Talk:Juneteenth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

District of Columbia does not celebrate "Juneteenth"

Correction: As of 2021, Washington DC DOES celebrate and officially recognize Juneteenth. It also has a different public holiday called "Emancipation Day". Fredlesaltique (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker:

The District of Columbia celebrates a similar but different holiday called "Emancipation Day" on June 16. This holiday is covered in a section on the Emancipation Day article. According to the DC government website:

"The DC Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862 ended slavery in Washington, DC, freed 3,100 individuals, reimbursed those who had legally owned them and offered the newly freed women and men money to emigrate. It is this legislation, and the courage and struggle of those who fought to make it a reality, that we commemorate every April 16, DC Emancipation Day."

Texas celebrates a holiday called "Juneteenth" on June 19. According to the Texas State Library and Archives:

"Juneteenth, celebrated on June 19, is the name given to Emancipation Day by African Americans in Texas. On that day in 1865 Union Major-General Gordon Granger read General Order No. 3 to the people of Galveston.

"The celebration of June 19 as Emancipation Day spread from Texas to the neighboring states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. It also appeared in Alabama, Florida, and California as African American Texans migrated."

Currently, this Wikipedia article only covers the Texan holiday Juneteenth (which spread to other states, and may be known by other names). The article says:

"Juneteenth...[originated] in Galveston, Texas, it is now celebrated annually on the 19th of June throughout the United States... It is commemorated on the anniversary date of the June 19, 1865 announcement by Union Army general Gordon Granger, proclaiming freedom from slavery in Texas."

Right now, DC is outside the scope. I would like to exclude DC, and put a sentence in the article explaining that some states/the district celebrate slightly different holidays.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes DC celebrates Emancipation Day, but what makes you think that somehow prevents DC from also celebrating Juneteenth? Places are allowed multiple celebrations throughout the year. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, DC has long celebrated Juneteenth. "District residents have observed the day [of Juneteenth] in official and unofficial capacities for decades." [1] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: My bad, I was conflating celebrating and officially recognizing it, when I meant to stick to the latter. But either way, you're right; I did more digging and found a source for DC officially recognizing Juneteenth here. Thanks, Fredlesaltique (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Note also, the article has for a while now had a detailed report on official actions. [2] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Senate (and House) passes bill to make Juneteenth a federal holiday

Senate passes bill to make Juneteenth a federal holiday - [3].

Great news! It is currently mentioned in the article and cited to a CNN source. I'd welcome additions if you find any relevant info in the WaPo article that isn't covered. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not quite - congress is still voting on it and Joe Biden needs to pass it. THEBANANAEDITOR (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It passed the House:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/16/juneteenth-house-vote-bill-make-june-19-federal-holiday/7713301002/

Jubilee day?

Can we get a source that isn’t behind a paywall for this claim. I would like to know more. JonesyPHD (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/james-causey/2021/06/15/what-my-southern-grandparents-taught-me-juneteenth-traditions-jubilee-day/7668711002/ Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"(especially African Americans)" in infobox

Today I reverted blanking of this section's title text from the infobox by an ip editor with no previous contributions (also using misleading edit summary "fixed typo"), thinking the blanking ordinary and random pre-holiday vandalism. Three hours later my reversion was removed by editor User:Robjwev with an edit summary cautioning against re-insertion without first seeking consensus on talk. Today before I reverted I verified that the phrase had appeared in the infobox for some period of time. Here's a version from a week before the blanking today. Here's a version from the beginning of this year. Here's a version from a year ago. Here's a version from ten years ago. All of these versions indicate this text has been stable and present for a long time with no issues. The phrase itself is well-documented by the cited text of the article. I can't see any reason why such text should not be present as it has been since page creation in 2002 and the infobox's addition 02:53, 30 April 2006. In my current wiki-research I don't see other contributors who have argued against the phrase's insertion. I'd appreciate hearing a contrary viewpoint. BusterD (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

BusterD (talk As a Black American with roots in Texas whos ancestors were enslaved in the United States I think I'm a expert in this subject matter. Juneteenth is a American holiday and an Champaign to make it a national holiday is ongoing. Its observed officially in 48 states (State offices are closed etc.). Its not a predominantly Observed "African American holiday" since we are Americans its an "American Holiday" that's was my only concern and that's what I fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojweaver (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I am glad you are bringing your experience to this article. However, almost every reliable source highlights celebration in the Black community. The article doesn't claim it's an "African American holiday", just that it's especially celebrated by African Americans, which is true. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I largely agree with the assertions made by User:Robjwev and encourage that editor's sharing on the subject. We agree that this is an American holiday which represents the best ideals of our nation. My intention was purely to revert vandalism, not make any sort of statement. Perhaps it is time that we re-think this insertion, but the holiday historically was celebrated primarily by a specific set of Americans and the Wikipedia article has long reflected that fact. It was a wonderful thing last week when I mentioned 19 June on a completely unrelated subject with my Oklahoma-raised daughter and she interjected "That's Juneteenth, dad." I'd be unhappy to see any well-cited history removed or scrubbed from any part of this vital and improving page about a vital (and increasingly more mainstream) American holiday. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of who celebrates it, I don't think we need to put "especially African Americans" in the infobox. It is an American holiday and any qualifiers as to who celebrates it more, if necessary, can easily be added in the body of the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I continue to support inclusion of the infobox statement. My main reasoning is that it's well-supported in RS and in the article body and that readers will benefit from quick notice that the holiday has special importance to and is especially celebrated by the Black community.

That said, it doesn't appear that we have consensus for inclusion, so I won't edit it back in unless people change their minds or other editors check in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

While I lean slightly towards re-insertion, I believe I made my reasons clear above. When I asked for a contrary viewpoint, I meant it. I am pleased to see a collegial clash of ideas here towards the best outcome. If that means this page needs to "grow up" a bit, I'm happy to see such occur. There's a bunch of material available these days. Maybe we could move the page towards GA class review. I'm awaiting even more input. BusterD (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutral, but I will note, the infobox does refer to AA in two other places. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm now in agreement that this phrase should not return to the infobox (as redundant). Right now the page looks ready for a holiday. Even though semi- and move-protection have been applied, we can expect lots of foot-traffic in the next week.BusterD (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Must the word "Portmanteau" appear in every. single. Wikipedia. entry?

