Talk:John Brown (abolitionist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Weasel Word

"Brown's actions are often referred to as "patriotic treason", depicting both sides of the argument."

That's a total weasel word and I can't edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.76.173 (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Link for "Ken Chowder, "The Father of American Terrorism." American Heritage (2000) 51(1): pp 81+" is broken

The link for "Ken Chowder, "The Father of American Terrorism." American Heritage (2000) 51(1): pp 81+" is broken. It should go to:

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2000/1/2000_1_81.shtml

Palomar-librarian (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)palomar-librarian

 Done Sorafune +1 02:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous view and the JBRL

The last bullet point, re the John Brown Revolutionary League, might need some NPOV editing, and definitely needs some sources, which is why I hung on it. --LCE(LCE talk contribs) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Novel addition

Dixon, Thomas, The Man in Gray (Southern viewpoint) http://books.google.com/books?id=9ZHaaQ6Kv2cC&dq=dixon%20man%20in%20gray%20xx&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false

70.156.103.249 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to Abortion Clinic Shooters

Brown's tactics and motives closely parallel that of modern day shooters who oppose abortion, who, in a similar manner to those who opposed slavery as John Brown did, took up arms against what they saw as an unjust institution. There are comparisons between Brown and such other criminal individuals, and these comparisons are not unheard of on the internet. This article should, in the interest of relevance, consider such parallels. -- 24.215.246.114 (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Only if there are reliable sources available that discuss such "parallels" specifically with Brown's tactics. If none can be found, it would be OR to add such content to the article.--JayJasper (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Page Lockdown

I think it would be wise to have John Brown's page under a specific lockdown given the colorful background and varying perspective of the abolitionist.--Drgyen (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Do you all think John brown was a bad guy or good guy? why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeyky (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pottawatomie debate removed from HTML comment in article

I removed this from an HTML comment inside the article.

When a wife speaks of "her husband's "devilment", every sane person thinks there may be a knife around her neck. Should an encyclopedia contain statements made under dubious circumstances? No you are nit-picking here. Most sane people would assume that if one's wife believed her husband was innocent, she would have been insistent upon it with a "knife around her neck." The point is that she made an inadvertent acknowledgment that her husband and sons had been up to no good and that she had opposed it, and now it had backfired.

It seems to me to be wholly unsuitable to have this kind of comment/debate inside the article; quite apart from anything else, it should be here on the Talk page. Why would you start a debate inside the article like that, when it has a Talk page for the purpose? With the best will in the world, I don't get it.

On the topic itself I have no comment except to point out that the whole Pottawatomie section has been marked unreferenced since August 2011, and still seems to have problems, such as the interpretation of what Mahala Doyle's comment meant ("further signifying" according to whom?) and "it is suspected" - again, by whom? I know that this is a major and controversial topic in US history but surely we can, without adopting a POV, try to cover it more thoroughly and in a better-referenced fashion? Not me, sadly, with my ignorance of the topic ... I just came to read up on it! With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2013

US folksinger David Rovics has a song 'John Brown' on his 2011 Big Red Sessions CD. Halfa65 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how this has anything to do with this article? Source? Is the song about the subject of this article? Can you provide a source? Jguy _Talk^Done 01:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Add reference to Henry David Thoreau, who wrote "A Plea For Captain John Brown"

Thoreau wrote "A Plea For Captain John Brown". A summary may be in order. I am not an authority, nor a writer. I leave it to someone better qualified than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.103.131 (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

I am suggesting an addition to the list of Secondary Sources, as follows:

• Bulleted list item

Horwitz, Tony. Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid That Sparked the Civil War. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2011.

This recent account of Brown's life, the Raid and its aftermath, was A New York Times Notable Book for 2011, A Library Journal Top Ten Best Books of 2011, and A Boston Globe Best Nonfiction Book of 2011. This merits inclusion in the article's list of references. Link to Amazon.com listing: http://www.amazon.com/Midnight-Rising-Brown-Sparked-Civil/dp/B00AZ8C8PM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377244455&sr=8-1&keywords=midnight+rising+john+brown+and+the+raid+that+sparked+the+civil+war

Bssjersey (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition of popular culture reference to article about the abolitionist John Brown

Ebronstein (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Please add the following to the article on the abolitionist John Brown as a new last line to the section, "In Popular Culture":

The 2013 novel "The Good Lord Bird" by James McBride tells the story of John Brown through the eyes of a young slave named Henry Shackleford, who accompanies Brown to Harper's Ferry. The novel won the 2013 National Book Award for Fiction.

[Link to entry https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Good_Lord_Bird] Ebronstein (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sourced, wikified, and edited slightly for brevity. Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Visual Portrayals" and "In Popular Culture" sections

I suggest both of these sections should be deleted. The former is completely unreferenced and the latter opens the door to non-encyclopedic content (i.e. generic listing) which should not exist in any article, let alone one of such importance on Wikipedia. As much as I'd like to be bold and remove them myself, I figure such a move should be done by consensus.--Chimino (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2014

Add Category:Terrorism. There seems little doubt that his intent was terror and insurrection. Where we differ, north and south, is whether or not his cause was just. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Done. The suggestion is trying to push an agenda. LionMans Account (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Lo-o-ong introduction

I have no concrete suggestions, but the introduction is way too long. A lot of it can probably be incorporated into the body. Just sayin'. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

good point--I trimmed it down, moving stuff to the main text and deleting unsourced speculation. Rjensen (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather an old section. I'd like to comment that in this case we've run into the opposite extreme! We have a single source covering the entire paragraph. I should like to request that an expert add some references from their favorite civil war sources. Vaxine19 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think cites belong in the lede at all, and have transferred them to the main article. Valetude (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

use of word electrified

In paragraph 3, perhaps "alarmed the nation" would be better than "electrified the nation." Richards3974 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Donald RichardsRichards3974 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Brown (abolitionist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kimeatghs.com/ushistory/abolitionism.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/hafe/jbrown/oates-text.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
• http://kimeatghs.com/ushistory/abolitionism.html (non-archived, non-working)
• https://web.archive.org/web/20110713150821/http://kimeatghs.com/ushistory/abolitionism.html (archived, working)
• http://www.nps.gov/archive/hafe/jbrown/oates-text.htm (non-archived, non-working)
• https://web.archive.org/web/20070426012632/http://www.nps.gov/archive/hafe/jbrown/oates-text.htm (archived, working)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Checked, adding working archive links here. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Father of American Terrorism should probably be removed.

Years before Brown ever arrived in Kansas, David Rice Atchison

[R]ecruited an immense mob of heavily armed Missourians, the infamous "Border Ruffians". On the election day, March 30, 1855, Atchison led 5,000 Border Ruffians into Kansas. They seized control of all polling places at gunpoint, cast tens of thousands of fraudulent votes for pro-slavery candidates, and elected a pro-slavery legislature.

How is that not also terrorism? JoshNarins (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was Atchison who was involved in fraudulent pro-slavery ballots cast in Kansas by Missourians -- not John Brown. Am I mistaken? John Brown was anti-slavery, not pro-slavery. The perspective that the South started the Civil War because of "States Rights" instead of Slavery seems to be a 'paper tiger'. The motivations, not the pretext, is uncovered by the 'Bloody Kansas" events a decade before the war. Pro-slavery Missourians came into Kansas territory to cast pro-slavery ballots. If the motivation was indeed "states rights" instead of keeping slavery legal, why would Missouri agitator attempt to overthow the rights of Kansas anti-slavery residents? Another strong voice against the abolitionists came from the railroad industry. They wanted peace at any cost so that they could continue with their plans to build stretches of railroad across the Kansas territory. They painted the abolitionists as idealists, unpragmatic, unconcerned about promoting business (railroad and expansionist interests) and jobs of the working class [whites]. As history has shown us, many of the seeds of war are spread by monied interests. As with most wars, the deepest roots are greed; the greed of those in power stirring up fear of the citizenry dependent on them. Have we learned anything from history? Just replace the words "railroad" with "oil" and "free slave labor" with unaccountable "cheap China labor". If we want to understand John Brown, we can not take him out of the context of his experiences while in Kansas, seeing the unjustice and desparation. Nor can we ignore the way the Federal Government responded to the events -- lobbied by the railroad and other business interests. Were their responses to the ballot-stuffing, violence against anti-slavery Kansas citizens too light-handed -- at least when compared with their response agains John Brown and other abolitionists? Tesseract501 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete the part of which you said was not true but I figure Wikipedia wouldn't like it. There were both pro-slavery and anti-slavery people in Kansas at the time, they were NOT all illegal voters from Missouri, And for that matter the Missourians did not prevent the settlers from voting for the territorial leg. They just outnumbered them. I don't disagree it was illegal but you gotta pick your arguments my friend. The actions Mr. Brown took during bleeding Kansas are what made me think of him as little more than a hate-filled, murderous butcher, he turned up in '56 (I believe) and immediately proceeded to go into random homesteaders homes and kill all the men simply cause he disagreed with their politics, Disagree with slavery all you want, I consider murder to be worse than support for slavery, two wrongs don't make a right and random murder does not make you a martyr.

-Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised anybody could characterize John Brown as

America's first domestic terrorist".[citation needed]

(from the article's lead). Nat Turner preceded him by more than two decades. Would anybody care to revisit this? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That's probably wrongly quoted in the article. It was originally "America's first terrorist", attributed to Ken Chowder. The quote was modified by an IP editor here without explanation. The entire sentence could be deleted as redundant to the preceding, which briefly notes the perception of Brown as a terrorist. The body of the article now contains neither expression (although one is the title of a Finkelman book). Dhtwiki (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm in favor of deleting that sentence, then. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

1956

The "1956" in the second line seems to be a mistake or vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.9.162 (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, typos do happen. Thanks for catching it. LionMans Account (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we remove the "Victor Hugo's reaction" section?

It is a small section that doesn't cite any sources and is dominated by a big block quote. I'm no expert, but from what I've read there were a ton of responses to John Brown's imprisonment and, ultimately, to his execution. Is there something special about Victor Hugo's reaction that merits it having its own section? If not, I think we should delete that section, then maybe incorporate a quick mention of his reaction in another section. What do you think? All the best—Bobnorwal (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably a very good idea. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the section misses the importance of Hugo's letter, possibly because the words are so moving and the editor who wrote the section wanted to include them. Hugo's writings, that letter and others, were a great instrument used by the abolitionists to show that Europe supported Brown and anti-slavery. While Hugo desired Brown's pardon, his actual purpose was an end to slavery (or tyranny more generally), and his letter was primarily used to support Brown's abolitionism, not to engender Brown's pardon (Hugo knew Buchanan was weak on abolition and I'm not sure he expected a pardon). As the letter was not seen in the US until after Brown's execution and the main use and purpose of this and other of Hugo's letters, I think the section should be moved down to aftermath or legacy and a bit more context added. To show what I mean, I've actually added the context to the section (but not moved it). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Historians agree on what?

The intro says, "Historians agree that the Harpers Ferry raid escalated tensions that, a year later, led to the South's secession and Civil War." But this has multiple flaws:

1) Historians agree on virtually nothing when asked to boild down the complicated causes of any war to a single incident. Any statement beginning with "historians agree" should be immediately suspect.

2) Some historians, in fact, posit that slavery was at the bottom of the South's list of grievances against the North; that the primary reason was the South's inability to affect federal tariff policy that was destructive to the Southern economy.

3) Brown's raid of Harpers Ferry was not a legal action under the auspice of the US Government, so it doesn't follow that the South would secede to prevent such attacks.

4) Even if we take at face value that the raid led to the secession, we cannot glibly tack on, "and Civil War." War was the choice of the party denying secession; it was not part-and-parcel of the secession itself. Many readers may know that, but there's a subtle implication in that sentence that the South started the war.

We may say that Brown's raid was at least a data point in the South's decision to secede, but not "the" trigger. I would drop the sentence, but if it's to be kept, it should be re-written to read, "Many historians agree that the Harpers Ferry raid contributed to the South's decision to secede from the Union a year later."

LibActual (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you see, this particular material is in the lede of the article, and per MOS:LEDE, must reflect the content of the body of the article, which is then sourced. And that's a nice analysis, but as it stands, is original research (not allowed)- unless you have a source which says those things? Even so, it's always worth considering change on principle! Thanks! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 04:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a quote in the Legacy section: According to Connie Miller, "Historians agree that the Harper's Ferry raid in 1859 escalated tensions that a year later led to secession and the American civil war." {{cite book|author=Connie A. Miller, Sr.|title=Frederick Douglass American Hero: and International Icon of The Nineteenth Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9ykO8sKDE30C&pg=PA166|year=2008|publisher=Xlibris |page=166}} Historians disagree on various points but all the RS I have seen in recent years and ALL the university textbooks include the Brown raid. The text does NOT say that the raid caused either secession or the war. Please read more carefully. (it raised tensions). Point #2 above is garbled and misleading (the tariff issue for decades had been a fringe viewpoint) Rjensen (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The only thing missing from the complaint is the phrase "War of Northern Aggression". Sheesh! — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• What would be most original was if we did not WP:BITE the newcomers. "Sheesh" indeed. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

May Not Be Clear Enough He Was White

It may not be clear enough from the article that John Brown was a white man, and I do think his skin color is relevant given the context. When I saw the current black and white image on the right, I thought one of his parents was an African American. I then typed "Was John Brown black?" in Google and got this answer: "Best guess for John Brown Ethnicity is African American; Mentioned on at least 3 websites including wikipedia.org, amazon.com and smithsonianmag.com" However, when I saw the images in the Early years section, I concluded that both his parents (Owen Brown and Ruth Mills) were white after all. Maybe we could change the first section: instead of "was an American revolutionary abolitionist", we could write "was a white American revolutionary abolitionist". I didn't yet make this change in the article, because I would like to know what others think. So, what do you think? --82.171.13.139 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's obvious he's white. When I look at the picture I see a white man: white skin, light-colored eyes, straight hair... looks like a white man to me. 132.3.17.78 (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and added that he was white to the beginning of the article, because I would agree that it is certainly relevant here (especially given that the article goes on to say shortly after that he attempted to lead African-Americans in a rebellion). In the vast majority of cases, I would say that an article subject's race is not relevant but this is an exception. Against the current (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly if that was the only question you asked about this man.... What color is his skin?

Obviously it's obvious that he was white just from his facial features, beard, haircut and place of birth

But I gotta ask why some of us still dwell on these things...

Today, the article still doesn't make his ethnicity clear. I had doubts looking at the black and white picture. I checked the talk page here to see if it was discussed. His ethnicity is of primordial importance in the context of this article. Why can't it be added? AugustinMa (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Brown (abolitionist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103073709/http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/cw/cw234.htm to http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/cw/cw234.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

bayonet rule?

What is "bayonet rule", it's not a well-known term. Is it like martial law? That bit should be explained or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.9.96 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That phrase isn't defined in my usual dictionaries, and it isn't used at the article Reconstruction Era. It apparently refers to the "military reconstruction" of 1867, and it would likely be the southerners' take on the situation, and therefore perhaps non-NPOV. I think that you could remove and "bayonet rule" in the South from the relevant sentence without harming its meaning. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

(in Turkish) 204.129.172.196 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Brown (abolitionist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111050237/http://www.wvculture.org/History/jnobrown.html to http://www.wvculture.org/History/jnobrown.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060818132654/http://www.ku.edu/heritage/kshistory/johnbrown.html to http://www.ku.edu/heritage/kshistory/johnbrown.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Can someone please revert my last two edits to this page, my phone is acting crazy, I wanted to put in a comma and accidentally deleted a line, tried to put it back and ended up in the wrong section. Thanks. High Leader (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. I was wondering why that paragraph vanished. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've put the comma back in. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Additions to secondary and primary source lists in this article

Add these recent publications on John Brown:

Secondary source:

Louis A. DeCaro, Jr., Freedom's Dawn: The Last Days of John Brown in Virginia (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).

