicated to Du Bois in Grat Barrington should be mentioned under "Legacy." -- Kimimaro216 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Marxist

Du Bois was a Marxist. I think that should be included in the first paragraph where he is also described in multiple other ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.19.24 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He was also an eugenicistAgre22 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Garvey conflict with dubois needs to be in here

While W. E. B. Du Bois expressed the Black Star Line was "original and promising," he also said: "Marcus Garvey is, without doubt, the most dangerous enemy of the Negro race in America and in the world. He is either a lunatic or a traitor." Du Bois was afraid that Garvey's extremism would undermine his efforts toward black rights.

Garvey suspected Du Bois was prejudiced against him because he was a Caribbean native with darker skin. Garvey called Du Bois "purely and simply a white man's nigger" and "a little Dutch, a little French, a little Negro ... a mulatto ... a monstrosity." This led to an acrimonious relationship between Garvey and the NAACP. Garvey accused Du Bois of paying conspirators to sabotage the Black Star Line to destroy his reputation. Du Bois was, nevertheless, a strong supporter of Pan-Africanism.

Garvey recognized the influence of the Ku Klux Klan, and in early 1922, he went to Atlanta, Georgia for a conference with KKK imperial giant Edward Young Clarke.

According to Garvey, "I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying."

After Garvey's entente with the Ku Klux Klan, a number of African American leaders appealed to U.S. Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty to have Garvey incarcerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.236.143 (talk • contribs) Hello my name is Alexus DeAndra Alford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.67.253 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spill in Aisle 7"

While editing this article I seem to have messed up. I inadvertantly collected all the references together (after #15). Rather than make it worse I have asked for assistance, If you can repair, Please do! I believe it has to do with my misplacement of <"blockquote">--Buster7 (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Soumyasch....--Buster7 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From the introduction

Du Bois is described as a civil rights activist, public intellectual, Pan-Africanist, sociologist, educator, historian, educator, writer, editor, poet and scholar. This seems superfluous to me. Is it really necessary, and indeed NPOV, to describe Du Bois in one breath as a writer and a poet, or historian, educator and scholar? Surely this can be cut down to be a bit more concise. The introduction just seems too fawning for the NPOV requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.104.176 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Family history

This section seems overlong, especially the description of Du Bois and his mother when he was a child. Could be made more concise.--Parkwells (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Black or black, White or white

We seem to have some lack of consistency (black/Black, white/White) . . . fixing it is beyond my capability - can someone straighten this out? - b betswiki (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

a little elucidation: usually this sort of thing is determined by the discipline into which the piece falls . . . . would this then be sociology? black/Black history? after that, one finds and follows the style guide for the most respected journal for that discipline (within the US, i would think, for this article), which of course might be a matter for debate . . . i have read from some of the better known journals in fields that into which this article might fall - and there is not consistency . . . . the first question would be 'which field?' . . . just arguing about that could take us a long time! b betswiki (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

I know, I know, it's pretty trivial, but seriously, why is this article at "W. E. B. Du Bois"? Does anyone, at all, ever, put spaces between multiple initials? I've never seen a name written in this style before. Surely "W.E.B. Du Bois" would a) look much nicer and b) be the most used form of the name. U-Mos (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to collaborate on a new African history Wikiproject

All editors with a specific interest in African history are invited to help start a new African history Wikiproject. This is not a substitute for the Africa Wikiproject, but editors with a historian's perspective on African history articles (as opposed to a generalist interest in Africa) would collaborate on improving the historical quality of Wikipedia articles about Africa and African history. For more details click here or here here. —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Edit request from 74.97.242.148, 15 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} du bois was 33 in 1900

74.97.242.148 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done and thanks. But, please be more descriptive next time. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Jewish?

