WP:Featured article candidates/Silent Parade/archive2

{{pagelinks|Silent Parade}}

{{hatnote|As of {{TODAY}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.}}

{{Featured article tools|1=Silent Parade}}

:Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In the summer of 1917, during a record-breaking heat wave, 10,000 African Americans marched in New York City to protest recent lynchings and other violence against African Americans. They marched in silence.

This is my seventh FA nomination; and my fifth nomination related to the Progressive Era in U.S. history. I nominated this article a couple of months ago, but it was not quite ready at the time. Since then, it has been through a peer review, and has been improved. Noleander (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Saving a spot here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{Green|specifically, the recent East St. Louis massacre and lynchings in Waco and Memphis.}}: is there an efficient way to narrow down "recent" -- I think all of these had happened in the previous year?

::Done. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| Parade organizers hoped the parade would prompt}}: consider "Organizers hoped the parade..." -- it would hardly be the organizers of anything else.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| Parade organizers hoped the parade would prompt the federal government to enact anti-lynching legislation, but President Woodrow Wilson did not act on their demands. The federal government would not pass an anti-lynching law until 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was passed.}}: this may be slightly misleading: it sounds like we're saying that they wanted the government to make lynching illegal, and that the government refused to do so until the C21st. Clearly, lynching was still murder, which is illegal, but did they want a specific offence of lynching recognised in law?

::Yes, lynchings broke many state laws, but prosecutors in Southern states often refused to prosecute. Black leaders wanted a federal law so that federal prosecutors would have the power to prosecute. The article discusses this in (a) footnote [n]; and (b) linked article Lynching_in_the_United_States#Federal_legislation_inhibited_by_the_Solid_South. But I can move those details up into the body text. I have no objection to doing that, let me know if you think it would improve the article. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, gotcha. I must admit that I really didn't understand that from the current framing.

:::Would suggest two levels of explanation -- in the body text, say that black leaders wanted lynching to be made a federal crime, which would give the federal government the authority to prosecute for it when state governments, as was often the case, refused to do so. I'd then include a footnote to say that murder, in the United States, is generally prosecuted only at the state level -- most readers won't be completely clued-up on the distinction between federal and state law, and in most countries it would be decidedly odd for the central government to have no power to prosecute a murderer. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Done. I added two similar sentences in the body text, one on the Lead and one in the lower body: {{blue|"Federal legislation was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault."}} I also added a large footnote [a] that - I hope - explains the subtleties of US federal vs state law. I daresay 99% of US citizens are not aware of these nuances, let alone non-US readers. Noleander (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{Green|Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that began in the United States' pre–Civil War South in the 1830s and continued until 1981.}}: I know that this is a tricky one, but I'm hesitating on "began in the 1830s". Mob justice and killings of perceived wrongdoers have a long history, both in what became the USA and in Europe. Would this be better phrased as saying something to the effect of that the phenomenon of extrajudicial killings as a widespead means of inciting racial terror is documented from the 1830s -- and perhaps saying that Francis McIntosh in 1836 is sometimes considered the first person to be lynched?

::Excellent point. I changed to {{blue|Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that were first documented in the United States in the 1830s, and continued until 1981.}} And included new cite re 1836 McIntosh lynching. Let me know if it still needs work. Noleander (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm a bit uncomfortable with "continued until 1981" -- this implies that this is in the past, which it mostly is, but it's not as if something magical happened in 1981 to end things -- 1981 was the year of a very obviously "traditional" lynching, but there have been crimes more recently described as lynchings by at least some people. On the other hand, others consider Emmett Till (in 1955) to be the most recent person lynched. I would be tempted to avoid putting an end date on this at all. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Done. Reworded body text to: {{blue|Lynchings were widespread extrajudicial killings that were first documented in the United States in the 1830s.}} and added new footnote {{blue|There is no consensus on whether or not lynchings have ceased in the United States. Some commentators conclude that lynching ceased in the mid-to-late 1900s; others characterize some 21st century killings of African Americans as lynchings.}} Noleander (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Given that footnote, should we avoid the past tense of "were"? Perhaps {{green|Lynchings (extrajudicial, racially motivated killings) were first documented...}}, which avoids implying that they no longer exist? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Done. Changed to {{blue|Lynchings are extrajudicial killings carried out—often under the pretense of punishing alleged crimes—by individuals or groups lacking legal or law enforcement authority. These acts frequently involve mob violence and are commonly driven by racial animus. In the United States, documented instances of lynching date back to the 1830s.}} Noleander (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| Along with disenfranchisement, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination, lynching was one of many forms of racism inflicted on African Americans.}}: this might be worth a rephrase: one of these worse than the others! A bit like "parsnips, carrots, Brussel sprouts and arsenic were among the unpleasant things served at Christmas dinner."