Primary source:

Louis A. DeCaro, Jr., Ed. John Brown Speaks: Letters and Statements from Charlestown (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis DeCaro Jr. (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your suggestion. I added the two books. By the way, I enjoyed your books about Malcolm X. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Pottawatomie" subsection

(quote)
Speaking of the threats that were supposedly the justification for the massacre, Free State leader Charles L. Robinson stated, "When it is known that such threats were as plenty as blue-berries in June, on both sides, all over the Territory, and were regarded as of no more importance than the idle wind, this indictment will hardly justify midnight assassination of all pro-slavery men, whether making threats or not... Had all men been killed in Kansas who indulged in such threats, there would have been none left to bury the dead."

Including this without mentioning that Robinson's own house was razed in the sacking of Lawrence is clearly not NPOV, and frankly, bad storytelling. The non-bracketed ellipsis after "making threats or not" (which ends the sentence on p. 274 in the cited text, followed by a period) is needlessly confusing, but the ellipsis' greater sin here is the text it hides (!) where Governor Robinson himself unwittingly makes the case for Brown's assault:

(quote)
Governor George A. Crawford, in a letter to Eli Thayer dated August 4, 1879, says that Brown "gave as a reason" (for the slaughter) that the men were carriers of news to the Missourians, that they kept a "grape-vine telegraph" with Missourians, and were endangering the settlements by bringing in invaders. And John Brown, Jr., in the Cleveland Plaindealer (sic; "Plaindealer" alone is italicized in source text), says: "The Doyles, Wilkinson, and Sherman were furnishing places of rendezvous and active aid to armed men who had sworn to kill us and others." Here are more threats.

Can we do better here? I think we can. 76.69.155.96 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Need source for quote

Does anyone know who first called Brown “the most controversial of all 19th-century Americans”? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Pottawatomie

As it is today, the article doesn’t say anything at all about the Pottawatomie massacre. deisenbe (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

Please add the new book Old Brown, by Craig Paulenich, to this page. See https://smithdocs.net/home for further information about the book. Thank you! A new sentence stating

Poet Craig Paulenich's 2018 book _Old Brown_ investigates Brown "In stunningly imaginative poems...Paulenich masterfully connects the dots from Harper's Ferry to our modern terrorist state" (Peter Grandois, author of _Kissing the Lobster_).

Hope this is complete and useful; carmien@mac.com if further info is needed. 130.156.142.240 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to provide exact bibliographic information. deisenbe (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

John Brown's putative country

I'm thinking this deserves a short article in itself. It's as worthy as other putative Category:micronations in the United States. It had a constitution (which I've skimmed), cabinet officers, planned territory. Anyone have a problem? What I don't have is a name for this country. Anybody know if it ever had one? deisenbe (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to endorse an article about the country. I think an article about the Chatham convention might make sense. This article would outline the constitution and leadership adopted by the convention. There doesn't seem to be any RS about the entity created as a nation, only as a conspiracy. Do you have any sources that suggest a micronation type article would be appropriate? Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to edit Monuments

I am requesting to add to the Monuments list on the right-hand side of the page: John Brown House, Akron, Ohio and John Brown Memorial, Akron, Ohio

Supporting information: The John Brown House is run by The Summit County Historical Society of Akron, Ohio. The house, either in a guided or self-guided tour, leads the visitor through the John Brown's history. (See </ref>https://www.summithistory.org/john-brown-house</ref>). The John Brown Memorial is located inside the Akron Zoo in Akron, Ohio. (See ). 38.94.200.130 (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Sceptre (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Should the title just be "John Brown"?

Though John Brown is a common name, there is no one else with the name as famous and notable as this John Brown. Not only is his page the number one option that shows up in the search engine, the highest-ranked next person with that name (a moderately-known-at-best wide receiver) is the seventh most popular option. In fact, second and third place in the results are for his raid on Harper's Ferry and for the famous song. No other page for a man with this name has as much text or as many citations. And there is no reason to doubt that there are more links to this article and references to the man in other articles than there are for any other person with this name. Therefore, would it not make more sense to remove the "(abolitionist)" from the title and change it to just "John Brown", change the page that lists all of them to "John Brown (disambiguation)"? 207.255.107.35 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

In the second entry under "Paintings" there is a sentence fragment that should be merged with the sentence before it. Jorator (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Good catch. LionMans Account (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Citation needed" re: Forbes under "Gathering Forces"

The claim that Forbes threatened to expose the plot can be found in

"[Forbes] demands that Hawkins [John Brown] be dismissed as agent, and himself or some other put in his place, threatening otherwise to make the business public."

Owensp1006 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Treason Correction

Wanted to drop in a correction. John Brown was not the first person convicted of treason, he was the first person hanged for treason in the United States. There were several convictions for participants in the whiskey rebellion, but the sentences were all commuted. There's plenty of sources, but here's one specifically on the subject of John Brown himself. About the thirty minute mark:

As it looks like I can not make the correction as the page is protected, if someone with access could, please do so. Pevinsghost (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Second reference, about the whiskey rebellion:

"It took a huge show of force to suppress the rebellion in 1794 and several of the leaders were tried for treason. Of the 24 indicted, ten were captured and stood trial. Two, Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, were convicted and sentenced to be hanged. Washington pardoned both." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pevinsghost (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would just remove the entire relevant sentence (which is in the lead). The online sources you give don't explicitly say it was the first execution for treason (I don't have the DuBois book, but an early printing of it might be available online); and it's apparent that it wasn't the first conviction. I'll wait for others to voice their opinions before changing anything. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, I can tell you did not check the first source I linked. From Time Stamp 29:56 - 30:32 in the audio: "So John Brown was ultimately convicted of Treason against a State he had never been a citizen of [Virginia], And when he was hanged, he became the first person to be hanged for Treason in The United States history. The people who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion were tried and convicted of treason and were supposed to be hanged but their sentence was commuted, so they would have been the first people in the country hanged for treason, but because of the commutation of their sentence John Brown became the first person hung for Treason [even] though he was not hanged for Treason against the United States." Considering the exacting nature of the wording from the source, a proper edit may be to change "the first person convicted of treason in the history of the country." to "the first person hanged for treason in the history of the country." If the page wasn't so long already, a discussion of all these details in the article itself might be nice, but as is, just a correction of the facts will probably be best. Pevinsghost (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not listen to the audio. Is it possible to code the citation so that it points to that part of the video, as you can with YouTube videos? Otherwise, I'd be willing to make the change that you suggest, although I don't think it's that important that we have that information in the lead. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done – I've edited the article in line with your suggested change, although I put "executed" rather than "hanged". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you much. Sorry got busy and didn't get back the other day. I do think the sentence does add a bit of color so to speak, glad to see it staying. Unfortunately that original posting site for the audio can't key to a specific point though. If I do come across any of the other sites the author posts to that can, I'll keep that ability in mind for future citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pevinsghost (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

I would like to add to his profession, or occupation...or know for. POssibly, preacher? prophet? and martyr. The reason I say this is because he has a quote saying this nation will never have justice without bloodshed, and some of his prophecies are kind of unknown and religiously speaking it is good record those who are importantly possibly of God's will in history, and I think he was actively a prophet? he seems like he had the supernatural power of God and he had to do something... that required action even though it was against Christ Doctrine like being a traitor or a terrorist treasonous person. I think? It would appear that way, and that gives me faith that God is real, and I think he was sent by God. He reminds me of Elijah. I'm sad not many people actually record God's work these days in history. Because of secular schooling and upsetting others... I hope something can be done because this confirms God's work, and i think that is important. Paladin5777 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that God was involved. ——Serial ^# 18:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• John Brown (abolitionist) → John Brown
• John Brown → John Brown (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. John Brown the abolitionist is much more relevant and well known when compared with other people he shares his name with. We could turn the current John Brown page to a disambiguation page afterwards if this were to be approved. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way too many other John Browns and no evidence of primary topic. DrKay (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, with over 180 people having this name, it is implausible that any one can be considered "primary". BD2412 T 02:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are tons of John Browns. Keeping this one at the top of the list on the disambiguation page is sufficient.--Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 21:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This must be one of the most common and generic names in the Anglosphere. The disambig page shouldn't be sidelined. Natureium (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Victorian ghillie is every bit as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2020 (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.