Really? I thought we were done with that 15 years ago. Would someone with authority please remove that? I know that it I do it it will be reverted in 15 seconds. RJBowman (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Biden signed the Bill into Law

Biden has signed the Bill into Law - [4]. Plz update the Intro (remove "pending the widely-expected signing of a bill to that effect by President Joe Biden on the afternoon of June 17, 2021" sentence). 2620:10D:C090:400:0:0:5:E69E (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

Change “it become a federal holiday in 2021“ to “it became a federal holiday in 2021” Jacquesvfd (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not Done. It appears someone else caught this already. Thanks for your eyes. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 (2)

can we change if Juneteenth is going to be a fedral holiday in 2021, to, juneteenth became a fedral holiday on the 17th of june 2021? Greenracer123 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Juneteenth[a] (officially Juneteenth National Independence Day and also known as Jubilee Day,[2] Liberation Day,[3] and Emancipation Day)[4][5] is a federal holiday in the United States celebrating the emancipation of African-Americans who had been enslaved in the United States ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request 6/17/21

President Joe Biden was sent the bill on June 17, 2021 and is expected to sign it into law making Juneteenth the eleventh federal holiday.[81][82]

Can this be changed to update it has already been signed into law.

Already done. Another editor was changing this at almost the same time that you posted your request. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

South Dakota

South Dakota is now the only state not to recognize Juneteenth as both Hawaii and North Dakota do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:11B:4D91:0:0:1260:46FB (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename the page to the official name of the federal holiday

Should we rename the page to "Juneteenth National Independence Day"? That is the official name of the holiday at a federal level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstructorRob18 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not yet! Currently, reliable sources are mainly referring to the holiday as Juneteenth. We'll see if that changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no. The article is about a lot more than just the federal holiday, though that's an important part of the story of course. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence -- "a federal holiday"

Currently the lead sentence says, "Juneteenth... is a federal holiday in the United States celebrating the emancipation of African Americans who had been enslaved." I propose removing the word "federal" from that sentence. Yes, it is a federal holiday, but it's a lot more than that. It's a holiday that's been celebrated in a number of different ways for many years now. The lead paragraph goes on to say, "It became a recognized federal holiday on June 17, 2021, when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law." Fine, let's keep that. But the first sentence would be better if it took a broader perspective. This is just one word we're talking about, but I believe taking it out would improve the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but to keep it stable, I suggest we look at how the other 10 articles handle it and see if it would look odd in comparison. That sentence needs work regardless, as it is quite clunky. (Then too, it is also a state holiday, a city holiday, a county holiday, etc)Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it needs work regardless. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead -- what Juneteenth celebrates

With this recent edit, the lead sentence was changed from "Juneteenth... is a holiday celebrating the emancipation of those who had been enslaved in the United States" to "Juneteenth... is a holiday celebrating the emancipation of those who had been enslaved in the Confederate States". I propose that we change the sentence to "Juneteenth... is a holiday celebrating the emancipation of African-Americans who had been enslaved in the United States", for two reasons: (1) The lead sentence should call out that it's specifically African-American slavery that we're talking about. (2) As the lead section goes on to explain, slavery did *not* end on June 19, 1865. After that there were still enslaved people in Delaware and Kentucky, until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. But despite this misconception, the modern holiday, as it's currently understood, is intended to celebrate the abolition of slavery. (@Mechanical Keyboarder:, but of course all are encouraged to discuss this.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mudwater's proposed version. "Confederate States" does not include border states which didn't secede and in which slavery was still technically legal until 6 December 1865. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Always follow the sources. The CNN source says end of slavery in the United States. Is there a contrary source? I reverted before seeing this discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd ordinarily want a better source than CNN here, but given the news excitement today on this subject am glad you boldly repaired it. BusterD (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be as it has been 'in the United States.' While pedantically it may be the case that this date was not all emancipations (there were millions freed before, and some thousands after), it is still the case that this is the date that has come to be recognized to celebrate for them all. This was the last large bastion of the enslavers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:FORUM, this is an exciting moment to see for this page. I'm so happy this page is well-anchored with RS and inline cites. Harder to break something well-formed. Will keep eyes on, when my eyes are open. Thanks for everybody's help. BusterD (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change the lead sentence from "a holiday celebrating the emancipation of those who had been enslaved in the United States" to "a holiday celebrating the emancipation of African-Americans who had been enslaved in the United States". That it was specifically Black people who had been enslaved should be stated in the first paragraph of the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I like the current version, that it's a holiday in the United States, and it commemorates the end of slavery. The fact that slavery continued for several months in the border states after June 19, 1865 should not be taken lightly. This can get confusing, and we shouldn't hide behind sources that either do not understand the full timeline or that think enslaved persons in Union states didn't matter. Canute (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Juneteenth Myth/Misconception

Could there be a section dealing with the persistent myth that June 19th, 1865 is the date on which enslaved people in Texas "learned that they were now free," as if they knew nothing of the Emancipation Proclamation before that? June 19th, 1865 is the day the US Army landed in Texas and enforced emancipation on white slaveholders at gunpoint because they continued to defy the law. Beetfarm Louie (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

The word “to” is a typo that should be changed to“two” in the following section, which appears in the second paragraph: did not outlaw slavery in the "border states" of Delaware and Kentucky, as these to slave states 2601:400:8001:4950:FC15:7DBC:FF16:8F59 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Early Celebrations

Second paragraph, first sentence. Someone inserted the word "Democrats" and changed the neutral tone. It previously read that some cities barred the use of public parks due to segregation. This should be changed back to its original term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekneip (talk • contribs) 03:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Refs do not mention it

With regards to "In some cities, black people were barred by Democrats from using public parks because of state-sponsored segregation of facilities. Across parts of Texas, freed people pooled their funds to purchase land to hold their celebrations."<ref name="gates" /><ref name="TXJ19">{{cite web |url=http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/juneteenth.html |title= Juneteenth |website=Texas State Library and Archives Commission |access-date=July 6, 2006}}</ref> There's no mention of Democrats in the refs, and even if refs supported it I assume this needs to be mentioned too... 92.20.129.30 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, phrase removed. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Juneteenth National Independence Day Act

I would like to know your thoughts on having Juneteenth National Independence Day Act be a separate article rather than a redirect to Juneteenth? I think it is notable in its own right. Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Interstellarity:,

It certainly seems to me that a separate article for the congressional act making it a US national holiday could be justified, especially if such an article included a decent “History” section noting prior attempts to make it a national holiday, and if such an article could also clarify the nature of both the sponsors of such attempts, and also of those who opposed such attempts.