::Done. Changed to: {{blue| Lynching was a brutal manifestation of racism directed at African Americans, occurring alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws.}}

• {{green|The frequency of lynchings steadily increased after the Civil War, peaking around 1892.}}: put a date on this: we shouldn't assume that all readers will know the dates of the ACW.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|The Silent Parade took place at a time when lynchings were beginning to be widely publicized – particularly by the NAACP under the leadership of W. E. B. Du Bois.}}: I think the NAACP needs a brief introduction.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| These lynchings were precursors to the Silent Parade}}: not sure precursors is the right word -- it usually means something of the same kind that went before. Motivations for? The parade was organised, in part, as a response to these lynchings? But then...

::Done. See comment in bullet immediately below. Noleander (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots that took place in East St. Louis from May to July 1917}} ... we contradict ourselves. I think you're trying to draw a distinction between the events that created the long-term animus from which the parade could form, and the short-term causes that meant the parade happened in 1917 rather than 1916 or 1920.

::Done. You are correct: I was trying to distinguish between "long term" anger over lynchings, going back several years before the parade; versus the St. Louis riots, which were the straw that broke the camel's back. My fix was to leave the St. Louis text as-is: {{blue|The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots ...}} and change the Lynching section to remove the word "precursor", so it now reads: {{blue| Anger over these lynchings was one of the motivations for the Silent Parade.}} In addition, both sections are within the "Background" section, so the reader should already be in the mindset that everything here is a cause or motivation for the parade. Noleander (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that works well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|the Company recruited hundreds of African Americans to replace them}}: lc company.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|The ensuing racial tensions led to widespread violence, with estimates of African American deaths ranging from 39 to 200.}}: led to widespread violence avoids blaming one side or the other for it, but our death figures suggest that we mean that many white workers attacked black strikebreakers.

::Done. The violence certainly went both ways, and the first attack was black-on-white; so it is not easy to find precise wording. I let the numbers do the talking and changed it to: {{blue|The ensuing racial tensions led to widespread violence, with an estimated 39 to 200 African Americans killed by whites. In addition, hundreds were injured, and thousands were displaced from their homes. Nine white Americans were killed.}}

• I wonder whether it would be useful to add a footnote explaining the pointed line "the world must be made safe for democracy" on the Wilson cartoon? This context seems to be missing from the WWI section, but if none of the scholars have made the link between America's rhetoric of freedom abroad and racial repression at home, there may not be too much we can do.

::Done. Expanded the existing footnote for that cartoon to read: {{blue|This cartoon was published in The Kansas City Sun, July 14, 1917. Wilson is holding a newspaper with the headline "The World Must be Made Safe for Democracy", which is a quote from a speech made by Wilson to Congress in April 1917, seeking a declaration of war against Germany. The cartoon is noting the irony that Wilson went to war to protect democracy for Europeans, but failed to protect African Americans in his own country.}} Fortunately, the existing source for that cartoon already discussed the ironic aspect of the headline. Noleander (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

More to come. Enjoying this greatly, such as one can -- it's a well-crafted piece of work on an important topic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the detailed and insightful comments. I believe I have addressed all issues raised above. Please let me know if anything else requires work. Noleander (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| Parade marshals included J. Rosamond Johnson, A. B. Cosey, Christopher Payne, Everard W. Daniel, Allen Wood, James Weldon Johnson, and John E. Nail.}}: some of these I understand, because they're linked, but others I don't. Would it be useful to have a phrase like "nationally prominent African Americans such as..."? Would any of the non-linked people rate a redlink, under WP:GNG (and so WP:REDYES)?

::Done. I looked at non-linked persons, and it seems unlikely that they'll ever get WP articles, so I removed their names. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|James Johnson wrote "the streets of New York have witnessed many strange sites, but I judge, never one stranger than this; among the watchers were those with tears in their eyes."}}: not sights?

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| One notable banner displayed...}}: cut notable per MOS:EDITORIALISING (and that we would hardly be talking about it if it were not worth noting).

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{Green| helped increase the visibility of the NAACP both among white and black people alike}}: among both ... and ...