The need to archive the references in this article

Anyone who has worked more than superficially with the Internet will find that links constantly go bad, as sites referenced change or disappear. There even is a name for this: link rot.

This is a very important article, which has had 172,000 views in the past 30 days. I feel it should be preserved for future readers, and have twice backed up the non-dead links in it. This has twice been undone by @Dhtwiki:. I'm through unless I get support here. Instructions on how to back the links up are at Link rot#Preventng link rot in Wikipedia. deisenbe (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a policy against putting in such link back-ups? If not, then I don't see the harm, and I do see the benefit. Unless there is a policy problem with this, I support the back-up links. Attic Salt (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a policy in favor of massively adding links, although one is allowed to place links to archives when creating individual references (see WP:LINKROT). The archive links don't necessarily point to a copy of the reference. Certainly in the past there have been problems with error pages being taken to be valid snapshots. That's gotten better, but it's not perfect. When the original link is added, that's when the archiving services are likely to see it and make an archive. Adding an archive link here doesn't make that happen. The addition of useless links adds to download time (often slight but multiply ~8k of text, which was the original addition here, by 172,000 and you get over 1 gigabyte of additional text being downloaded per month (almost 46 megabytes per day). Add to that the fact that the additional reference text makes it somewhat harder for editors to find text in raw edit mode and likelier that they will invoke a parser, such as wikEd, which slows things up and has its own flaws, such as obscuring text with superimposed thumbnails of images. But the real deficiency in massively adding archive links is that, when the original link dies, archive snapshots make it less likely that editors will be prompted to examine the reference for suitability, find a better reference, or find another link to the same material at a reorganized website. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)4

If archiving these links doesn't create an archive, what does it do?

Your logic is awful: it's good if something dies, because then someone will look for a replacement, so death is good. Broken links are good? You're ignoring is my original point: some things die and there is no replacement. I know this first hand. Assume it is true. And if the only way links get improved is when they die, that's a damning comment on Wikipedia's competency to manage itself.

Regarding the quantity of data, I admit I hadn't thought of the 172,000 downloads. If there is a way to make some sort of subsidiary list file of backup so only when necessary would its data be downloaded, that would be a solution. I've never seen anything like it and offhand don't know how to do it.deisenbe (talk)

I am suspicious of the suggestion that 8k of text is a download burden. How large is the article without the 8k of text? How many gigabytes of text are routinely handled by Wikipedia anyway? I would think that 8k of text is like a drop in ocean. Attic Salt (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the fact that lots of inline citation info makes it difficult to edit the raw text. Attic Salt (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an additional 8K per download. That might not be much for even non-broadband, but it adds up. It impressed me that an extra 8k per page view added up to over 1 gigabyte per month for this article, which, at about 172,000 views per month, or 5,700 per day, is on the high side of activity. And for what? You're merely linking to archives that have already been made (and are automatically made based on the archive service reading what original links have been made). And if, by chance, your automatic-archive-linking program links to an unusable page (and index page, an ad for sale of domain, a redirect to the homepage of a newspaper – results IABot hasn't necessarily been good at differentiating from a usable archive snapshot), is the user of this convenient semi-automatic program checking those results? If they aren't being checked, what good is any of it? And, to repeat myself, some links go dark because the site has been reorganized and the "lost" material found by re-linking, rather than pointing to an archive snapshot, which is preferable when the information is apt to be updated from time to time. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't find this persuasive. The article's size is presently 127,063 bytes. The back-up links are about 8,000 bytes. That's just 6% of the article's size. I can't believe that significantly impacts downloading. Attic Salt (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The average reader is not going to download or read the entire article.

Why is there a tool to backup live links if this is not sometimes desirable? If it is only sometimes desirable or necessary, why is it not desirable for this article in particular?

@Dhtwiki: again you make an argument with terrible logic. It is true that sometimes a link will be backed up which is nothing more than a 404 notice or an ad for sale of a domain. Those backups are of course useless timewasters. But to go from there to saying backups of live links are never desirable is like saying a car does not need a gas tank because the tank might sometimes be empty. Backup protects some links from being lost. deisenbe (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The reader will have to download the entire article, even if they don't read it all. I think what we download is HTML and that would require the closing tags for it to render properly. That also suggests that 127,000 bytes doesn't necessarily measure the amount of HTML, which can be astonishing verbose at times. However, that's not my main concern (and this article's addition, even at 8K, is below the less-than-10K-don't-bother threshold I've used in the past). See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Archiving_links_not_dead_-_good_idea? for discussions where the bot writers themselves are ambivalent regarding the use of IABot that I'm objecting to here. I'm not objecting to backups, I'm objecting to the adding of useless links to them, partially because of the possible performance impact but also in large part because it's a lazy way to make articles verifiable. But I repeat myself. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct in saying every user will hsve to download the entire article to read any of it. Certainly my usual browser, Safari, doesn't work that way.

I don't read that Noticeboard discussion the way you do.

It's a lazy way? Great, make things better. But don't get in the way of us lazy editors because unless you do something instead of just criticize and impede, as far as this issue is concerned you're the lazy one. deisenbe (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I use Safari too, and I don't see Safari partially downloading articles. On the other hand–unlike Firefox, for example–Safari doesn't seem to have an easily accessible "developer" mode, although that's probably available as a plugin. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

1848 text of brown

"John Brown published his first, anonymous anti-slavery essay the following year [1848]." From lecture "The Black Heart of John Brown" Richard Bell, Great Courses Plus. Anyone know what this is? deisenbe (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Need for hatnote

I put at the beginning the hatnote Main:John Brown's Raid at Harpers Ferry. Someone removed it because there is a link to that article when we get to the discussion of the raid.

I strongly believe it belongs at the beginning. Not many readers come to this article interested in Brown as a person. Only a few have interest in his actions in Kansas. They come because of the raid. This article has 179,000 views, and the raid article got 25,000. That's nuts. The raid article should be the one with the most views.The raid article is the main John Brown article, not just the main article on the raid.

So those 179,000 would get the hatnote suggesting that they probably want to look at the Raid article first. I think that is helping readers find what almost all of them really want: information on the raid.

Does anyone agree with me? deisenbe (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Main is for sections that summarize what is available at other articles in more detail. What you might want to look at is Template:About, with which you could insert something like, "This article is about John Brown, the man; for detailed information on his famous raid see John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

the second to last instance of Kansas is misspelled in the section "Actions in Kansas" 68.132.67.219 (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)  Done

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

In the 2nd paragraph of the section "November 2 to December 2, 1859" there is a typo in the second sentence. It reads "This was much to Brown's frustration, as he ststed that he wanted..." "Ststed" is presumably meant to be "stated." 97.115.149.225 (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

10.2 Literature

Shouldn't it say, I don't know, "Culture"? I mean, there's a whole paragraph about movies, not just literature. Or maybe it should be split up into sections. 91.230.25.107 (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

The second-last word in the opening paragraph spells "Anerican". Presumably it should read "American". Father lopez (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[✉] 11:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

John H. Brown

His middle initial was definitely H. I have not been able to discover what the name was. Do you know? Should the "H." be included in his name? Tgere is already a redirect from John H. Brown to John Brown. deisenbe (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

john brown a terrrosist

i believe that john brown was a terrorist he killed innocent people including william clarke quantrill's wife and kids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.100.87 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

The name of the city of Cleveland should be linked in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.210.218 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Need cleanup of Bibliography, sources, and external links section

Any suggestions?