Was his "Dutch" ancestry Jewish? I have seen this claimed in some places. In some pictures, he looks quite a lot like Lenin, who was Jewish. He certainly doesn't look properly black, like Marcus Garvey for instance. - 90.212.77.135 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained snippet

The following snippet appeared here on 11/4/2010. It doesn't appear to be from an old version of the article. It seems to be intended as guidance for improving the article. I have reformatted it so it no longer extends off the edge of the page and we can read it in its entirety. Jojalozzo 03:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The founders and originators of the NAACP are first and foremost Mary White Ovington who contacted people and called the first meeting in 1908 in rsponse to an article written by William English Wallings. Charles Edward Russell who could not attend the meeting in 1908 and Henry Moskowitz who substituted in Russells place at the initial meeting. Oswald Garison Villiard who on their request re-wrote the "The Call" was latter called a fifth founder by Ovington. A good source for the birth and origin of the NAACP is "Inheritors of the Spirit" a autobiography of Mary White Ovington by Carolyn Wedin and "The Walls Came Tumbling Down" a self-autobiography by Mary White Ovington. Dubois is not the founder of the NAACP he was one of a number of people who were asked to attend the initial meetings and was not the originator of the NAACP. He was chosen as Director of Publicity and Reasearch at the 1910 meeting but Ovington,Wallings, Villiard and John Milholland had to find an office and raise the money for his position. The name of the "Crisis" came from a favorite poem of Ovington by James Russell Lowell called "The Present Crisis." Dubois had repeated hostile personality conflicts with board menbers , chairmen, and exexutive secretaries over his role with the "Crisis" and the direction of the organization throughout his time with the NAACP until he was eventuslly driven out of the organization.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.210.124 (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

African American

I think the introduction of the article should contain the fact that he was African-American. That is very important fact for understanding of the article. Currently, the introduction says nothing about his skin color, and the photo is black and white, so it's hard for someone who is not familiar with the subject to realize his African-American origin. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

purge

I have removed "Du Bois, apparently not believing reports of Stalin's purges and dismissing them as propaganda", as well as the addendum to "Khrushchev's 1956 'Cult of Personality' speech" that is "which seemed to further evidence Stalin's purges."

There is no citation that Du Bois did not believe in "Stalin's purges". As the western press was invited to the trials, and they were reported on everywhere from the Daily Worker to the New York Times, this completely inane uncited notion could only be put in by someone who is both completely ignorant of communism and history, yet committed to spreading their ignorant Cold Warrior propaganda imaginings to the world as fact on Wikipedia. Du Bois knew one of the people purged - Karl Radek - very well, and the notion that he was unaware of Radek, as well as others, being purged, is ridiculous. And of course, uncited, as nowhere else but Wikipedia could you hear such prattle. Ruy Lopez (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Consistent possessive

Most occurrences of the possessive in this article use the form Du Bois' (my normal preference based on the French pronunciation) but some use Du Bois's (my preference for this article based on Du Bois's pronunciation). I believe both are technically acceptable but I propose we pick one and stick to it. Is there consensus on which we want to use? Jojalozzo 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Scholarship Amount

EDIT REQUEST: Minor correction. In the "University Education" section it is stated that "Du Bois entered Harvard College in the fall of 1888, having received a $250 scholarship." In his own speech at Fisk University in 1933, DuBois himself states "I had for the mere asking been granted a fellowship of $300..." (W.E.B. Du Bois, The Education of Black People: Ten Critiques 1906-1960. Monthly Review. 2006) It is possible there are differing accounts, but as there is no citation provided for the $250 amount... (Fosterinegypt (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)fosterinegypt)

 Done I added a citation and a quote from the text. Thanks for pointing this out. GabrielF (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good work! Jojalozzo 03:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

started first department of sociology in US?

It says that W.E.B. Du Bois started the first department of sociology in the US but while reading up on the University of Chicago, I found that the same claim is attributed to that school. Specifcally, the page says "The university is also known for creating the first sociology department in the world, which later founded its own school of sociology." Could someone please find out which came first (Dubois's or chicago's) and correct the error?

Good question.

• UChi at http://sociology.uchicago.edu/ says it was "Founded in 1892 as the first sociology department in the United States". The article W.E.B. DuBois says he founded the dept of sociology at Atlanta U some time after his Ph.D (1896) and after teaching at two other institutions after that. So a re-write of the claim would be in order. See also Clark Atlanta University

Adding the space in Du Bois

I've gone through and added the space in Du Bois' name in the text of the article as well as in the references. I don't believe I made any changes in links--apologies if so and the links no longer work!

My company administers rights for the W.E.B. Du Bois Trust, and as his step-son David told me once, "The Doctor insisted upon the space!" and so, too, should Wiki.

On another note, Du Bois never actually renounced his citizenship. It was never his intention to do so (although rumours, probably started by his political enemies, continue to exist that he not only renounced his citizenship but did so "angrily"). There has been some recent evidence that the FBI took steps to revoke his citizenship, but that action (of which Du Bois was never made aware) didn't get very far and stopped, of course, with his death.