Silly-boy-three (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Silly-boy-three: I started an article at Juneteenth National Independence Day Act. You are welcome to help work on it. Interstellarity (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump quote and footnote 85

There seems to be a blatant and deliberate error in claiming President Trump said, ""I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous. It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it until I mentioned it." The footnote 85 links to a WSJ article which quotes Trump saying, "I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous. It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it." 24.113.247.82 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how that changes it. Key thing is, obviously it had been heard of. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @24.113.247.82:,

The "erroneous" part of the quote from Trump's statement has now been removed. Thank you for pointing that error out. Silly-boy-three (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Date on Which Holiday Will Be Celebrated

My understanding is that the Federal Holiday will be celebrated each year on a Monday or Friday closest to June 19th, which would make it unique in that it will always be celebrated only on one of those two weekdays. The article should clarify that point. Also, when will the Federal Holiday occur in 2024, when June 19th will fall on a Wednesday?Rodneysmall (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I find this: "Designation as a federal holiday means federal government employees would get the day off every year on June 19, or a Monday or Friday adjacent to it." https://deadline.com/2021/06/congress-approves-juneteenth-federal-holiday-house-vote-1234776677. So perhaps I heard wrong or misunderstood that the holiday would always be celebrated on a Monday or Friday. Rodneysmall (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The Article should clarify that; that edit should be done by a genuine American and by reference to the actual Federal legislation presented by a USG source, which should be linked to. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Silly-boy-three (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Emancipation Proclamation Changes

Current wording is vague and should be explained correctly.

1) President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 (Changed)

2)Emancipation Proclamation applied only to states that had seceded from the United States It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy (the Southern secessionist states) that had already come under Northern control.

Robjwev (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Feels incomplete to me...

This holiday was recently codified into Federal law, feels like we should/could e-x-p-a-n-d significantly.

Time to Be Bold.

Agree, disagree, discuss? --CmdrDan (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Discuss. A wholesale re-look at the page is very welcome, a wholesale expansion, not so much. Anybody is welcome to expand any amount anytime, but IMHO the page is of appropriate size and (increasingly good) quality. If, to chart one course, this page were cleaned up a bit and given a month or two of stability it might pass GA review in its current condition. So User:CmdrDan is quite correct to call the question. This last few days the page has experienced a quantity of edits, and a survey of those changes is probably a good idea. Given the new law, it's very appropriate to consider new or expanded sections as inevitable. I was glad of the protection level increase for the holiday and that may need a brief extension. I'm pleased at the weekend improvements I see. Discussion is very welcome. What specific areas need expansion? Before we expand, does the article sectioning and general outline appear correct? BusterD (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Juneteenth is not a Federal Holiday

According to the Office of Personnel (OPM) Juneteenth is not a Federal Holiday.104.185.96.212 (talk)

References

Maybe they forgot to update that page due to the weekend. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing opm.gov does not update their webpages as frequently as we update en.wiki.x.io. I am also guessing that updates to opm.gov occur as a result of a defined process involving a number of individuals and that this process takes multiple days to complete.

Juneteenth is a Federal Holiday. Here is evidence of this fact:

• Here's the two and a-half page MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES dated 17 June 2021

--CmdrDan (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sea of blue

Hey all! Just a reminder to try and avoid over linking and creating a WP:SEAOFBLUE. I know it’s really hard with more culturally significant articles like this one, but as a general rule from MOS:LINK:

• Something should only be linked the first time it is found in the lead, then the first time it is found in the body
• Commonly understood terms (countries, US States, places, jobs etc) should not be linked
• Always try to avoid placing links next to each other, as it becomes super hard to distinguish what links where

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, many readers, especially outside the United States, would no have reason to know that understanding US States is critically important to understanding the course of slavery's demise. Nor how it is matter of significance that states establish holidays. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I appreciate that, but we don’t need to link to Texas every time we mention it etc. If something from another article is important enough that readers ‘’need’’ to know it, we should be including it in this article anyways. And even then, we still don’t need to link to it five times in the same paragraph. Links are meant to help explain abstract terms, and less is more effective when it comes to links. And keep in mind, I’m not from the US, and have no real US history education. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't find any over-linking to the state of Texas. Please feel free to remove links yourself, which you may find to be excessive. Thanks, Silly-boy-three (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Silly-boy-three: that was just an example, I already removed several links to Texas iirc. I just don’t have the time or effort to manage the sea of blue myself, and it’s better practice in the long run to catch stuff like this when it’s added than rely on others to come around later and clean it up 😊 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

since 1865

@Alanscottwalker and Snuggles69420: I disagree that our lead should say that the holiday has been celebrated since 1865. It's true, and mentioned in §Early celebrations, that the announcement in 1865 was celebrated (I would love to see that one sentence expanded). However, the sentence in the lead is talking about celebration of the holiday, the the pronoun it in the sentence referring to Juneteenth (or alternate names). §Early celebrations notes that the first of the annual celebrations was in 1866. I wanted to state my case, but am not overly bothered if "since 1865" remains the consensus choice. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

repinging Alanscottwalker and Snuggles69420 since (I think) it doesn't work when I forget to sign the post. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my edit sum, it seems to me that sentence says it has been celebrated every year since the first celebration on that date -- so 'it', is Juneteenth, which is June 19, and in fact the first emancipation celebration of Gordon's order was on that date, June 19, in 1865, and annually since. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

First time, add: June 7, 1979 (TX, state holiday) Add references:

https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/texas-bill-makes-juneteenth-an-official-state-holiday

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.662.htm 2600:1005:B117:C57E:B9D5:F07D:5727:F753 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

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

---

Change this On June 15, 2021 Juneteenth became a federal holiday with the passage of the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act.

There should be a comma by 2021, like this On June 15, 2021, Juneteenth became a federal holiday with the passage of the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act. 2601:901:4300:1CF0:AD21:A209:B3D4:B844 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I wasn’t able to find the part of the article where that phrase is said, so it may have already been removed or corrected. If you find it still in the article, please either reply to this and {{Ping}} me, or create another edit request with the exact location (section, paragraph number) 👍 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot to update {{edit ... |answered to yes}} when I corrected the article.

Friendly reminder: A bill becomes law following passage by both houses of Congress and POTUS signs the bill or POTUS takes no action for ten days--so long as Congress remains in session. More details available here in the Veto article. --CmdrDan (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Actioned per above. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:55, 24 June 2021 (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.

Addition of Juneteenth commemorations of women’s rights leaders

I’ve just added an edit on how Juneteenth celebrations honor the unique contributions of African-American women’s rights leaders, with citations identifying Juneteenth celebrations that explicitly celebrate African-American women’s contributions to women’s rights in particular, providing specific examples of the advocacy that is celebrated, all with RS citations.