It's a marginally helpful mess. I don't want to put in the time on this and then have arguments about it. deisenbe (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Without removing any entries, I've made a pass at reorganizing the "Bibliography" section, which, for a start, had too many sections too confusingly labeled. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but now it's a better-organized mess. I suppose I'll have to work on it, though it's not high on my mental list of tasks., deisenbe (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

The word substantial is misspelled as substsntial under the heading “The Tannery with the secret room” Yankee24n7 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 03:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

1. The Polish poet Cyprian Kamil Norwid wrote two poems praising Brown: "John Brown" and the better known "Do obywatela Johna Brown" ("To Citizen John Brown"). The latter poem actually uses a Polonized spelling Braun, cf. Wikisources (scan), as was acceptable in Polish back then.

Can you supply complete references (where published, by whom, when? Are there English translations? deisenbe (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Between then and 1888, Sherwin McRee of the Virginia State Library "was much interested, for there kis valuable historical matter in that old carpet-bag". "kis" is likely a misspelling of "is". 195.187.108.4 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

I think that this article should be marked with the "unencyclopedic" thing on the top. especially the first few paragraphs.Bumpf (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Bumpf

Could you be more specific please? Just what seems unencyclopedic? deisenbe (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article is rather unencyclopedic, the sections covering Brown's life read much more like a narrative or embellished biography than an article in an encyclopedia. I'm going to play with the headings abit to try and structure it better. BSMRD (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Tone

This article has a serious tone problem, while most of the information contained within seems decent (though there are several paragraphs lacking any citations), the way it is written and structured (especially the biographical section, the legacy section seems better at a glance)reads much more like an essay or commercial biography rather than an encyclopedic article. I tagged the article and started to attempt a bit of cleanup, am making this post for discussion of the issue. BSMRD (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling

Hi, The word "the" has been misspelled in the article.

"As a child in Hudson, John not only came into contact with tbe local Indians, he "hung about them... & learned a trifle of their talk".[18]:7" Sjeffers7 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Have made a correction. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

In the first line of the article: change "A man of string religious convictions" to "A man of strong religious convictions". The word "string" in the original is likely a typo, and an short review of the two references indicates that John Brown held strong religious convictions, not convictions related to string. Fwee3633 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching the typo. LionMans Account (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

Under the section on streets named for John Brown it is missing that there is a highway in Osawatomie, Kansas called, “John Brown Highway.” 2600:1702:1A00:CD0:B0FD:F9F9:6871:9880 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Added! BSMRD (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Please correct the error for this abolitionist John Brown: REMOVE the middle initial "H." I am a biographer of John Brown and I can tell you quite assuredly that John Brown had no middle name or initial, and this seems to have been intentionally inserted as a joke. Thank you. Louis A. DeCaro Jr. L2decaro (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one that put the H in and I did not intend it as a joke. I saw it in some source. When I find it again I'll give you the citation; unfortunately I didn't make a note as I didn't think it would be controversial. deisenbe (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I found that the middle initial H in John Brown Jr., which I removed, was put in feb 1 2021 wth an ip address and no explanation. Without realizing this, I may, repeat may have concluded that if junior had an H dad did too. There is also a John H. Brown Jr. who is someone unrelated, who was not on the disambiguation page, which I've fixed. deisenbe (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In Media addition

Composer Dave Soldier released an album chronicling John Brown's life in 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustusIll (talk • contribs) 05:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Pottawatomie and Lawrence

The article states, under the subhead "Pottawatomie": "In the two years prior to the Pottawatomie Creek massacre, there had been eight killings in Kansas Territory attributable to slavery politics, but none in the vicinity of the massacre. The massacre was the match in the powderkeg that precipitated the bloodiest period in "Bleeding Kansas" history, a three-month period of retaliatory raids and battles in which 29 people died." Other Wikipedia articles point out that Pottawatomie was in response to the so-called "sack of Lawrence," which took place three days earlier. It did not come out of nowhere, as I believe the quoted sentences suggest. Also note that the first sentence in the next section, "Palmyra and Osawatomie," is unclear about the chronology. It reads "In 1856, a force of Missourians, led by Captain Henry Clay Pate, captured John Jr. and Jason, destroyed the Brown family homestead, and later participated in the Sack of Lawrence." This might even be read to mean that Lawrence took place after Pottawatomie, which it didn't. Including months for the capture of John Jr. and Jason and the destruction of the Brown family homestead would be helpful here. Hagwind (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Hagwind

John Brown (abolitionist)#Legacy

I made edits to the beginning of the Legacy section here. There was content about memorials that didn't happen (not sure why - it's trivia but not encyclopedic content)... and this proceeded multiple sections about all the memorials, days, historic markers, etc. about John Brown and the raid.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

In the section "Back to Ohio", it incorrectly states that four of John Brown's children (Charles, Peter, Austin and Annie) died of dysentery in 1843. But the source cited ("The Wives and Children of John Brown") states that only the three boys died in 1843; Annie lived until 1926. In addition, the article shows a photo of Annie with her mother and sister Sarah in 1851, so she clearly hadn't died eight years earlier.

Also, the Infobox states that he had 21 children, but all sources say he had only 20: seven with his first wife, Dianthe, and thirteen with his second wife, Mary Anne. Please correct these two errors. Thank you. 208.125.85.106 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

The last paragraph in the section "Time in Pennsylvania" states that his "youngest son" died at age four in 1831. This was Frederick I, who died March 31, 1831. It says later in the paragraph that after his wife Dianthe died in childbirth, "He was left with the children John Jr., Jason, Owen, and Ruth." He was actually left with five children - those four and another son also named Frederick (Frederick II) who had been born December 21, 1830. The second Frederick lived to adulthood and fought slavery alongside his father, until he was shot and killed in 1856.

Why he had two sons named Frederick at the same time, I don't know, but they are both listed in numerous sources including the National Park Service's "The Wives and Children of John Brown" https://www.nps.gov/articles/wives-and-children-of-john-brown.htm Please add Frederick II to the list of children he was left with when Dianthe died. Thank you. 208.125.85.106 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done lmao, who has two children at the same time with the same name??? Of the universe (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know this to be a fact, but my suspicion is that the first Frederick was already ill and not expected to live (there are no records that state his cause of death, but he died only three months after the second Frederick was born). As John Brown had named the boy after his own brother, to whom he was close, he perhaps wanted to give the name to another son who would survive. 208.125.85.106 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're probably right... I feel bad for laughing now. Of the universe (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing about Michigan

There is no mention of how he moved from Southern Michigan to Leavenworth, Kansas prior to Bleeding Kansas. As per the Honorable Henry Waldron's address on April 8, 1856, in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

The relevant bit is in the last paragraph, but here's the text source: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/kansasaffairsspe00wald/kansasaffairsspe00wald_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.211.43.209 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the terrorist language WP:FRINGE?