The above information was added 23:11, September 19, 2006 by Perm Dude - (Adding the space in Du Bois)

Dubois and Pragmatism??

I don't know where to put this or how relevant this is, but I see that neither this page nor William James's page references any relationship between the two of them. Although my scope of knowledge in terms of the two of them is limited, one source I have been reading talks about a strong relationship between them two that had strong influences on Dubois's racial doctrines. I also don't know how popularly accepted this connection/influence is. The source is COLOR AND CULTURE by Ross Posnock. Perhaps the connection is noteworthy?

"Template:Q" everywhere in the article ?

There are lots of sentences in which some words have been replaced by "Template:Q". What is that? Maybe someone who know how to do it could make a reversion? --190.64.51.226 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources

I notice that many of the sources used as citations thus far in the article are primary sources, that is, Du Bois's own works. My inclination is to try to replace those with secondary sources, as recommended by WP:Secondary sources. Besides being more encyclopedic, that should minimize risk of undue weight issues or original research issues. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation uniformity

I notice that the article has a mixture of parenthetical cites (like this) and numerical footnotes^{[like this]}. I think WP:CITE requires an article to use a single convention throughout. I propose to convert them all to numerical footnotes. Any objections? --Noleander (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine idea. There may be some problems with multiple usage of the same source with different page numbers but I don't think this article has many instances of that. Jojalozzo 14:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference is to use the shortened cite approach described in WP:CITESHORT, which utilizes a footnote like this^[13], and then down in the footnote, to have something like:

13^ Miller, p 235.

Where "Miller" is the author of the book mentioned in the References section, for example:

• Miller, Susan (1992), A History of the Civil Rights Movement, Oxford.

This is a very common approach in FA-quality articles. Seeing the page number up in the body of the article can be distracting. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As you wrote, it's a matter of personal preference, but I also prefer that style. I used it for Malcolm X, which is a FA. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer long reference so i dont have to figure out who is miller and what they wrote. People do this and then you looking everywhere for what book. This problem came up before with Maulana Karenga article. Karenga .1969 My theory is everything should be contained and the user should not have to go looking.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that about 3/4 of all Featured Articles use the shortened citation approach, but it is not mandatory, of course. How about this for a compromise: for sources that are used a lot (more than 3 or 4 cites) they are shortened. Sources that are used only once or twice are long. That hybrid approach is used, for example, in yesterdays FA article, Battle of Tippecanoe. Typically, that hybrid approach means that cites for important sources like the Lewis biography don't repeat Lewis's first name 20 times; but more pin-point sources (like a scholarly article on one aspect) are long. Does that sound okay? --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Depth of detail not uniform

I notice that some sections of the article have quite a bit of detail (religion, family history, eugenics), in fact they seem to be out of proportion to the depth they are given by the Lewis biography. In contrast with the Civil Rights section, which appears to be a bit on the short side. I'll start working on those sections soon. On a related matter: FA-quality requires that every sentence have a citation (in fact, even GA quality requires that nowadays), so some of the excessive detail may get trimmed out if I cannot find sources for the uncited material. Of course, it is not my intention to delete any signifiant material, particularly if sourced. --Noleander (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Criminology section

I've removed the "Criminology" section, pending more research. It was rather large, and yet is not really discussed by his major biographers. The section was poorly sourced, with just a couple of cites, mostly to WEB's own work ... which smacks of OR. I have found two good sources on the topic:

• W.E.B. Du Bois on crime and justice: laying the foundations of sociological criminology, Shaun L. Gabbidon, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007
• The criminological writings of W.E.B. Du Bois: a historical analysis, Shaun L. Gabbidon, Indiana University of Pennsylvania., 1996

So clearly, it is an important topic, and deserves to be in the article. Unfortunately, I do not have either of those sources. I suggest that we try to get those sources, and use those to re-constitute the Criminology section. Is that a good plan? --Noleander (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For future reference

Capturing these cites for future cross-referencing purposes (no response needed):

• East St. Louis Riot, July 1917. source: Lewis, David Levering, W. E. B. Du Bois: A Biography, 2009

p 351: "… the ghastly reality remained that this northern city of fifty-nine thousand had been the site of the first American pogrom"

• Red Summer and Chicago Race Riot of 1919 in 1919. Source: Gerald Horne, "W. E. B.:A Biography"

p 86: "What ensued thereafter was the Red Summer of 1919, as pogroms were launched against black men and women in Chicago, ... and elsewhere.