Although I still believe that intersectional commentary is proper basic form in a Wikipedia article, that it is not “original research” and that Wikipedia needs to clarify it’s inconsistent one-way intersectional standards, I have attempted in good faith to accommodate the concerns of those who still believe that articles require outside RS connecting women’s experiences to the topic of an article. Again, I believe that creates a biased “malewashing” standard of history in which “women” are considered a deviation from the norm whose experience has to be justified while men’s default experience is considered “real” history by committing the error of implying that the experience of men is the experience of everyone, as this article did before my edits.

Remember, too, that what is popular is not always right. Just because editors reach "consensus" does not indicate a just decision. Particularly in a context that has normalized a lack of intersectional awareness. Sometimes editors don't know what they don't know.

This page was created in 2005. Please consider that in 16 years of editing, no one noticed this glaring omission of history on this page. I would urge all editors to learn from this and in the future work to remove Wikipedia’s implicit bias (that is an extension of the biases of our society) and proactively include the intersectional experience of not only people of color, but of women, as well. And not just women of color's experience with white supremacy, but their experience of male supremacy too, including in their own communities. It's not really an intersectional discussion with respect to women if the discussion is all about white supremacy with no mention of male supremacy.

I would also urge that editors actively call out when people publicly shame, gaslight and libel those who attempt to make Wikipedia more inclusive, as happened here. I hope this discussion has illustrated how (some) men of all races attempt to silence people challenging male supremacy using the same tactics that (some) white people use to silence people of color who challenge white supremacy. I urge you to think about putting skin in the game with some bystander intervention to create a safe space for people of all sexes who challenge male supremacy. Silence is complicity.

AmorLucis (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of Healthy vs. Dysfunctional Communication

We had some confusion here about what is and isn’t a violation of Wikipedia’s standards for a talk page, and since they repeatedly occurred towards me, I wanted to take some time to clarify what is healthy versus dysfunctional communication so we can all have more productive communications.

Mindreading/Gaslighting

There is a difference between a person stating their own opinion of motive (which allows for the possibility of other views) and a person stating motive as a fact (as an objective truth).

If a person says “my impression is…” about possible motive, that is an opinion. It allows for other possibilities. It’s only a “guess.” An attempt to shed light on a possible dynamic that may be occurring. Particularly if there is a pattern of dysfunctional fallacies being expressed. That suggests an underlying unstated subtext of some sort of implicit bias, such as confirmation bias or what have you.

When a person declares that another person IS “unjustly devising,” or HAS a “political agenda,” that is not a statement of opinion, it’s a statement of fact.

And since no one can know for sure another person’s motive, that is gaslighting that person and the fallacy of an “appeal to motive.”

Straw Arguments

A straw argument is when you put words in other people’s mouths and attribute to them an unreasonable or illogical argument or opinion they did not state or imply and then refute that imagined argument. That happened repeatedly here. Examples include assertions that I was

- Equating chattel slavery with coverture

- Trying to recast chattel slavery as not uniquely burdensome

- Denying that chattel slavery's demise is what's celebrated in this holiday

- Stating that it was somehow liberation that racist laws of chattel slavery barred enslaved women from marriage.

As Meghan Markle recently said, "That's a loaded piece of toast!"

If you read through my statements, I did not state or imply any of these things that were attributed to me. These straw arguments were created to make me appear unreasonable and illogical. That is the purpose of a straw argument, to discredit the other person without addressing their actual argument.

Libel

Libel is slandering another person’s character with no evidence. After these straw arguments were manufactured and fallaciously attributed to me, they were used as evidence to libel me as “callous.”

On the contrary, it is NOT libel to make an observation supported by evidence, like saying that a stated argument lacks empathy. The reality that coverture is considered a form of slavery by the United Nations was dismissed and the argument was made that the coverture slavery of white women should not be acknowledged because racists would use that to discredit chattel slavery. That is an expressed lack of empathy towards human rights violations against white women.

Mocking

My use of the term “ipso facto” was mocked as “ipsa dixit.”

False equivalency (gaslighting boundaries as attacks)

When I pointed these fallacies out by name, my healthy boundaries against abuse were labeled as “abuse.” Which is also projection.

Drama

There was only one issue being debated here. Obviously some things in wikipedia do not need to be sourced because they are general attributable knowledge. So it’s not true that EVERYTHING must be sourced. The debate was about where that line is drawn. Is correcting an implicit bias in the article “original research?” Or is it a necessary edit to redress an article's implicit bias? We have centuries of implicit white and male supremacist, etc. bias in our telling of history (case in point, this article) and that’s not going to disappear overnight. Is the burden of proof on the person pointing out the bias to justify the correction, or is the error in the bias itself? And evidence of an underlying bias also exists in the double standard of how intersectional information with regard to race is treated vs. intersectional information with regard to sex.

That is an interesting and nuanced discussion about how when human consciousness evolves, it requires adjustments in our thinking and possibly a rethinking of our previous standards.

But we didn’t really get to have that conversation. Because of all of the above dysfunctional drama distracting the conversation.

Again, as I’ve said before, the editors on a Juneteenth page should be aware of this tendency to gaslight the messenger pointing out bias, because it happens to people of color all the time. But it happened here anyway. This also sheds light on how a page like this would have such implicit bias—if this is how anyone is spoken to who attempts to correct it, then certain perspectives are going to leave and you are left with an echo chamber of implicit bias.

All this just shows that in every community (black, white, male, female, etc.) there is a critical mass people hijacking the conversation with dysfunctional drama.

This is an attempt to educate each other on the critical thinking skills to understand the nuance between fallacies and boundaries, and to encourage each other to publicly support those who are being attacked and publicly call out the dysfunctional behaviors to create a more welcoming and inclusive community that will produce better articles.

--AmorLucis (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Limitations for Women

Although this section is important and should be moved to Slavery in the United States it’s out of place here.....Opinions? Robjwev (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

None of this is relevant here. It is invented relevance, an original relevance of unjust devising. Coverture was not about unmarried women, and it was not a racist based system, as was chattel slavery. The holiday is about ending chattel slavery, a racist system. No RS ties coverture to Juneteenth, and no RS credibly claims that coverture is chattel slavery, any more than eighteenth century children were chattel slaves, or wage workers were chattel slaves, or apprentices were chattel slaves. It not only unsupported it is terrible injustice to attempt to dilute ending chattel slavery, as chattel slavery was a particularly unjust racist system -- each and every woman (man and child) freed from chattel slavery (which because of the chattel system includes their descendants) is the cause for the celebration, regardless of anything else. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors are claiming that coverture is not relevant to the history of the Juneteenth holiday and that connecting the two is "original research." However, the addition of intersectional factual information to correct implicit bias is not original research. On the contrary, there is implicit bias in this article as it stands My proposed edit corrects that. And the removal of my edit represents a double standard that contradicts wikipedia editing elsewhere. The arguments against this edit are that 1) it is not relevant to an article on Juneteenth and 2) coverture only applied to married women.