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| In addition, Haynes reported that between January 1 and September 14, 1919, white mobs lynched at least 43 African Americans, with 16 hanged, some shot, and eight burned at the stake.}}: MOS:FIGURES would like 8 in figures here.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green| The report urged the U.S. Congress to take action and identified 38 separate racial riots against blacks in widely scattered cities, in which whites attacked black people}}: personally, I'm not a fan of whites and blacks as nouns, but it's odd in any case that we switch between that and more modern/"PC" "black people" in one sentence.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|women members of the NAACP in Newark, New Jersey organized}}: female members: women as an adjective is dated. Comma after New Jersey.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|on June 14, 1922 in Washington, D.C., about 5,000 people marched in front of the White House and Congress}}: do we need in Washington DC here? It makes it clunkier, and I think most people will know where that is, and in any case the most important thing is that they were in front of the White House and Congress. Being very picky, Congress is a body of people, not a building: the building is the Capitol.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|the one-hundredth anniversary}}: this may be a British thing, but hundredth sounds more natural to me.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|Several events commemorated the one-hundredth anniversary of the Silent Parade ... In East St. Louis, a series of events were held to commemorate the riots that occurred in that city a century earlier}}: this is unduly repetitious, I think.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|Everyone marched in silence, with many women in white and men wearing black suits}}: it might be worth reminding the reader that this was how the original marchers dressed.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Link Sixth Avenue, as we did for Fifth Avenue on first mention? Incidentally, Fifth Avenue is linked in body but not in lead.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|In the United States, the federal laws do not include statutes outlawing common crimes like theft, murder, assault }}: more idiomatic as federal law does not include, I think.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|Thus, attempts to enact anti-lynching legislation were required to rely on the 14th Amendment, which empowered the federal government to ensure that Black citizens }}: we haven't generally capitalised Black in this article. There are good reasons to do so, but it should be consistent.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|There is no consensus on whether or not lynchings }}: whether or not is a tautology: whether.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• I would put the slogans in note J into quotation marks, as we are quoting placards. I'd also be tempted to add a full stop after those quotes, per MOS:LQ.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Might be worth a brief adjective in note l to explain what was so objectionable about The Birth of a Nation (the pro-Ku Klux Klan film The Birth of a Nation)?

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Should note P and note A be reworked and merged -- they seem to be doing the same job? In note P, {{green|the acts of violence involved in lynching (battery, assault, murder, kidnapping, etc) were crimes in all states under various state laws, although there were rarely prosecuted}}: this is not grammatical, and is a bit surprising after a sentence about 2022 -- I think these things are generally prosecuted in the 21st century.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|Discussion of state versus federal prosecution is throughout the entire article, but an overview is in pages 777-795.}}: on pages, and endash for range.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|African American Francis McIntosh was lynched in St. Louis in 1836.}} (in ref 5) needs a citation.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• ISBNs should be consistently hyphenated, or consistently not hyphenated.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 12: endash, not hyphen.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 15: strictly, {{green|The Ell Person article was a one page supplement to this issue.}} needs a reference (even if only to the source itself).

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::My oversight, but should also be "one-page" (attributive compound modifier). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• We seem to be using ISBN 10s where they exist: Logan 1997 would have one of these, not an ISBN 13, which were only introduced in 2007.

::I'm no expert on ISBNs. Generally, I grab the number from Google Books. The page WP:ISBN says "Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work.". I understand that ISBN-13 was introduced in 2007, but Google Books seems to list both 10 and 13 digits for many pre-2007 books ... even books that apparently have no reprints after 2007. For example, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Race_Riot_at_East_St_Louis_July_2_1917/9Zl6C8TQeMUC here is a 1964 book] cited in this article: Google Books has both 10 and 13 ISBNs, but it does not appear that there are any editions after 1982. So, in situations like that, it may be better to go with the ISBN-13 based on WP:ISBN. Noleander (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There's really two schools of thought -- either use the ISBN actually printed on the book (which in practice means 10 before 2007, 13 after), or convert to ISBN 13. ISBN 10s can be algorithmically converted into ISBN 13s, so it's possible for a repository (like Google Books) to include one even if the original work doesn't. Different editors have different opinions on whether keeping the original or converting the lot is better, but we should pick a lane. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done. Used ISBN 10 for all books pre-2007. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 50: spaces after dots for initials ("Johnson, J. W.")

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 69: not {{green|SeguinRigby 2019}}: should be "Seguin and Rigby". The SFN template will do this for you.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• What's the logic as to which sources are in the "Sources" section, and which are not?

::This is a hybrid approach to citations that balances reader-friendliness, ease of editing, and pleasing aesthetics. Templates sfn/harvnb are used for major sources that appear in the "Sources" section; other citations (minor or one-off) use inline . The concept is that the "Sources" section doubles as a list of important documents that readers should refer to if they want to delve deeper (vs. less important sources, which are relegated to the "Citations" section). For minor sources: users can see the source details with a single mouse click. I understand that the "100% sfn" approach used in many history articles is visually appealing, but I feel that it has some drawbacks: (a) readers must click twice to see source details - even for a minor newspaper source used only once; and (b) It might dissuade editors from using minor/newspaper sources since it requires more time to generate. Conversely the "100% " approach (used in many articles related to current events) doesn't conveniently support book sources that are used for multiple article sentences (each with unique page numbers). Noleander (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My worry is the distinction between "major" and "minor" sources. How is it made? If it's just on an editor's instinct, I think we're in danger of WP:OR. Some editors apply principles like "books and journals in bibliography, newspapers and websites in notes", or "modern sources in biblio, primary sources in notes", or break the bibliography down by source type (see e.g. Edward Dando from a prolific proponent of this style). My own approach is to put anything that can be sensible reduced to a SFN in the bibliography (ie, we have an author and a date), and leave everything else in the notes. It doesn't matter which one you pick, but I think there needs to be a clear, objective set of criteria as to what goes where. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree that a clear algorithm is the way to go. I'll change the article to use the "books and journals in bibliography, newspapers and websites in notes" algorithm. It might take me 2 to 3 days to do so, I 'll notify you when it is done. Noleander (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Done. Completed new approach 10 June 2025. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• ISSN for Blackbird and Visual Resources?