• Elaine Race Riot, September 1919; source: Lewis, David Levering, W. E. B. Du Bois: A Biography, 2009

p 383: "… and during a pogrom in the Arkansas delta."

p 389: "… had inside information about the Arkansas pogrom"

p 390: "Hurrying from the Arkansas pogrom"

--Noleander (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Video, Media on Dubois?

I am struggling to find links to videos of him speaking, interviews etc, there should be a media section with links to these things. I actually never even know what his voice sounds like. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

His Step Son

I think his step son is far more important than that remark about his sex-life with other women. He continues the Du Bois center. I have tried to tone it down from the previous state of "Wow Look at who I am", step son also linked up with Malcolm back in the day. He moved to Egypt with his mother when things went South in Ghana.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem: the change you made looks good. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead question - Levering

While I love what Biographer David Levering Lewis wrote, is it appropriate for a lead? to have a quote from an author? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're correct. The lead should be a very terse, factual summary of the entire body of the article. Drawing attention to biographers in the lead is not appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I improved the Lead, and the quote from Lewis is now gone. --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with red links

There are about five or six red links in this article, indicating important aspects of DBs life that do not yet have WP articles. To get to FA status, I dont think red links are acceptable. We could just remove the brackets, so the red goes away, but it would be better to create articles for those topics. They can be small, stub articles. If anyone could help create those articles, that would be great. --Noleander (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article

I'm planning on working on this article, with the aim of arriving at Featured Article status. Du Bois is one of my heros. I've bought some biographies on him, and I'm reading them now. I'll probably start editing in a week or two. If anyone has any suggestions, or would like to help, the more the merrier. --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to read what you write.I think you should cover the dynamic ideological change as he ended up drifting more towards Garveyism and moving back to Afrika.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my primary source is the David Levering Lewis biography, and it covers that well. I wont start writing for a couple of weeks, but I'd appreciate any feedback you can give. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of resources about Du Bois, but I'll be happy to help in any way I can. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I have several sources (still reading them) so lack of material is not a problem. I'll probably start on the body of the article in about a week. One thing that may be helpful: if you could review any changes I make, and provide a second pair of eyes, that would be great. --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've finished the Lewis biography, and now I'm starting to read the Horne biography. My plan is to do the work in three steps: (1) incorporate basic facts from the Lewis biography; (2) add additional insights from other sources & biographies; (3) manual-of-style and word-smithing. I'm starting on step (1) now. I'll endeavor to retain all the important material that is in the article now, but if I encounter material that is unsourced (and I cannot find support for the material in any book I have) I may remove the material. Of course, I do not own this article so other editors are free to jump in and help out (or revert :-) as they see fit. --Noleander (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through step (1) ... getting the basic chronological framework established. The article will look a bit ugly for awhile. During phase (2) I'll consolidate the original material with the new material, and then it will regain a decent layout. The article will be much more comprehensive, and better cited, when the dust settles. --Noleander (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've finished step 1 (adding material from the Lewis biography) so there is now a solid chronological framework, fully cited. I'll now move onto step 2, which is (a) integrating the old material into the new chronological framework; (b) removing unsourced or trivial material; and (c) adding material from other sources (that may take awhile: I'm still reading more books). Step 3, eventually, will be things like: layout, adding pics, grammar, prose flow, manual-of-style issues, etc. Any editor, of course, is free to jump in and revert, improve, or add to my changes. --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've finished steps (2a) and (2b) and now I'm working on (2c) ... adding/supplementing/enhancing the article based on sources other than Lewis. One excellent source I just got is W.E.B. Du Bois: an encyclopedia by Young: very insightful and encyclopedic (of course) material, with contributions by about 20 different scholars. --Noleander (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for GA status. It is not quite GA quality yet, but it will probably take a couple of weeks for a reviewer to take on the article, and during that interval it should be possible to meet the GA requirements. The plan is still to try for FA eventually. --Noleander (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some remaining tasks:

• Corroborate & supplement with material from additional sources - Done.
• Review prose for flow & clarity - Done. Waiting for GA reviewer and Peer Review to do additional review.
• ISBN numbers for Further Reading - Skipping this.
• Honors/Legacy: Find sources and/or trim - Done.
• Genealogy: trim? - Discussion on-going below in Talk page. Leaving alone for now.