First, Juneteenth celebrates a historical event—the “emancipation” of enslaved people. However, there is an implicit bias in that statement, because the emancipation of African-American women was qualitatively different than the emancipation of African-American males. Coverture is a form of “domestic servitude” which the United Nations defines as a form of slavery. Pointing that out is not more “original research” than pointing out that the experience of voting rights for African-American women after the 19th Amendment was qualitatively different than for European-American women, for example.

Second, coverture applied in law to female children and married females, the majority of the female population at the time. In 1870, for example, 75% of African-American women were married by the age of 24. The actual, factual effect of coverture on African-American women is that they went from the legal status of being the legal property of their white masters to being the legal property of their husbands who had all rights of control over their wives' property and persons. That is fact. It's incorrect to remove facts because they make us uncomfortable.

Third, a phenomenon does not have to happen to an African-American woman herself to affect her life. Not all African-Americans personally experience police brutality, but the systemic, institutionalized existence of police misconduct affects all African-Americans. Similarly, coverture affected all African-American woman after the 13th Amendment.

Fourth, removing this edit is a double standard with respect to how wikipedia notes white privilege in history vs. how wikipedia notes male privilege. Including factual information on white privilege is not considered “original research” but integral to the subject being discussed. For example, discussions of the 19th Amendment mention Jim Crow laws regarding race that limited African-American women’s ability to participate in voting. That is, rightly, considered part of the history of voting rights. Similarly, coverture laws limited African-American women’s experience of “emancipation” in qualitative ways. That is part of the history of emancipation and the history of the celebration of emancipation.

Fifth, I ask the editors to consider whether or not they would be comfortable with an article that implied that all women were equally “free” to vote as a result of the 19th Amendment and would consider an edit pointing out the qualitative difference between women of different races to be “original research.” Because this article implies that African-American men and women were equally “emancipated.” They were not.

Sixth, this article also fails to point out the explicitly male privilege in the language at the time, quoting “The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.” So, this article itself includes the disparity between how the law addressed African-American men vs. women without giving it context.

A majority of editors can reach consensus to exclude this edit, but it would be morally, ethically and academically wrong. And evidence of the bias of male privilege at work in wikipedia, which has been well documented in research elsewhere.AmorLucis (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be morally, ethically, and academically wrong to include it. No source relevance is shown and Coverture is not the racist system of chattel slavery. Regardless of whatever the motivation is, the false equivalence of other systems with chattel slavery is used by racists to deny the terrible system of chattel slavery, and its generational effects, by making the argument that whites too (here women) are/were in slavery. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The following addresses the comments of Alanscottwalker:

“Coverture was not a racist based system.” Correct. It was a misogynist based system of domestic servitude, i.e. slavery.

“The holiday is about ending chattel slavery, a racist system.” Under that logic, the Women’s Suffrage Centennial celebrations should have been about ending voting restrictions based on a misogynist system and discussions of Jim Crow laws that adversely affected African-American women because of their race were not relevant to that history.

“no RS credibly claims that coverture is chattel slavery,” The U.N. defines domestic servitude (coverture) as a form of slavery. I can provide a citation, if necessary, and include that in the article's edit.

“any more than eighteenth century children were chattel slaves, or wage workers were chattel slaves, or apprentices were chattel slaves.” Again, the issue here is the double standard. If you are going to argue against intersectional history in this article, than you would need to also object to any article on women’s history that brings up racial disparities in women’s struggle for emancipation.

"the false equivalence of other systems with chattel slavery is used by racists to deny the terrible system of chattel slavery, and its generational effects, by making the argument that whites too (here women) are/were in slavery." I wasn't aware that we make editing decisions in wikipedia based on possible fallacious interpretations of readers. It may make you uncomfortable, but the truth is that women of all races were in a form of slavery to men throughout the entire history of the American colonies. Stating that we shouldn't publish that fact because others may misuse it is a politically motivated reasoning not appropriate here. I also find it shocking the implication that women not having control over their property or persons would not have "generational effects" of trauma on women of all races--including white women. The lack of empathy towards all women expressed here is repugnant, frankly. Slavery is not a contest. It's a heinous human rights violation in all its forms.

The argument here seems to be "this history is about racism, hands off with intersectional clarification." And that is the exact double standard I am pointing out. We apply an intersectional clarification to African-American women with regard to "women's" history, but balk at applying the same standard to "African-American history." AmorLucis (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The actual argument is “what are the reliable sources saying about Juneteenth?” If you feel that the status of Black women after 1865 merits inclusio, you should be looking for reliable sources that discuss that status in the context of Juneteenth history. If there are none, you might seek to publish your work elsewhere, as Wikipedia is not the place for such original research. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for that clarification. So the reasoning against my edit that it's not "relevant" or that it didn't apply to "unmarried women" are straw arguments. And the real reason we can't include these facts is because our society at large has a double standard with respect to making intersectional clarifications of African-American history vs. women's history. In other words, African-American history is at the same point European-American history was in the past, creating an echo chamber that excludes intersectional voices. If no one includes intersectional perspectives, they are not heard, or worse labeled "irrelevant" when they are presented and gaslit as being of "unjust devising." I can't imagine hearing a wiki editor say that including Jim Crow laws in the history of women's suffrage was of "unjust devising." The double standard expressed by some here reveals that scholars of women's history are way ahead of scholars of African-American history in making ethical, necessary and relevant intersectional clarifications. Let's hope that when I do find a rare and brave source pointing all this out that the editors on this page will not respond with more straw arguments and political motivations to remove it, which are not worthy of wikipedia's standards.AmorLucis (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No. No straw arguments from us, if their are any the straw arguments are yours, the arguments of irrelevance are several including no support for tying this to Juneteenth, and covertures limitation to the married and application across to more large numbers not burdened by the chattel system, effecting far more others than former chattel slaves, and it is not brave at all to attempt as you do to recast chattel slavery was not uniquely burdensome, uniquely horrific, and uniquely racist, even giving rise to the whole system of racism. Your arguments attempt to gaslight with denying chattel slavery's demise is what's celebrated in this holiday. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If I'm reading Alanscottwalker correctly, the suggested political strategy for addressing a deplorable lack of empathy by racists towards African-American victims of chattel slavery is to have a deplorable lack of empathy towards the female victims of coverture (domestic servitude and marital rape) which is also a form of slavery. Rather than taking a page from the racist playbook and having less empathy for victims of slavery, it seems we might instead advocate for more empathy, as I have. Scholars of women's history seem to be braver at inclusion and accountability--because it's the right thing to do, regardless of the risks of misinterpretation that can and do occur as a result of that inclusion. Case in point--by focusing on Jim Crow laws in the women's suffrage movement, we've left the public with a deplorable lack of understanding of the human rights violation of coverture in American history, as is evidenced in the comments here.AmorLucis (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this information is relevant and should stay (with proper sourcing), but In my opinion it's in the wrong place. This page is about Juneteenth how it came into existence, and its progression towards a national holiday this page should focus on that. Theres nothing similar to Limitations for Women paragraph on Slavery in the United States I think It would fit better there... I oppose out right deletion. Robjwev (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No. You are not reading correctly, and the public who understand coverture, are aware it had no basis in racism, and was limited to the married. The public are not served by your unsourced whataboutism, conflation, and false equivalence. For example, your false equivalence argument leads to the perverse proposition that it was somehow liberation that racist laws of chattel slavery barred enslaved women from marriage. It is no empathy you demonstrate, it is callous disregard of chattel slavery in pursuit of your political agenda. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For the third time (because no one has provided a solid counter-argument to these three assertions other than the circular logic of "it's not relevant because it's not relevant"):