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm sold on the FUR for the Google Doodle (the usual bar is that it has to be doing something more than illustrating -- ie that we discuss the image itself, or it allows you to identify something that would be impossible to identify otherwise), but I'll leave that one for the image reviewer.

::I agree that this image is marginal case. I think one rule is "if the article is discussing/analyzing the image, as an image" it is acceptable, which I think this article is doing. In any case, I'll defer to whatever the image reviewer decides. Noleander (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done. Removed the image. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|Petition submitted by NAACP to President Wilson shortly after the Silent Parade}}: the NAACP.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|Rare newsreel footage of the parade, discovered in the Yukon in 1978 after being buried in permafrost for 50 years}}: no period per MOS:CAPFRAG (and what a caption!) The flyer and the cartoon similarly need their periods removed.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That's probably me for now -- I hope the above is useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that I'll respond to rejoinders on the above as they come in, but would like to see Eddie's points below dealt with before concluding the review. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds good. I've implemented all of the suggestions you made above. I've also completed the "algorithm for sfn vs inline ref" task (sfn for books & journal; inline for newspapers, websites & commercial magazines). I'm in the middle of working on the suggestions from Eddie891 - the changes to the article will be relatively minor (no major restructuring; just adding a few sentences in a few places). I'll notify you when all suggestions are implemented. Noleander (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@UndercoverClassicist - Thanks for your patience - you may now resume reviewing the Silent Parade article. I've implemented all suggestions made by reviewers as of 11 June 2025, including (1) Implementing all suggestions from UC; (2) Adopting a new approach to using sfn vs inline refs (namely, sfn for books and journals; inline ref for newspapers, magazines, and websites); (3) Removed the Google Doodle image; (4) Reviewed the additional sources recommended by Eddie, and added about a dozen new sentences into the article based on those sources. The new sources were useful, and resulted in minor, incremental improvements (new insights, new details) but did not introduce any significant restructuring of the article. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Noleander (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

; General

• Could the relevant language template be added to the article mainspace?

; Lead

• "New York City" should be delinked as per MOS:OL.
• You could link 57th Street and Madison Square in the lead.
• Could the article African Americans be linked in the lead?
• "President Woodrow Wilson did not act on the demands of the African Americans"→"President Woodrow Wilson did not act on their demands."

; The parade

• Same as point one under Lead. MSincccc (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks for the suggestions. I implemented all of them. Noleander (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Support on prose. MSincccc (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to have a read-through, given the chance. I've studied the time period a bit, look forward to commenting here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|title= resolved comments}}

• {{tq|although some contemporary sources referred to it as the Negro Silent Parade}} I couldn't find this in the source, could you point to it

::Done. Thanks for catching that. I added a cite to that sentence that names a source that uses the shorter name "Negro Silent Parade"; namely a 1917 article in The Crisis (which uses both names). Noleander (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{tq|The march was organized in response to a series of violent and racially motivated events that had occurred the previous year}} - My impression is that, while that was the immediate motivating reason, the march was also more generally in response to years/decades of similar violence. You mention in the body that Villard suggested a silent march even before the East St Louis massacre and Persons was lynched. Indeed, neither of those events was in the previous year, they were in 1917. Would it be worth tweaking this sentence?