--Noleander (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Need ISBN number

Another job that should be done is including ISBN numbers for all the works listed in the "Further reading/information" seciton; and in the "Works" section. It's not exactly mandatory for FA (in fact, todays article Ming Dynasty is missing ISBNs for some of its references) but it helps people find books in local libraries. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You may find WorldCat helpful in this regard. BTW, Ming Dynasty was promoted almost four years ago, and since then the FA demands have become more stringent. While ISBNs aren't required, I for one would highly suggest their addition to a nominated article -- more so for works listed as references, but fully-documented works under "Further reading" may be just as helpful. Great work on the article so far, btw! Good luck. María (yllosubmarine) 14:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I had no idea there was a multi-year lag between FA promotion and appearing on the Main page ... I just presumed one followed from the other. As for ISBNs: yes, all the Referenced works in this article already have ISBNs identified. I was trying to get someone else to gather them for the works listed in Futher Reading :-) --Noleander (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is family genealogy info too detailed?

The "Family history" section includes some genealogy info, namely:

Mary Silvina Burghardt's family was part of the very small free black population of Great Barrington, having long owned land in the state. The Burghardt family descended from Dutch and African ancestors. Du Bois's maternal great-grandfather was Tom Burghardt, a slave (born in West Africa around 1730), owned by Dutch-American Conraed Burghardt. Tom earned his freedom by service (1780) during the American Revolution as a private soldier in Captain John Spoor's company. Tom's son Jack Burghardt was the father of Othello Burghardt, who was the father of Mary Silvina Burghardt.

William Du Bois's paternal great-grandfather was a white French-American, James Du Bois of Poughkeepsie, New York, who fathered several children with slave mistresses. One of James' mixed-race sons was Alexander. After James died, Alexander was disowned by his family and forced to give up schooling for work. Alexander became a merchant in New Haven and married Sarah Marsh Lewis. Alexander travelled to Haiti, and around 1833 fathered a son, Alfred, with a mistress. Alexander then returned to his wife in Connecticut, leaving Alfred in Haiti with his mother. It is not known when Alfred moved from Haiti to the United States, but he appeared in the New York census in 1860. Alfred Du Bois and Mary Silvina Burghardt married on February 5, 1867, in Housatonic, Massachusetts, and William was born the following year. Alfred deserted Mary by the time their son William was two. W. E. B. Du Bois identified himself as "mulatto" or "about one half or more Negro."

I'm wondering if that is overly detailed or not? Would the very final sentence (on his ethnic self-identification) be sufficient? Or maybe something in between? --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A little confusing because identity is more complex, I mean dubois was an African-American that is how we see him and how what he is know for. I think it is undue weight. The book was called Souls of Black folk not souls of Mulatto's. Did he identify with this in Ghana? I am sure you will find Bob Marley saying that in one interview, but that is not his majority self-identity . And to take that one statement is undue weight in my opinion (hope i made sense)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you're suggesting we keep the current version? I have no objection to that. I just wanted to hear what other editors thought. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

W. E. B. Du Bois identified himself as "mulatto" or "about one half or more Negro."[13] is what i was raising an issue with, do we really need it? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. Certainly for inclusion in WP categories and WP lists, how a person self-identifies ethnically is very important. But as to putting the self-identification in the article itself, I'm not sure if it is encyclopedic or not. I suppose it could be omitted, especially if all the genealogical detail is retained. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree self-identity is important but I seriously doubt that when he was in Ghana or for most of his life he was running around saying "I am half or more negro", seems like a weight issue and creates a reality of Dubois not accurate (esp his entire life was working in the shoes of an African in America). I think the genealogy is okay. I actually feel like i am doing a poor job of explaining myself cuz i am feeling lazy. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

one source issues

Is there no one apart from Lewis we can use for balance? Just came back from Amazon and it looks a little Lewis all the way with very few other notable books - I am shocked. [4]