(TLDR: Not including coverture in this article "malewashes" African-American history by assuming that what Emancipation meant for African-American men is the "real" history.)

1) All African-American women (married or not), past and present, experience more than just white supremacy. They (like all women) experience male supremacy. Are we not all familiar with Kimberle Crenshaw's essays on intersectionality? They've been around for 30 years. 2) Juneteenth is a celebration of a change in the legal status of African-Americans. It is a biased act of omission to imply that that change of legal status was the same for African-American men and women. It wasn't. That's not "political." That's an attributable fact. Is it "political" "whataboutism" to point out that African-American women could not vote after the 19th Amendment because of Jim Crow? No. It's simply a fact that is part of an accurate, ethical depiction of the history of women's emancipation. So is a discussion of coverture here. 3) The very intersectionality that I am proposing to add here is considered relevant to the topics of other articles. It seems that the editors here are advocating for a standard in which intersectionality on wikipedia only goes one way. That's deeply troubling.

Further, I'm not adding original research. I'm redressing a subtraction implicit in this article. I don't need for a reputable source to "connect" the dots between 1) emancipation, 2) African-American women and 3) coverture. The dots connect themselves. They are attributable facts of history relevant to a celebration of "emancipation" of African-Americans. Period. Adding them here corrects the inaccurate implication that what Juneteenth "celebrates' is the same for African-American women as for African-American men. It isn't. That is not original research. That is a fact. It is not an act of "commission" to redress an act of "omission." It's restoring balance and equitable standards.

The "false equivalency" accusation is projecting a straw argument onto my stated opinion. At no time did I state or imply a comparison of chattel slavery to coverture slavery. On the contrary, it is others here who find it appropriate to rank human rights violations, something I did not and would not do. All human rights violations are deplorable.

I am comparing the double standard in considering race as ipso facto "relevant" when discussing America's history of male supremacy (the 19th Amendment) while gaslighting as "whataboutism" the consideration of sex when discussing America's history of white supremacy (the 13th Amendment). That's applying a different standard to an exactly parallel situation--the fallacy of a "double standard." Which is also hypocrisy.

It's surprising the editors on a Juneteenth page can't see that. Juneteenth as a holiday is supposed to redress the implicit subtraction of European-Americans' previous erasure of African-American history as not relevant, nor a core part of America's history, claiming it is "whataboutism" to talk about the history of African-Americans. The editors here are making the same argument against my edits that people today are making against Critical Race Theory. How ironic. But here the editors are gaslighting and erasing the unique history of African-American women. On a page about African-American history.

Finally, a discussion of the lived experience and history of African-American women is "whataboutism"? Because that claim, right there betrays the male supremacist bias in the editing of this page. The Orwellian doublespeak gaslighting the whistleblower here is chilling.

And please limit comments to responding to what is written on the page instead of gaslighting with accusations of "political" intent. Respond to text, please. Not imagined sub-text. Please keep your comments respectful and professional. Mind reading intent is the fallacy of "appeal to motive" and does not advance a healthy, productive debate of ideas. In fact, it's not hard to see why this analysis seems so new to the editors here. Intersectional commentary on the 19th Amendment wins Pulitzer Prizes. Intersectional commentary on the 13th Amendment (and celebrations of it like Juneteenth) can't even make it into a relevant wikipedia page without gaslighting the messenger. Which, as I pointed out previously is the same circular logic that European-Americans used to erase African-American history--"If the accepted 'authorities' didn't say it, it can't be that relevant--even though it's a simple inclusive statement of fact correcting a glaring omission. You're just trying to advance a political agenda"--in an attempt to whitewash history.

Again, not including coverture in this article "malewashes" African-American history by assuming that what Emancipation meant for African-American men is the "real" history.

AmorLucis (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"I don't need for a reputable source to "connect" the dots between 1) emancipation, 2) African-American women and 3) coverture." You do. And you need the source to connect 4) Juneteenth in there as well. I encourage you to direct your efforts to finding such a source. I have no wish to tell you how to spend your time, but I hope you'll take a friendly warning that further discussion here without such a source is likely to be fruitless. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Amor Lucis: Your gaslighting is explicit on this page. You injected into this your, now claimed, unprofessional language of "political", and "gaslighting" and "Orwellian doublespeak" and "hypocrisy" (not others). You are the one who is engaging in what you claim is circular logic, saying it's relevant just because you say so, and just because you say so, according to your unsourced ipsa dixit, the sources don't have to. You falsely claim others are "ranking" oppressions, when objections to your invented conflation and false equivalence is not a ranking of anything, it's a rejection of rank and false equivalence. You wholly invent how "African American men" and "African American women" find meaning in Juneteenth. The 13th amendment did not even become part of the constitution until half a year after Juneteenth. Racism is explicit in your ascribing to "African American men" and "African American women" what Juneteenth means to African American women and men. And to assert that ending chattel slavery is meaningless is in direct opposition to celebrating Juneteenth. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way to stop non-sequiter abuse from another editor? I can't imagine wikipedia does not have some way to monitor and discourage the barrage of straw arguments I am being subjected to with sarcasm, hyperbole, character attacks, etc. The level of discourse here is really unacceptable. I made a perfectly logical, reasonable argument based on wikipedia standards, backed with evidence, logic and citations. The fact that this disrespectful communication continues is, as I've said before, troubling evidence of bias in the editing decisions of this page--and, frankly, more evidence of the need for this edit.