The body of the article lists some historians who call him a terrorist. The lead also attributes the pov that he was a terrorist. I checked one of the sources for the terrorist designation in the body and it argues he was a terrorist because the author considers John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry to be terrorism. I'm no John Brown expert so I may be missing pertinent historical episodes where he did commit terrorist acts, but terrorism typically entails violence targeting civilians, not military outposts, and there seems like a major qualitative difference between using violence to free people whom violence is being inflicted and other political goals. Is the article elevating WP:FRINGE assessments of whether Brown was a terrorist or is the weight in the article WP:DUE? More importantly, do actual scholars of terrorism consider him a terrorist (as opposed to generalists who do not study terrorism)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The Pottawatomie massacre is an example of an act Brown performed against unarmed civilians, and the attack on the U.S.S Cole is clearly considered an act of terrorism even though it was perpetrated against a military target. My personal view of a controversial claim or subject matter is WP:OR by definition; I'm not a subject matter expert. That's why we value sources on such issues. Given the sourcing applied to each instance of the word "terrorist" and the relatively even-handed way the term is used in the page as of this datestamp, such language is clearly not FRINGE. Further, in no case do I see Wikipedia's voice being used to plainly label him as terrorist, but instead to objectively raise the issue of whether such language is accurate. In the lead, "He has been both remembered as a heroic martyr and visionary, and as a madman and terrorist." (relevant sources follow). The historiography section gives several scholars' views discussing this very issue, and I see no conclusion drawn in the section or the sources which proposes calling the subject a terrorist a wacky concept (if arguably inaccurate by 2021 standards). Following the sources, it would be UNDUE to omit language and sources which discuss such a labeling, since such terminology is often used in modern descriptions (and frequently used in older descriptions). The fact that the label is explicitly discussed by such sources as Finkleberg and Gilbert demonstrates that such language is not at all FRINGE. BusterD (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I have changed two words in the lead from "both remembered" to "variously described", a change which is, IMHO more precise. BusterD (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not that familiar with Brown's full history nor the historiography. I'm putting it out here just to verify the contents and ensure that deliberation produces the best outcome for the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm no expert myself, but I've been aware of the subject since I was in 2nd grade (American Heritage ACW books--I was a big library guy even then). As I got my degrees I've become more aware. I was looking at User:Attic Salt's recent work to strip a bunch of unnecessary stuff from this article. They seem a good sort. I saw you make similar assertions (FRINGE and DUE) elsewhere and IMHO those questions are often important to raise (to move the pagespace forward). Here the controversy (so to speak) is already being represented by diverse reliable sources in the article itself. I agree with your query about where scholars of terrorism stand on this subject; I'm likewise interested in such views. BusterD (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with BusterD, the perception of Brown as a terrorist is not necessarily the main view, but it is a notable one, and should be included in any comprehensive aticle. As long as it is only used in the context of specific individuals views of him, it is fine. BSMRD (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I always find it tricky to look at historical persons from today's perspective. Terrorist has a modern characteristic to me, I would rather prefer the world rebel if making a judgement from the perspective of the latter Confederate States of America. Keksfresser12 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Next steps / article tag

BSMRD and all interested parties,

It is seeming from the timing of this conversation that the reason for the {{tone}} tag on the article has to do with Brown being labeled a terrorist. From the discussion in this section, it seems appropriate to provide different viewpoints of Brown's role in American history. I wonder, though, if the information in the Views of historians and other writers and Historiography sections can be combined and the information summarized. I am going to take a stab at that.

I see that there has also been a lot of clean-up work on the article since the tone tag was applied. Is there anything else that needs to be tackled to remove the "tone" tag? –CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I finished merging the two sections... but decided against summarizing. It seems it would water-down the content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There are also a ton of quotations. I am a quotation fan, but they are use too often. See MOS:QUOTE. So, I will work on them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I paraphrased a number of quotes. It would probably be best to do more... and add more of the missing citations, but it's a good start.

As far as the {{tone}} tag, I think that the article is in better shape and removed the tag here. If there are any concerns, though, please say so.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

The ending quotation mark should come AFTER the comma and not BEFORE. This happens in several places in the article. <Brown, however, often requested help from these donors with "no questions asked", and it remains unclear how much of Brown's scheme was related to his financial backers.> Jondelia (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It's the other way round, MOS:LQ. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There appears to be consensus that by long-term significance, John Brown's primacy over the other John Browns has not been demonstrated. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• John Brown (abolitionist) → John Brown
• John Brown → John Brown (disambiguation)

– John Brown the abolitionist is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as shown by WikiNav stats (what people click on after they reach the disambiguation page). This is also shown in comparison with the next 3 articles in the WikiNav stats:

• (link counts: John Brown (abolitionist), John Brown (servant), John Brown (wide receiver))
• (Page views: John Brown (abolitionist), John Brown (servant), John Brown (wide receiver))

Even the disambiguation page lists him at the top: John Brown most often refers to John Brown (abolitionist). 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - "John Brown" is a very common name, and there were many John Browns born before the abolitionist was even thought of. Besides, in the UK, "John Brown" most often refers to the servant. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's why we have disambiguation pages, don't we? 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  So? I don't suppose you want to move John Smith (explorer) to John Smith simply because it gets more views than John Smith (Labour Party leader)? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Tim O'Doherty: No, because the differences are negligible. See this vs this, and this vs this. However, the difference is very significant when it comes to John Brown. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the relevant guidelines. There's a reason why Boston doesn't link to Boston (disambiguation). 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  A 10,000 pageview difference over 21 days is negligible? I beg to differ. John Brown is nothing like Boston. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Tim O'Doherty: The views per day difference in John Smith over 3 years is roughly x2 towards the explorer (this vs this), while in John Brown, the same statistic is x8 towards the abolitionist (this vs this). So yes. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  You can keep showing me the stats if you like, but I'm still not convinced. Removing the disambiguation from article titles IMO is a dangerous game. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  That sounds like your issue is with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I would suggest you raise your issues at the talk page there. Red Slash 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Huh? I've no issue with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, looking at this move more closely, I'm changing my vote to oppose, because most people in the UK (and possibly in Western Europe too) will associate "John Brown" with the servant. Scottish John Brown doesn't get PRITOP, as he shouldn't; neither should American John Brown. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just Americans or Brits. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The abolitionist is not the primary topic over the servant, once national differences are taken into account. Pageviews are not 100% reliable in determining the primary topic and in any case are below the 10x threshold. StAnselm (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  "once national differences are taken into account" - that's not part of our naming criteria at all

  "below the 10x threshold" - that you just made up? Red Slash 18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. While "John" is an extremely common name, and "Brown" is the 4th most common surname in the United States, the John Brown in question is clearly "The" John Brown in terms of historical significance, number of external references, and cultural significance. As pointed out by others, it's the most common Wiki article accessed from the disambiguation page, but moreover it dominates search results on every searchable platform on the internet such as Google and Bing. I realize that the "searchability" of a subject is often discounted as evidence of significance, but in this instance it's hard to disregard. For me, the ultimate convincing point is song; a reference to the name "John Brown" in music is instantly presumed to be THIS John Brown. No one ever sang "John Brown" and meant the pitcher from the 1897 Brooklyn Bridegrooms. They mean this John Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRMule (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

In America. They mean this John Brown in America. StAnselm (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. While the abolitionist probably gets the lion's share of the page views, and is certainly the best-known John Brown in the United States, due to the mythologizing of his role in the lead-up to the Civil War, he is probably not as well-known in other English-speaking countries, and not the first John Brown who comes to mind. The fact that the name is so common, leading to a disambiguation page containing over 160 other notable persons named or referred to as John Brown, suggests that there may be no primary topic for this title, and that the current title is probably the best. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  bruh, WP:NOTWHATFIRSTCOMESTOMIND is literally a subsection of WP:D that explicitly says that something being the first thing that comes to (your) mind is not a valid criterion for primary topic or not. You might think that "Java" is a programming language, but Java goes to the island with 100 million people on it. You might think that Perth is a small town in the British Isles, but it goes to the mammoth of Western Australia instead. And you might think that "John Brown" is the nice old man who plants pansies alongside the road, or that he's a Scottish dude that Queen Victoria liked, or that he's your cousin from Ireland who juggles extremely well, or I don't know, but none of that has anything to do with primary topic.

  A topic is primary (according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) either based on long-term historical significance (being an enormous factor in sparking the war that led to the freeing of millions of enslaved Americans is pretty significant) or pageviews (which John Brown the abolitionist comfortably leads in regardless).

  In short, Brown the abolitionist is cleanly primary topic because of long-term significance. He's had a far greater impact on the world's history than anyone else who shares that name. He's also primary topic based on pageviews. And, I have to say, the fact that P Aculeius first happened to think about someone else upon hearing that name doesn't actually have much to do with either of those factors. Red Slash 18:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the criteria for determining a primary topic. However, the argument you're misusing is "not what comes first to (your) mind", not "it doesn't matter what most people think of". I'm not speaking of my personal experience, because the subject of this article is the person I think of when I hear "John Brown". However, I think that this would mainly be the case in the United States, as he has very little significance anywhere else—he's a legendary figure in American history, although mainly a symbolic one, and not so much elsewhere in the English-speaking world. That's a perfectly valid reason to oppose the proposed move. I don't appreciate being condescended to as "bruh" and spoken of dismissively in the third person in a reply to me, and I doubt anyone else would either. I stand by my opinion. P Aculeius (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would never intend to offend; I'm sorry for having offended you. I see that the manner I wrote the reply in was definitely too course. Again, I'm sorry.