I think Noleander wrote that she/he was going to use Lewis first and then go back with another biography or two. But you're right: Lewis seems to be everywhere you look. I have the Du Bois Reader, which is edited by Lewis, and my copy of The Souls of Black Folk has an introduction by Lewis. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lewis is used heavily. My plan is to also incorporate material from other sources (I have several) but every time I start, I get caught up in copy editing :-) I'll try to refocus on that. Of course, Lewis is the most authoritative biography, so - all other things being equal - there is nothing inherently wrong with using Lewis more than others. But the others do give different slants, so it is important to incorporate them all. I began with Lewis because he had the most complete birth-to-death chronology, which establishes a good armature for the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Manning Marable did a book i just came across [5]. And Here is another set of online sources Dubois. I think this is the only place (online) where we will find alternative content and opinions. On a side note the spelling can it also be Dubois as opposed to Du Bois what is the difference. And if both are valid we should put a note.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That web site looks like an okay source ... but perhaps not quite as reliable as a biography written by a scholar and published by a mainstream publisher. As for Marable: there are tons of books on Du Bois ... so many it makes it hard to pick which ones to rely on. I'm leaning towards ones published in the past 15 years, written by scholars that focus on Du Bois, but that is just me. Re the name spelling: all the biographies I've seen spell it "Du Bois", and he himself spelled it that way in his books and articles. That web site you refer to is the first place I've seen it spelled "DuBois", so unless we get more sources spelling it "DuBois" we should probably leave that spelling out of the article. --Noleander (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats means I have been spelling it wrong all these years. At least I am not alone Rashidi Naturally a mainstream bio will be spot on but as stated before the balance and the diverse opinions add a lot of light on such a profound individual. I get worried when one scholar holds all the opinions on one person.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am reading two additional books right now: The biography by Gerald Horne and the encyclopedia edited by Mary Young (both listed in References section). They both are excellent, and I'll soon be updating the article to include some material from them. However, I don't yet see any significant disputes between the various sources: They are 100% in agreement on the basic facts and events of Du Bois's life. There are some slight differences I see in regards to religion, or elitism, or relationship with his wife, but they appear to be rather minimal. The bottom line is that Lewis's biography is very complete and authoritative, and won lots of prizes such as the Pulitzer prize. So I don't expect to find a "smoking gun" that Lewis overlooked. That said, more sources are always better. --Noleander (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree re the hard facts. But the interpretations of Du Bois, and how it links to things like double consciousness, Pan-Africanism. That is where I think Molefi Asante (as a random example) Or Rashidi (an Afrocentric) will differ from say Lewis. re dubois: I see this question came up before [6] Dubois v Du Bois. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen convention?

This article has African American sometimes with hyphens, sometimes without. I have no preference myself, but we should probably pick one convention and use it uniformly thru the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

... if no one expresses a preference within a few days, I'll just flip a coin. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that African American as a noun shouldn't be hyphenated, but African-American as an adjective should be. That's why we have African American and African-American culture. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'll make sure the article adheres to that convention. --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has been updated to follow that convention. --Noleander (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Du Bois is misspelled "Do Bois" in introduction.

99.7.80.226 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. It's been fixed. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of black

There are two cases of up-cased "Black" used as an adjective not starting a sentence: "Black churches", "Black emancipation". Everywhere else we have down-cased "black": "black people", "black churches", "black causes", "black artists", "black artist", "black art", "black leaders", "black children", "black history and culture"etc. I'll down-case the two outliers but will check back here for objections. Jojalozzo 23:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for doing that. --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

Please change the word "comprise" to "compromise" in the racial violence section of the W.E.B. DuBois article at " The Compromise was no longer effective because, according to historian David Lewis, white patrician plantation owners that originally agreed to the comprise"

and that will leave the sentence as:

" The Compromise was no longer effective because, according to historian David Lewis, white patrician plantation owners that originally agreed to the compromise" ....

if you agree. thank you -- christian gehman 71.53.207.104 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

Booker T. Washington and the Atlanta Compromise

In the first decade of the 20th century, Du Bois was a renowned spokesperson for his race, second only to Booker T. Washington. Washington was the director of the Tuskegee Institute, and wielded tremendous influence within the African-American community. Washington was the architect of the Atlanta Compromise, an unwritten deal he struck in 1895 with Southern white leaders who had taken over government after the failure of Reconstruction. The agreement provided that Southern blacks would submit to discrimination, segregation, lack of voting rights, and non-unionized employment; that Southern whites would permit blacks to receive a basic education, some economic opportunities, and justice within the legal system; and that Northern whites would invest in Southern enterprises and fund black educational charities.