The issue here is subtle and perhaps hard to grasp. Namely, whether correcting a lack of intersectionality in an article is "original research" or not--whether the flaw is the addition of intersectional perspective to an article or the flaw is the omission of intersectional perspective in an article in the first place and, therefore, correcting that is not "original research" but improving the accuracy of the article. You don't need an RS to correct the malewashing of history anymore than you need an RS to correct the whitewashing of history. And if this is the first time editors are hearing about the concept of "malewashing" history...that's a serious problem.

If we applied the standard suggested here to wikipedia in general, any wikipedia article could print any biased, racist account of history leaving out relevant nuance and, as long as no RS has corrected that implicit bias, it would stand. Obviously, that's an unworkable standard that would quickly deteriorate the legitimacy of wikipedia. Because any correction of bias that has not yet been recognized by an "RS" would stand, even though readers can see the bias. Like I can see the bias in this article.

The issue--and it's a crucial one--is whether or not "intersectional nuance" is a basic function of wikipedia, or whether it requires and "RS" before it can occur. I honestly don't think wikipedia has addressed this issue yet, because obviously the standard is all over the place and the intersectionality being determined as "relevant" usually goes in one direction only, as I've mentioned.

According to Wikipedia, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The topic of this article in "Juneteenth." Juneteenth is, by definition (and according to the article itself) a celebration of African-American "emancipation" and the article covers the topic of emancipation at length. Again, for the fourth time, it's not an "either/or" it's a "both/and." We can say that African-Americans were ALL emancipated from chattel slavery, but that emancipation from chattel slavery meant that African-American WOMEN were then immediately subjected to coverture slavery. Because they were. That is a relevant fact to the topic of the article.

I get the impression that people heard this level of intersectional historical nuance regarding Juneteenth/emancipation for the first time and shut it down in their minds from the get go and then are reverse engineering specious reasons why coverture is not relevant to this article to justify that decision, which is unworthy of the rigorous examination needed for wikipedia to remain legitimate. Not to mention the inability for some here to have a civil discussion about it that stays on topic without heaping abuse on a participant and misrepresenting their position repeatedly. And the silent complicity of others watching it happen without offering some bystander intervention is also evidence of not just a bad apple, but a rotten barrel. Editors, heal thyselves.

Please note that there is not consensus on this edit. Various people have said that it is important information, made in good faith and at least one opposes its total deletion.

AmorLucis (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

All except you support the deletion from this article. Your hypocritical double standards regarding alleged abuse and incivil discourse notwithstanding. It's been civilly noted multiple times you have provided no sources directly discussing Juneteenth with coverture, so it does not belong here. You then sprinkle your comments with what you are now calling abuse, but the abuse, if any, is by you. Civility would at least require you not to repeat over and over again your unsupportable and illogical arguments about not needing those sources. For your argument to even begin to be legitimate it needs those sources; for Wikipedia to remain legitimate it needs those sources. It is either/or -- it's either produce the sources that directly discuss Juneteenth with coverture, or be done. (And no, you misperceive and would have no way of knowing what any of us have heard before, best not to guess). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

AmorLucis, thou would do well to read WP:SYNTH. It is part of the NOR policy, and it clarifies that what you are calling "intersectional perspectives" between this topic and that topic and those other topics, where no sources exist that connect them with each other are, indeed, OR according to enWiki policy. You can disagree with it all you want, but the policy is the policy. If you disagree with it, you're welcome to try to change it. You won't get very far demanding that it be disregarded, though, nor trying to convince everyone that it doesn't say what it says. Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Bringing In Outside Help

So, we seem to have come to an impasse, here. With some editors wanting to look at this content in the vacuum of this article, without adhering to established standards of Wikipedia.

As I have stated repeatedly, other articles that deal with one subject cover other subjects not related to the first subject in order to give a fuller, more accurate and inclusive representation and to correct an implicit bias. In fact, removing the nuance about how these icons of history felt about their legal status after abolition leaves the implication that they were as content with their legal status as the rest of this article implies other people were. That's disrespectful of these women's legacy.

I connected everything I wrote to Juneteenth. It's an important nuance about Juneteenth celebrations. If this article can talk about the fact that people dressed up in costume or ate pancakes to celebrate, we can also talk about the fact that some people celebrate Juneteenth by acknowledging that it wasn't the same for everyone, as the African-American iconic women I quoted believed.

I'm going to bring in someone from outside this article to give this another looksee. They will be able to look at the bigger picture and see if the deletion of this edit is inconsistent with other edits in other articles. It would be a shame if the editors of this article established a new standard that meant all the commentary on race inequity would have to be removed from any article that is not about race.

It may be hard to read that men could rape and beat their wives, but that was the actual reality at that time. And if we can talk about how African-American women had to deal with fraud, intimidation, poll taxes, and state violence because of race bias on an article about removing sex bias from the Constitution (as is the case in the article on the 19th Amendment) we can face the same kind of hard truth here. In fact, it's well overdue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmorLucis (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that you, or another editor, submit a Request for comment. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The material appears to violate WP:COATRACK, putting far too much weight on the topic of feminism here in the article about Black American emancipation and the celebration thereof. Intersectional issues tend wander off topic, whereas the typical encyclopedia article is best served when presented succinctly. The only case in which we would be concerned about summarizing intersectional issues for the reader would be if there are many authors to cite, and popular awareness. That's not the case here. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's also the problem of WP:SYNTH, taking sources that don't discuss the topic and extending a connection from them to the topic. That new connection is a synthesis created by AmorLucis, not a summary of the author's analysis. New connections and synthesis are praised and encouraged outside of Wikipedia, but inside we have a hard policy against it: WP:No original research. Ask yourself, "Is Juneteenth mentioned in the sources I am citing?" If the answer is no, then you are on the path to synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did source all this directly to Juneteenth commemorations and I did not take sources that did not discuss this topic and connect it myself. This is an article about the history, meaning and commemoration of Juneteenth, the holiday.

Yes, I did ask myself if Juneteenth was mentioned in my sources. Did you read my sources? Did you read the citations at the beginning in the first paragraph? Because they all connect these women's legacies of resistance to male supremacy to Juneteenth commemorations. Any biography of Sojourner Truth covers her discontent with women's legal status after emancipation and her vocal resistance to male supremacy. Plenty of Juneteenth reading lists have biographies of Sojourner Truth on them. Same with Pauli Murray. I linked to a Juneteenth celebration screening a documentary on her life. That documentary includes her advocacy against "Jane Crow" laws and how women lacked legal protections because of their sex, like protections from marital rape. I quoted both women directly on their positions commemorated in Juneteenth celebrations, linking to the original sources. I also linked to a source directly stating that Juneteenth celebrations honor the specific legacy of these same women resisting male supremacy. And I provided needed foundational context about the male supremacist coverture that the women were resisting in their speeches I cited.