The reason that WFCTM is such a bad criterion, as I'm sure you know, is in part that it is unknowable (who really knows what Joe Shmoe in Canada or Australia or India or wherever thinks of first when hearing the name "John Brown"?). But even if we did know that, WFCTM is terrible because we are trying to build an encyclopedia. Primary topic is determined not based on top-of-mind status but based on historical significance and/or pageviews. That's why Java is about an island. It does not matter even in the slightest that most English speakers don't think first about an island when they hear the word "Java". It does not matter in the slightest that most English speakers think first about programming or coffees. It doesn't matter if most people think about a bird when they hear "turkey", or even if they don't. It doesn't matter at all.

John Brown the abolitionist is primary for both pageviews and long-term significance, and nobody has even attempted to address these claims. Red Slash 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - There's no necessity for making this change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, yeah, I doubt anyone's dying regardless of our decision here, so yes, there's no necessity. But that's not an argument. Few humans die as a result of any name change on Wikipedia, even the really important ones. Red Slash 18:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. There is no need to respond to every comment here. Back off and let the community speak its mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've made my arguments elsewhere in this discussion, but in short: WP:NOTWHATFIRSTCOMESTOMIND is policy; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes clear that primary topic belongs to a topic that has the most long-term educational significance (darn-near singlehandedly sparking the bloodiest American war ever, directly leading to the end of slavery for millions, is much more significant than everything else done by everyone else on this disambiguation page combined) and the most pageviews; and, of course, discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE. Please, closer, pay attention to the strength of the arguments. Red Slash 18:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTWHATFIRSTCOMESTOMIND is, in fact, a reason to oppose the move. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Good thing we have stats to back up the move, then. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

NWFCTM just says that "what people first think of" doesn't matter one way or the other. What matters is A) pageviews and B) long-term educational significance. The abolitionist wins handily on both. Red Slash 17:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. No primary topic, especially given the existence of the Scottish John Brown. This is global English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you clarify? My understanding is that the mere existence of other topics that share a name isn't sufficient to establish a lack of primary topic. I know that the Scot's pageviews aren't comparable, but what educational significance does he have that compares with the man who kickstarted the bloodiest civil war of the 19th Century? Red Slash 17:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe you overestimate John Brown's historical significance based mainly on his legend. He is a significant figure in the abolition movement, and through his actions both prior to and in the raid on Harper's Ferry he certainly drew a lot of attention to that movement—not all of it positive, in the sense that many abolitionists also disapproved of his actions—but he was only one part of the story, and he would not be very widely remembered if not for the failed raid, which really achieved very little apart from inflaming tensions more than a year before the war began. The raid took place in October 1859, and failed to produce any immediate change in the status quo, with Brown and his accomplices hanged that December.

The proximate cause of the Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, in response to which several southern states initiated the process of voting to secede from the Union between late December 1860 and February 1861. Even then, the war did not begin until the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. Had it not been for divisions within the Democratic Party in 1860, a Democratic president opposed to abolition (likely Stephen A. Douglas) would almost certainly have been elected, and there would have been no secession—which is not to say that the Civil War would never have occurred, merely that the circumstances that brought it about in early 1861 would not have prevailed, and there would be even less of a nexus between it and John Brown.

John Brown's historical significance is primarily one of iconography. To some—though far from all—abolitionists, he was a martyr and a symbol of the fight to end American slavery. But many other figures who worked to bring about the end of slavery were just as iconic and as significant—for instance, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Henry Ward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (of whom Lincoln himself reportedly said, "so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war"), William Lloyd Garrison, John Greenleaf Whittier, Wendell Phillips, Sojourner Truth, Julia Ward Howe, and of course, Abraham Lincoln, among others. So while John Brown is a figure of folkloric stature, he did not instigate the Civil War—though he certainly would have liked to. He is one of many notable John Browns, and the present title does nothing to discourage readership. There is no pressing need to award him primacy over all of the others. P Aculeius (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the mere existence of other topics that share a name isn't sufficient to establish a lack of primary topic. And nobody said it is. The point is simply that the notability of John Brown the abolitionist is not enough to outweigh that of the combined notability of all the other John Browns, most especially the Scottish ghillie who is also exceptionally notable. In the USA, the abolitionist is absolutely the primary topic, agreed, but Wikipedia is not only written for Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Beyond My Ken, especially because of the comments about who "John Brown" means in and out of the United States.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support This John Brown is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the same vestige John Newton is the primary topic of that common name. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2023 (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.

Brown

You absolutely should state in the header that he was a terrorist, because by aby definition he was. I understand it's in the body, but must all be in the header. 75.186.137.239 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The word "terrorist" is in the header, for the rest: Various people discussing whether he should be labelled thus are quoted in the body. WP follows academic research, it doesn't follow what you think he was "by aby definition". Rsk6400 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I googled ["John Brown" terrorist] and was surprised with the results. He is stated to be a "domestic terrorist", a "good terrorist", a "terrorist and a hero". It seems to make sense to address it in the body of the article with sources National ArchivesVirginia historyNational Park ServiceThe AtlanticJSTOR journal article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Faulty grammar

“Brown asked him why he was treated thus, the answer was that he was a slave.” This needs an ‘and’ or similar. 2600:1017:B8C6:42B8:4482:B4F4:4B27:5E0 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed by User:Juan el Demografo. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

State-level civil war

This is a catchy way to describe the Bleeding Kansas period, but given the ultimately low casualties, scale and level of formality it’s certainly not a neutral or objectively accurate one. Could this be rephrased as ‘period of state-level violence’ or similar? 2600:1017:B8C6:42B8:4482:B4F4:4B27:5E0 (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I searched through the article on Bleeding Kansas, and outside the lead of that article, it never calls it a civil war. Does anyone know if that phrase came from an attributable source or did it spring out of an editor's brain? Juan el Demografo (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

I changed the wording on the first paragraph to link to the specific article (No wiki):

'''John Brown''' (May 9, 1800 – December 2, 1859) was [[Patriot (American Revolution)|patriot of the American Revolutionary War]] (1776–1783). He was then a prominent leader in the [[Abolitionism in the United States|American abolitionist movement]], first reaching national prominence in the 1850s for his radical abolitionism and fighting in [[Bleeding Kansas]]. Brown was captured, tried, and executed by the [[Virginia|Commonwealth of Virginia]] for a [[John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry|raid and incitement of a slave rebellion at Harpers Ferry]] in 1859.

Please notice the article titles:

• Patriot (American Revolution)
• Abolitionism in the United States
• John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry

See also Wikipedia:Piped link about piping to the most appropriate title, although what is displayed may be more general or different wording for a given portion of a sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please comment here if you question these edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

JOHN BROWN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR. IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. PLEASE STOP. THANK YOU. Recobben (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Recobben, Are you saying that you do not understand "American revolutionary" (previous langage) to mean Patriot (American Revolution)?

You don't need to SHOUT - we can all catch the meaning without it being in caps.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Recobben, Also, this is the proper place to discuss differences and issues about the content in the article. I will remove your comment from the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Recobben, Okay, after a number of gyrations, I have been able to synch up the article now - removal of uncited content and I removed "American revolutionary" until we sort whether that means someone who served in the American Revolutionary War or was meant that they were an "American revolutionary" abolitionist. I have never heard "American revolutionary" to mean an abolitionist or anything other than the Revolutionary War, but that seems to be what's happening.

In any event, we could leave "American revolutionary" out of the article, as it is now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to close the loop on this one, we are leaving "American revolutionary" out of the article. I just made a few very minor, cosmetic edits here.–CaroleHenson (talk)

Citation errors

The following messages now appear when saving the article:

• Script warning: One or more {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
• Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
• Script warning: One or more {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
• Script warning: One or more {{cite encyclopedia}}: Empty citation (help) templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).
• Script warning: One or more {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).