Please remove the statement "In the first decade of the 20th century, Du Bois was a renowned spokesperson for his race, second only to Booker T. Washington. The statement that Du Bois was a renowned spokesperson for his race, second only to Booker T. Washington. is a statement based on the article writer's opinion and is not supported by the referenced source. The correction should read: In the first decade of the 20th century, Du Bois was a renowned spokesman and may have been second only to Booker T. Washington. Tischabc Tischabc 00:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Tischabc: Thanks for making a suggestion to improve the article. That sentence is based on the Lewis source, page 161. Lewis writes: "In demand as commencement and learned society speaker, national newspaper and magazine contributor, congressional commission witness, US Dept of Labor consultant and author ..., Du Bois was becoming the second most sought-after spokesperson for his race after Booker Washington." This context of Lewis's statement is in the 1903 to 1906 time frame. Booker T. Washington died in 1915. I don't recall any source that pinpoints a time when Du Bois eclipsed Washington as the preeminent spokesperson. I think it is fair to say that around 1900 to 1906, Du Bois moved into second place, if we can use sports terminology. And sometime after 1910, many may have thought Du Bois surpassed Washington, but I dont know of any sources that explicitly say that. After Washington's death in 1915, it is probably accurate to say that Du Bois was the most renowned speaker. Bottom line: I'm not married to the current wording, but I think the sentence accurately reflects what Lewis, Du Bois's primary biographer, wrote. If you can find some source that says something like "... by 1909 [or some other year] Du Bois had surpassed Washington ... blah blah.." that that could help provide a basis for revising the wording. --Noleander (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling error

This page has a typo (not the discussion page - the base page0:

"His collection of esssays," has a misspelling, "Should be His collection of essays,"

Somebody please fix it! StevinSimon (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That has been fixed. --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

McCarthyism section - incoherent

The McCarthyism section is incoherent -- nothing in this section relates to Joe McCarthy or actions taken by the House Un-American Actities Committee. McCarthy wasn't even in public office until 1947, but this section refers to actions taken in 1942. This section needs to be renamed. 24.131.255.12 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point. Most of the section does refer to the period 1950 to 1953, when McCarthyism was at its peak (and the sources explicitly describe Du Bois as a victim of McCarthyism) ... on the other hand the section does include some historical background dating back to the 1940s, which was when the FBI started investigating Du Bois because of his suspected Communist/leftist affiliations. Not sure what the best solution is: I guess the section's title could be generalized to "Government persecution" or similar. Or maybe move the 1940s material into another section? Or just leave the section title alone, but clarify the wording of the 1940s material to make it clear that the 1940s investigations were not McCarthyism per se. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I implemented the final option: Left the section title as "McCarthyism", but clarified the text to make it clear that the 1940s events were not McCarthyism. Let me know if you think it should be improved more. --Noleander (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Book covers: need fair use rationale?

Regarding the inclusion of book cover images in this article: It appears that those images do not, as of yet, include fair use rationales for this particular article. I seem to recall that book cover images can only be used in the article on the book itself, not in other articles. But I see that there are articles on famous authors that do include some of their book covers. So, it looks like the images can be included in this article, provided that a legitimate rationale is provided that is tailored to this particular article. Correct? --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed appear that book cover images can be used in articles other than about the book itself, provided that there is an excellent rationale. So, I've supplied fair use rationales on the image pages; and I restored the 3 book cover images into this article. If I'm wrong about the usage policy, just revert my changes. --Noleander (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a Fair Use policy statement that, I think, applies to these images, from WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." So it appears that the images can be used in this article, because the article does discuss the books critically. --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article update

The article has been in the WP:GAC queue for two weeks now, waiting for a reviewer. If anyone wants to review it, jump right in. After it finishes that, it should probably go through the WP:PR peer review process, so it get a detailed review before FA. Then, it can be nominated for FA. I think the PR process is generally faster than GAC, so maybe it will get into the FA process before the end of the year. I guess there is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GA is finished. It is now in the WP:PR peer review queue. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is now in the Peer Review process, at page Wikipedia:Peer review/W. E. B. Du Bois/archive1. This would be a good time for any followers of this Talk page to read the article and identify any last-minute improvements, because the next step is to submit it for FA approval at WP:FAC. The biggest need now is to read the article and identify prose and flow that is not sufficiently professional. --Noleander (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Peer Review has been archived ... there were not many comments, which could mean the article is in good shape (or could just mean the reviewers are busy :-). In any case, I've initiated the FA nomination process at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. E. B. Du Bois/archive1. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Crisis Reader