::Done. I reworded those sentences to put the longstanding oppression first, and then mention recent events ... making it clear they were simply a catalyst, not the sole purpose: {{blue|The primary objective of the march was to draw national attention to the widespread racial violence and entrenched systemic discrimination endured by African Americans. It was organized in direct response to a series of racially motivated attacks in 1916 and 1917, including the East St. Louis massacre and lynchings in Waco and Memphis. }}

• {{tq|Organizers hoped the parade would prompt the federal government to enact anti-lynching legislation... Federal legislation was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault}} I would almost expect this sequentially to come where you talk about motivations of the parade, not when you are talking about its impact

::Done. You are right. I moved those "goal was federal anti-lynching laws" sentences up from the Aftermath/Impact sections to the Motivation section, and did some slight word-smithing to make it fit: {{blue|The goal of the parade was to protest lynching in particular, and violence against African Americans in general. A particular objective was to persuade President Wilson to implement anti-lynching legislation, which was required because Southern states often refused to prosecute lynchings under existing state statutes that outlawed murder, kidnapping, and assault. A federal law would permit federal prosecutors to prosecute lynching when state prosecutors refused to act.}} Noleander (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see Krugler 2014 included. Other sources I have as high quality on the period are: Nina Mjagkij, Loyalty in Time of Trial: The African American Experience During World War I; Richard Slotkin, Lost Battalions; and Chad Williams, Torchbearers of Democracy. Have you gotten to check those/do they have anything?

::No, I have not read those sources. I'll look into them and see if they can be used to improve the article. Noleander (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for taking a look. I don’t think Williams is essential if you can’t get a hand on it, though he might have something interesting to say. Mjagkij at least mentions the march, though I don’t have it on hand to check to what extent. Not sure about Slotkin Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

more to come, I'd like to give UC a chance to make it through the article, maybe ping me when that happens? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Eddie891 If you'd like, I can notify you when UC has completed his review. In the meantime, I'll start working on the issues you raised above. Or, if you prefer, you can continue in parallel with UC ... either way is fine with me. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, if I don't get to comment before then, a ping would be appreciated. If I have free time, I will comment sooner! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Eddie891 - Thanks again for identifying some potential sources. I've incorporated all the new sources that seemed useful; and also created a "Further Reading" section for several articles/books that were related to the Silent Parade but not (yet) used as sources for any citations. Noleander (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• The archive URL for Meacham 2004 feels a little pointless. More to the point, that encyclopedic article includes some further reading suggestions that I don't see cited in the article, chiefly Ann Douglas, Terrible Honesty (1995). Worth checking out? I am planning to head to a major US history library today and see if I can find anything more, or at least confirm that we cover everything worth covering here. Will update- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• :A search on google scholar for [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22silent+parade%22+1917&btnG= "silent parade" 1917] brings up quite a few scholarly sources that don't seem to be cited here. I'd like to see some engagement with these, or at least an explanation why they aren't worth including here, to be satisfied that FACRIT 1b/c are met. I will be making a longer comment on comprehensiveness on the article talk page, shortly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: OK, so I have left a comment on the article Talk Page going into more depth on this, but I feel there is a good bit of secondary scholarship that has not been cited in the article that could be used to expand it. I also think there's a bit of an over-reliance on contemporary reports currently that integrating more secondary sourcing could help address. This is definitely an under-studied subject, but it has not been completely ignored. I would like to see this addressed before commenting on the prose/content more specifically. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm analyzing the sources you identified ... they absolutely look valuable, and I can see several fact that can be added to the article. I'm analyzing them now, and will reply soon with more thoughts. Noleander (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@Eddie891 Thanks again for the suggestions. I've completed reading the sources you identified (that is, the portions of the sources related to the Silent Parade) and determined which facts/insights from the sources should be added into the article. No major restructuring will be required; I estimate it will be about 6 to 10 new sentences, placed within existing sections. I should be done within a day or two; I'll notify you when complete. Noleander (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Thanks so much for all your work so far! There's a few more sources that might be worth checking out:
• :::::* [https://archive.org/details/jamesweldonjohns0000morr/page/30/mode/2up?q=%22Silent+Protest+Parade%22+1917 Morrisette 2013] seems to have a few pages about Johnson's organization
• :::::* [https://archive.org/details/civilrightsmakin0000fran/page/74/mode/2up?q=%22Silent+Protest+Parade%22 Francis 2014] seems to say that Wilson did meet with a group involved in the protest on August 16. What to make of that?
• :::::* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-gilded-age-and-progressive-era/article/abs/deeds-not-words-american-social-justice-movements-and-world-war-i/78F85ED8DD55287034BB0CC3FA994184 journal article] with a section on the parade
• :::::* Two journal articles specifically about the parade [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2023.2211965] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/27671127.2022.2049452]
• :::::* [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Democracy_and_the_Politics_of_Silence/o-8SEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Viera 2024] seems to talk a bit about the significance of silence
• :::::Have you gotten a chance to look at these? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Eddie891 - Thanks for these sources. I've read through them (that is, the portions related to the Silent Parade) and I see two valuable items that can be added to Silent Parade: (a) relation/inspiration from Silent Sentinels suffrage group. And (b) The meeting with Wilson in August 1917. It's interesting that four other sources emphasize that Wilson refused to meet with NAACP delegation in early August (4 days after parade) and neglected to mention that he did meet with a subset of them a couple of weeks later. I think some of the authors are not fans of Wilson.
• ::::::There's also some insightful quotes from Johnson's autobiography, but as a primary source, I'll have to think whether those belong in the article; on the other hand, a 2ndary source is repeating the quotes, so there's that.
• ::::::A couple of the sources above are very dense, obtuse essays emphasizing sociology & psychology (perhaps PhD theses translated into a paper) .. I don't see anything suitable for Silent Parade in those, but I'll double check.
• ::::::I should be able to incorporate this new information into the article within a day. Again, I don't foresee major restructuring of the article: merely adding 2 to 3 new sentences within existing paragraphs. Noleander (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Yeah, I didn't really love the quality of the two journal articles, honestly. Was thinking that they might be suitable further reading articles, though. Thoughts? Either way, I'll aim to get on with a prose review by the end of this week :) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Yes, the idea of a "Further Reading" section makes sense: I'll create one now, and insert the sources that contain solid content related to Silent Parade, yet were not utilized as sources. Noleander (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Great, thanks! I'll follow up with a prose review ASAP, hopefully this weekend. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, digging into the prose now:

• I think it's kinda antiquated to say "blacks" or "whites" - "[x] people" would be more preferable, imo

:: Done. Noleander (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and the enforcement of Jim Crow laws" I think you could maybe tweak the phrasing here, because disenfranchisement would generally be considered part of the enforcement of Jim Crow laws, not a distinct second factor, no?

:: Done. Changed to {{xt|alongside systemic forms of discrimination such as disenfranchisement and segregation.}}

• "They remained common into the early 1900s, experiencing a resurgence in 1915 following the founding of the Second Ku Klux Klan" The first part of this sentence seems to contradict the second somewhat: If lynchings remained common (a statement that I agree with), how could they experience a resurgence, which to me would suggest a decline in prevalence before?

::Done. Changed to {{xt|.... They remained common into the early 1900s, with a notable spike in 1915 following the founding of the Second Ku Klux Klan.}} And added a cite that shows the 1915 spike. Noleander (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The Silent Parade took place at a time when lynchings were beginning to be widely publicized" Is it true that lynchings were not widely publicized before? I think lynchings even before this point would have gotten wide coverage (lynching postcards were widespread in the late-19th century, for instance), and there was a well-established African American press post-Reconstruction that would have no doubt covered lynchings. I think many Americans would have been well aware that lynchings happened even pre-1915. Ida B. Wells was giving anti lynching lectures as early as the 1890s, for instance. There is something to say about the anti-lynching movement gaining steam in this period, but not, I think, exactly what you have here.

::Done. Changed to {{xt|The Silent Parade took place at a time when the anti-lynching movement was gaining momentum under the leadership of the NAACP leader W. E. B. Du Bois. }} Noleander (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "an estimated 39 to 200 African Americans killed by whites" This is a really wide range, worth, I think, an explanatory footnote citing which sources give us which numbers.

:: Done. Added footnote {{xt|Estimated number of deaths ranged from 39 to 200.}} identifying the source as Barnes. Noleander (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "unusually explicit terms" does the sourcing clarify whether it unusually explicit for The Crisis, African American publications in general, or the American press more broadly (or perhaps all three)?

::Done. The word "unusually" was removed, since the sources don't state what it was being compared to. Changed to {{xt|...they published a photo-essay in The Crisis that described the riots in graphic terms}}. And added a cite to book that covers that particular issue of The Crisis in great detail, and describes the article as "graphic". Noleander (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "and served as a backdrop to the events leading up to the Silent Parade" I think you could probably cut this phrase without losing anything -- given that this is the background section of the Silent Parade article it probably goes without saying?

::Done. Noleander (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'd suggest maybe swapping the East St Louis massacre section and the WW1 section, for chronology

::Done. Noleander (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• I would add a sentence at the end of the 'East St. Louis massacre' section that leads into to the protest, along the lines of "following the massacre, NAACP leaders decided that a large protest was necessary" [or whatever the sourcing allows us to say, I don't have it at hand right now]. Right now, it feels a bit abrupt jump between the two sections

::Done. Great suggestion. Noleander (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• " One month before the Silent Parade, African American women in New York" Do we have a secondary source connecting this march to the Silent Parade? Otherwise it feels a bit like original research to mention it

::Done. Removed the "One month before the Silent Parade.." sentence. I'm looking for a 2ndary source; may re-insert if I locate a good source. Sentence is not especially significant, so okay to leave it out permanently. Noleander (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think it might be beneficial to combine the three sections 'planning', 'leadership', and 'motivation' into one, it doesn't seem like they contain mutually exclusive information.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "also emphasized that violence against African Americans constituted a direct assault on their families" This feels like it's saying the same thing that the previous sentence did. You could probably revise it to "Following the march, The Crisis published several photographs of the parade, all but one of which featured women and children." without losing anything

::Done. Noleander (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• ""...the deliberate refinement of the clothing reinforced the relationship between rights and respectability. The protestors presented themselves as citizens while affirming the look of citizenship."" I think this is from one of the sources that I suggested, but I'm left feeling like the meaning here could be more effectively conveyed by paraphrasing.