I will add the {{In use}} tag again to fix these errors.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

In use tag

I am not sure how it is happening, but it seems large blocks of uncite content I removed is getting added back in when I am doing a relatively minor edit. My guess is that when I go to edit, someone (perhaps Recobben) is also trying to edit an earlier version (that had the uncited content) and likely accidently adding the content back again.

Please stay away from the article until I am done and remove the {{In use}} tag.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, making progress now.

I still have to:

• clean up citations that are causing errors and
• see if I can find previously cited content that was overwritten by uncited content

It will take about another hour to finish that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Saw more edits were done. (I unknowingly added back content when I edited the content that didn't have uncited blocks of content + "citation needed" tags after I added the "In use" tag at 13:44, September 28, 2023. Before I published my change I searched the content to ensure it didn't say "citation needed" at all... but the uncited content and tags still got returned. Argh.

Recobben, It looks like you are still making edits. Please wait til I am done. If you have something you are editing in the article at the same time that I am making edits, it changes what I am seeing in edit mode. It's causing a huge problem.

I am going to leave the "In use" tag on... and wait 15 minutes to ensure you are not editing at the same time. It is extremely rude to edit when you see the "In use" tag. Since the changes require research and major changes, it's taking awhile to research and update with changes. Like I say, it may take an hour once I know no more edits are being made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I successfully made minor edits without any other changes. I piped "Civil War" for "American Civil War". I also removed Recobben's comment from the article page again, since this talk page is the proper place to discuss issues about the article.

Since just those changes were reflected, I am going to begin with other corrections to previous content that may have been removed and fixing five citations that are causing errors. Again, it will take about an hour... starting now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: I was able to fix some of the cs1 errors. After I moved chapter into the title for cite book citations, removing every instance of the chapter parameter, there was still the "CS1 errors: chapter ignored" category at the list of categories at the bottom of the page.

So, I am going to remove the In use tag for right now... and will get back to the errors at night.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, as noted in #Citation errors.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Mixture of citation formats

There's a mixture of short, long, full-multiple use citations with rp template.

For the multiple use of the same source with different page numbers, I am going to add a "Sources" section for the long citation and {{sfn}} for the source citations. This will eliminate the use of the {{rp}} template and slightly change the format for the short citations, with links to the references in the Sources section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Observations

• Way too many citations in places, like: in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which states that "all men are created equal".:[11][12][13][14] 721 [15] - only one is needed for this very common bit of info

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Items used as citations also seem to be used for Further reading, etc.

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• It seems that there are duplicate citations for the same source

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Close bracket added.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Also four sources for up to strike the "death blow" to American slavery, a "sacred obligation".[3][4]: 189 [5][6] - when only one is needed that uses the quoted / exact words "death blow" and "sacred obligation".–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Find a replacement source, did not find the quoted words in any of the cited sources. Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Updates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

More updates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate Bibliography and References sources

Currently there is duplication between References and Sources and what is included in the Bibliography section.

There are a couple of options:

• Move sources that are not already used in the article to the "Further reading" section
• Create a separate Bibliography page

Are there any opinions about which approach to take?

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead with the first option to put unused sources in Further reading. It can be reverted if there's push for the separate Bibliography page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done here, where I also trimmed long titles, expanded some citations, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Large blocks of uncited content

I removed large blocks of uncited content here.

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I will also compare to older versions to see if the uncited content replaced previously cited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have any luck. This version has larger and also more blocks of uncited content, so not a good source. I did some spot-checking in between I wasn't finding citations for this content. I noticed that uncited content was improved over time too. It will be easier to find sources by using the nine {{citation needed}} tags from this version today. I will work on that over the coming week.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am starting to work on the "citation needed" content at User:CaroleHenson/sandbox - John Brown (abolitionist) uncited content.

Feel free to jump in if you'd like... Or provide tips for sources, etc. at User talk:CaroleHenson/sandbox - John Brown (abolitionist) uncited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done here, that also includes some edits by others. Any thoughts or changes regarding the additions?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Quality and cohesion

As I have been going along I have thought that it would be good to have a cohesive flow of information in logical groupings (sections). I have added some subsections, just to help me keep track of the content, but there may be a better way to group the info.

As an FYI, I know that I need to do a good read-edit review of the article to catch grammar, etc. issues. (I find it's best to do this when all the content is added, since that could change the sentences.)

The article could benefit from a review of the content to sources. I have found a couple of cases where the content at the cited sources citations did not cover the cited content. I hope that makes sense.

Are there any thoughts or concerns from anyone else to ensure the end product is good?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

In progress: I am working on review and editing content by sections - and will double-check my addition of subsections and sections generally as I go. I am finding that I am doing some content to source review as I edit.

Perhaps the article can be nominated for a good article status after this is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If you are wondering about the lengthy questions and updates here, I have memory problems and it helps keep me on track. And, of course, I do it to communicate with readers/editors if I am getting off-track in some way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You make a lot of small edits, and it's hard for me to keep up with them since I only check my watchlist every few days recently, but everything I've checked so far seems reasonable. I'll probably do a read-through to look for anything weird once you're done. Thank you for taking the time to improve this article top to bottom. Juan el Demografo (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Juan el Demografo, Sorry about the small edits. I don't have the capacity for dealing with a lot of information at once like I used to. And edit conflicts really confuse me. I'll be mindful of your comments, though, and see where I can improve.

Your run-through after I get done would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Juan el Demografo I have finished going through the introduction through the death and burial section. The diff of my edits are here. It's a bit confusing because of all the citation edits, but perhaps it will be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Victor Hugo's letter

London News

The claim that Hugo's letter was "first published" in the London News is not supported by the cited source (David S. Reynolds) which states only that it was "sent ... to the London News". I am dubious that there existed a publication called London News in 1859. There were

• London Daily News, published the letter 9 Dec p. 15 c. 6 with heading

  We have received from Guernsey, with a request that it should appear it our columns, the following eloquent appeal from the illustrious poet of France...

• The Illustrated London News; no match for the letter on HathiTrust
• London Evening News was defunct by Dec 1859

The earliest publication I found on British Newspaper Archive is Morning Advertiser 8 December 1859 p. 3 c. 6 with introduction

To the editor of the London Advertiser

Sir, My father requests me to forward to you a few pages which he has written in reference to John Brown... yours, &c.,

Francois Victor Hugo -Guernsey, Dec. 5, 1859

The Paris correspondent of the Morning Herald noted on the 9th (p. 5 c. 4) that Hugo's French text was also published on the 8th in Paris by "both the Presse and the Opinion Nationale"

Of two 1860 reprints in the United States,

• one in Boston by the American Anti-Slavery Society is to the editor of "The London News"
• one in New York by Irwin P. Beadle is to the editor of "the London Star"; with a reply from Ann S. Stephens adverting to "your letter to the London Star".

If the American Anti-Slavery Society were sloppy with details they considered unimportant that might mislead later sources like Reynolds. jnestorius^(talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Dates

Hugo's letter was dated 2 December. He says:

John Brown, condemned to die, was to have been hanged on the 2d of December—this very day. But news has just reached us. A respite has been granted to him. It is not until the 16th that he is to die.

This 1861 reprint says "But it was too late; the news of the reprieve was false". Might Hugo have invented the fake news (fake fake news?) to give more pathos to his letter?

This source says French newspapers printed the letter on 9 December "backdated for effect". François-Victor's covering letter to the Morning Advertiser was dated the 5th. Perhaps the original was on the 2nd, the English translation on the 5th. Or perhaps both were on the 5th. Would it take longer for post to get from Guernsey to London or Paris? Hugo was persona non grata in France so there might have been delays from mail inspectors or press censors.

jnestorius^(talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Should W.E.B Du Bois be listed under contemporaries

Du Bois was born over 8 years after John borwn's death, they did not live alongside each other.Should he be roved form the contemporaries section Roma enjoyer (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)