I strongly suggest this book should be utilized because it should be much easier for readers to access than microfiche of The Crisis and it may allow readers to read the entire article that Lewis, et. al., are referencing:

• Wilson, Sondra Katherine (1999). The Crisis Reader: Stories, Poetry, and Essays from the N.A.A.C.P.'s Crisis Magazine. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0375752315.

The Crisis is digitized and online, but the book is still useful. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to get Wilson's book to see if there is a March 1918 article in The Crisis that is reproduced in it. I will only take minutes to cross reference Lewis' book w The Crisis Reader to see if there is any overlap. If there is overlap, then I will plug in the values (page numbers) from the Reader.

There are probably thousands of things written about Du Bois, but this book is modern and is easy to get:

• Balaji, Murali (2007). The Professor and the Pupil: The Politics and Friendship of W. E. B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson. New York: Nation Books ISBN 1-56858-355-9

Reviews of this book, Click on reviews, range from highly recommended to poorly written. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

Please remove the words "mistresses" and "mistress" from this article. It is simply enough to say he fathered a child by a slave. Or he fathered a child period. It is obvious that women bore their children, unless he did in fact father a child by a man. So the words are not only offensive in their sexism and religious arrogance but they are redundant. Thanks.

Soliz20 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The source, Lewis, uses the term "slave mistresses" on page 18. I'm reluctant to change it, since it seems to strike a good balance between hiding the fact that the owner took advantage of the slaves; yet does not go to the extreme of calling it rape. Regarding the second use of "mistress", the sources again use that term, to emphasize the fact that Alexander had an affair, and Alfred was born out of wedlock. --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"In 1890, Harvard awarded Du Bois his second bachelor's degree, cum laude, in history."

What is the "in history" part about? Is there something especially historical about the awarding of this degree? Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

His degree was in the subject History. I suppose the sentence could be re-worded to make that clearer. --Noleander (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

NAACP section

Du Bois and the NAACP are an important part of 20th c. American history, but the section on this is inaccurate about how the group was founded, and Du Bois' role; and no, I'm not calling for undue, just accurate. It's way outside my area for a rewrite. Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got several sources on Du Bois and the NAACP ... could you identify the specific inaccuracy? If you do that, I can go to the sources and rectify any problems. --Noleander (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

quote box

Regarding quote boxes: the default font size is too small for me to read; is there any objection to increasing it to 90% of the standard font? And the quote boxes blend in too much with the text when left white: any objection to tinting them slightly so they are distinguished? --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

... and I note that the {{quotation}} template (very similar to the {{quote box}} template used in this article) is tinted by default. The {{quote box}} template includes a background tint parameter ... the documentation for that template does not indicate that that parameter is discouraged. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Per discussion at User_talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4#Quote_box_styles.3F, changing the color to a light grey, as used by {{quotation}}. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Offensive Language

The end of the first paragraph of the article mentions that DEB DuBois founded the NAACP and states in parenthesis that these are "Niggardly Whites" I find this to be very offensive and must be removed IMMEDIATELY!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.80.153 (talk • contribs) 23 February 2012

The description just below the photo got hacked with some racialist stuff. I would fix, but its locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.109.146 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2012

Please undo the vandalism on the picture caption

Dickpilz (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk)

Edit request on 23 February 2012

This article has been vandalized by "registered users" by some racist inserts, please correct. 66.212.218.152 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks to all who noticed it. I'm sorry it took so long. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead: American

The lead states that he "was an American sociologist, historian, civil rights activist, Pan-Africanist, author, and editor." Personally I think that he was so tied into the issue of race that "American" should be changed to "African-American." Looking at Booker T. Washington, "American" is also used, so I'm hesitant to make such a change; thoughts? ResMar 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the current usage of "American" is more encyclopedic and informative. The first sentence of biographical articles normally identifies the nationality of a person. Ethnicity is generally mentioned later on, often indirectly by mentioning ancestry in an "early life" section. I think this article is consistent with most WP biographical articles. --Noleander (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)