:: Done. Noleander (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Although the marchers were silent, many of them carried signs and banners that described contributions of African Americans to American society, or gave reasons for the protest" This paragraph feels out of place, because you have already mentioned several signs and banners. Especially, earlier you say that soldiers "carried placards drawing attention to the fact that", and here you again say "Many of the placards contained slogans highlighting military service by African Americans, reflecting the fact that the country had just entered World War I."

::Done. Removed duplicative "miltary signs" sentence; moved intro-to-signs paragraph upward in section. Noleander (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Woodrow Wilson should be named and linked on the first mention, not the second

::Done. He was already named & linked in the Lead; but I added a link to the first mention in body text. Noleander (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "(World War I was in progress at the time)" This has already been established, could be removed.

:: Done. Noleander (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Police deemed the banner in "poor taste"" How would this have happened? Did they have to get approvals before marching?

:: I had the same questions, but the sources do not say. Noleander (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::: I looked into this and couldn't find more either, but it does look like the source says "bad taste", not "poor taste". Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Fixed. Good catch. Noleander (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• "second instance of African Americans publicly demonstrating for civil rights"- I would be shocked if this is true (even if a source states it), and imagine it depends upon a very narrow definition of what a public demonstration, and 'for civil rights', is. Surely Ida Wells' lectures or the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2711607 Nashville Streetcar boycotts] might count as a 'public demonstration',". Might be better to remove it

::Done. Noleander (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "in stark contrast to the actions of the white rioters in East St. Louis" I agree with this point, but you have made it a few times. Might be better to only make it once.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• What do we have in the way of sources connecting the Legacy of the Silent Parade to the REd Summer? You don't make the connection explicit in that section.

:: I removed that section, since it might give the impression of violating WP:SYNTH policy. There are a few sources that make a tenuous connection, but they are minor. I don't think it damages the article to remove the Red Summer section ... it was informative, but not essential. Noleander (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a first round of comments, nice work here. I will probably have another round, but will give you the chance to work through these first. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Eddie891 Thanks for the insightful and detailed comments ... very valuable. I've addressed all of them; where you made a suggestion, I implemented the suggestion. Noleander (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the quick response! Will circle back when I have the chance. This week (real life) is looking busy, please bear with me :) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Next round:

• you spell out "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" in the lead of the article, but not the article body. I'd suggest doing so in both or neither

::Done. Eliminated the full-wording (use "NAACP" only). Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The specific events that precipitated the Silent Parade were a series of riots that took place in East St. Louis from May to July 1917" I feel like "the specific events that precipitated" is possibly unnecessarily wordy. Can you simplify at all?

:: Done. Changed to {{green|The Silent Parade was triggered by a series of riots in East St. Louis between May and July 1917.}} Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'd suggest rephrasing "The riots were the catalyst that prompted the NAACP to plan the Silent Parade." to "In response, the NAACP began planning a public protest" or something, because your next paragraph discusses how they reached the determination that there should be a silent parade

::Done. Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Initial plans considered a protest at Carnegie Hall, but after the East St. Louis riots, Johnson proposed a silent march, based on a suggestion made in 1916 by Oswald Garrison Villard during a NAACP Conference" consider splitting into two sentences somehow?

:: Done. Changed to {{green| Initial plans considered a protest at Carnegie Hall, but after the East St. Louis riots, Johnson proposed a silent march. The idea of a silent protest was based on a suggestion made in 1916 by Oswald Garrison Villard during a NAACP Conference.}} Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The Silent Parade was not the nation's first silent march: Villard's mother, anti-war activist Fanny Garrison Villard, had organized a silent march in 1914 to protest the war" what if you put this sentence right after the one about Villard's suggestion, to make the connection explicit?

::Done. Noleander (talk)

• I would move the paragraph starting "The parade was organized by a" to before the paragraph starting "While the organizers of the Silent Parade" since I think it makes sense to describe the organizers, before talking aobut what they did.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• "A specific objective was to urge President Woodrow Wilson to support the enactment of federal anti-lynching legislation. Such legislation was deemed necessary because Southern states frequently failed to prosecute lynchings under existing state laws prohibiting murder, kidnapping, and assault. A federal law would permit federal prosecutors to prosecute lynching when state prosecutors refused to act" I would put at least some portion of this in the lynching background section, since it's relevant background.

::Done. Noleander (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• "leadership of the NAACP leader W. E. B. Du Bois" Du Bois is obviously worth mentioning in the background, but I wonder if it might make more sense to introduce him a couple sentences later, as the EiC of The Crisis. Would also help you eliminate the awkward "leadership...leader", and I'm not sure we should imply that Du Bois was the sole leader of the movement, when there were most probably many (though of course he was one of the most prominent)

:: Done. Changed to: {{green|The Silent Parade took place at a time when the anti-lynching movement was gaining momentum, led in large part by the NAACP. Founded in 1909, the NAACP sought to advance equal rights for African Americans. Two years before the Silent Parade, the NAACP's magazine The Crisis published an article titled "The Lynching Industry", which contained a year-by-year tabulation of 2,732 lynchings, spanning the years 1884 to 1914. During the year leading up to the parade, The Crisis – edited by W. E. B. Du Bois – published a series of articles documenting specific lynchings, including:...}} Noleander (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• ", and they marched in rows" What if you put this in the first sentence in this section (something like "an estimated 8,000 to 15,000 African Americans marched in silent rows."

:: I'd prefer to leave it in the current location, if you don't mind. The "... marched in rows" is within a pair of paragraphs that are describing the visuals of the parade. Apparently it was quite remarkable: the colors, the gender separation, the attire, the rows ... I think readers are better served by having all the visual aspects presented in a consolidated manner. But I can change it if you think it is required. Noleander (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Footnote q (about the picketing) doesn't really fit, since you've removed discussion of the second instance.

:: Done. Noleander (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The Silent Parade failed to reduce the number of lynchings of African Americans" - did the organizers think that the parade itself would reduce the numbers of lynchings, or was it more that they hoped legislation would be passed which might decrease the numbers? To put it another way, would the organizers actually count it as a "failure" that numbers of lynchings did not go down, or would they have expected as much because the federal government refused to take action

:: Done. That is a good point. I can't find any sources that talk about how the parade organizers felt about the trend of the number of lynchings. The sources themselves do discuss the fact that the number did not decrease after the parade ... but they do so in their own (author's) words, not the parade organizer's words. I changed it to {{green|The annual number of African American lynchings increased following the parade and did not decline below the 1917 level until 1923. Lynchings persisted in the United States at least into the 1960s.}} Noleander (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this article is looking in good shape, and will probably just have one more round of comments after this. I've made some copyedits myself here, please do check that the changes are acceptable to you. Thanks for your engagement so far, this is an important article! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Excellent feedback, thanks! I reviewed your copy edits and they all look fine. I'll start implementing those suggestions above in a couple of hours. Noleander (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Eddie891 I implemented all of the suggestions above (except one: "and they marched in rows"). Thanks again for the valuable notes. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

::Awesome, I am happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. I have primarily focused this review on FACRIT 1a-d, and 2a-b, and feel it now meets those criteria. Two final points worth considering, that will not impact my support:

::* It might be worth mentioning the muffled drums in the section on the parade itself, since you call them out in the lead. I also might mention the legacy of silent parades in the lead, but am not sure

::* You currently end your "Subsequent silent marches" section with the 2020 parade, but then go back to 2017 in the next section (100th anniversary). Perhaps they could be combined to maintain strict chronology, perhaps that would not be desirable. I am somewhat ambivalent

::Well done on an important article! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• File:Jesse_Washington_hanging.jpg: first source link is dead

• File:Oogle_Doodle_commemorating_100th_anniversary_of_the_Silent_Parade.png: what is the benefit of providing this image on top of just saying a Google Doodle was created?

I'd also suggest a cleanup of citation formatting before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:I removed the Google Doodle image from the article. Regarding cites: A prior reviewer (UC) suggested regrouping them as:

:* Books & journals: use sfn (and put the sources in "Sources" section)

:* Newspapers & web sites: use inline (not in "Sounces" section)

:and I agree that is an improvement, so I'm starting to do that now .. should finish within a few days. I'll notify you when that task is done. Noleander (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:: {{yo| Nikkimaria}} Thanks for your patience - you may now resume reviewing the Silent Parade article. I've implemented all suggestions made by reviewers as of 11 June 2025, including (1) Implementing all suggestions from UC; (2) Adopting a new approach to using sfn vs inline refs (namely, sfn for books and journals; inline ref for newspapers, magazines, and websites); (3) Removed the Google Doodle image; (4) Reviewed the additional sources recommended by Eddie, and added about a dozen new sentences into the article based on those sources. The new sources were useful, and resulted in minor, incremental improvements (new insights, new details) but did not introduce any significant restructuring of the article. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Noleander (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My first point does not appear to have been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry about that. Fixed it: removed dead URL from the Wiki Commons "Details" section. The primary source URL is still there and is alive: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/95518055/ Noleander (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)