Correction: I'm not writing on the topic of "feminism." I never used the word "feminism." I'm writing on the topic of emancipation, the different legal status of girls and married African-American women in 1866 and beyond that does not meet a legal definition of "emancipated," the vocal resistance of African-American women leaders to that male supremacist disparity and how Juneteenth celebrations explicitly celebrate that very specific history of vocal anti-male supremacist advocacy by African-American women--and I connected it all with sources.

Would you call a discussion of white supremacy in history "blackism?" Under that logic, Juneteenth itself would be a coatrack issue of "blackism" off topic from the "real" history of the United States that isn't about "race" at all--as determined by the "experts," that is.

In fact, it's really telling that you consider "women's" issues and "race issues" to be two different subjects. I'm sure that would be interesting for Kimberle Crenshaw to hear. Male supremacy and coverture are "off topic" with regard to the history of African-American women's full legal emancipation? "African-American women are Black and are subjected to white supremacy. End of story. Let's not muck things up with discussions of how they are women, too, subjected to male supremacy."

Again, the issue here is also the double standard of calling this a "coatrack" here but not calling similar edits elsewhere the same thing. When we're talking about sex discrimination, then race is "on topic." When we're talking about race discrimination, then sex is off topic and 'original research"--even when sourced correctly.

This current malewashing of Juneteenth history and observances in this article is exactly parallel to the previous whitewashing of women's suffrage history and celebrations before the different experience of African-American women was included. But it's being censored here.

These women--and the Juneteenth celebrations I link to--talk about the unfinished business of emancipation of African-American women. Just like the Wiki article on the 19th Amendment discusses the unfinished business of voting rights for African-American women.

I really don't understand the problem here. Scholars of women's history are not resistant to full transparency about the unfinished business of African-American women's emancipation even though people use that to diminish the human rights violations against white women (as was done in this very discussion). Yet, there is repeated resistance here to full transparency on not only the history of the unfinished business of African-American emancipation for women, but in acknowledging the people today who make that unfinished business part of their Juneteenth commemorations. And the stated fear is that racists will use that to diminish the historical harms of chattel slavery? So that makes it ok to throw African-American women's intersectional advocacy, history, and the commemoration of it Juneteenth celebrations under the bus?

It seems we're ok with holding up Sojourner Truth as a hero resisting white supremacy but not as the hero she was resisting male supremacy because that's "off topic." And we're also not ok with acknowledging that people include her resistance to male supremacy in their observance of Juneteenth.

AS it stands, this article falsely implies that 1) all African-Americans had the same legal status after emancipation 2) all African-Americans felt the same way about their legal status after emancipation and 3) all African-Americans celebrate the meaning of Juneteenth the same way. These assumptions fail to make the necessary intersectional analysis to give an accurate and complete picture that includes diverse African-American voices and viewpoints.

Further the partial deletion of my edit leaves an even more inaccurate impression and lack of clarity on the article than before, because by removing that context of coverture, it is unclear exactly what the unfinished business was that the women spoke out about that is being commemorated in Juneteenth. And still leaves the impression that these women leaders felt the same way about emancipation as other African-Americans did when they most certainly did not. The editor, in effect, took away the voices of these great African-American women of history censoring both them and the people today who honor those voices in Juneteenth celebrations. Which is so disrespectful to their legacies. Now it's like you're using them as sock puppets to say "Look! We included African-American women in our article on Juneteenth! We just didn't let them talk!"

AmorLucis (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you. You have come to Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs. Unfortunately, that puts you at odds with the aim of Wikipedia, which is to present a summary of the literature.

Righting Great Wrongs is fine occupation. More people should be focused on that work. I suggest you write a book or magazine article. That will help shift the general topic in the direction you wish. Regarding Wikipedia, you appear to be completely uninterested in writing an encyclopedia article in the accepted house style. As such, your contributions are not accepted. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you. You have come to Wikipedia to make personal attacks and misrepresent others in violation of Talk Page standards.

Oh, and while you're at it, can you delete the Juneteenth article entirely? Clearly it's only there to Right a Great Wrong. And you might want to also visit all the pages that Right Great Wrongs by pointing out race bias that's "off topic" and school those editors with your disrespectful sarcasm.

Fact: This article has an implicit bias that assumes that the experience of African-American men is the experience of all African-Americans. It isn't.

Fact: African-American women were not "legally emancipated" in 1866

Fact: African-American women were under coverture, a form of slavery recognized by the U.N. as such

Fact: African-American women leaders were aware of that and vocally expressed their frustration at the time, resisting coverture

Fact: Juneteenth celebrations today note that unfinished business and honor the African-American women who resisted male supremacist coveture in both the 19th and 20th centuries

Fact: I connected all that to reputable sources

Fact: Wikipedia notes the unfinished business towards African-American women on other pages because of racial bias

Fact: Not doing that here is a biased double standard

Fact: Multiple editors are violating Talk page standards making personal attacks against me

AmorLucis (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I see from your contribution history that you have taken your concerns to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where they said much the same thing that you have been told here. Multiple experienced Wikipedia editors have said that your contributions are not appropriate.

You have two constructive choices in front of you: go outside of Wikipedia to compose and publish your own text about coverture in the context of Juneteenth, or take small incremental steps on Wikipedia to make sure that relevant authors are properly heard, that their writings are contributing to the overall summary. You can do both of these at the same time. There is a third choice as well: keep doing what you're doing here and get blocked for WP:Tendentious editing, accomplishing nothing except wasting your time and the community's patience. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This has also been brought up at the Teahouse, and I recommended instead doing an RfC here, as was already suggested above. IMHO - the above advice already given is as good as anything that would come from an RfC. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This article literally uses the word "Freedmen" three times. That word was specifically used at that time because the legal status of Black men was different than the legal status of Black women. Which is a fact of history. Black men went from chattel slavery to the status of "Freedman." Black girls and married women went from chattel slavery to coverture slavery. When Sojourner Truth said, “You have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us,” she was not speaking metaphorically, she was speaking literally.

The question remains the same. Are articles written with an implicit bias (like this one is) a lack of neutrality for which Wikipedia has a responsibility to correct with attributable historical facts? Or is it the responsibility of outside sources to correct that implicit bias?

Further, if editors are not aware of the implicit bias in an article or willing to acknowledge it, are they qualified to make editing decisions on whether and/or how to correct it?

AmorLucis (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Now you are just repeating yourself and wasting everybody's time. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that on the neutrality forum, I was told that if I could make the Juneteenth/coverture connection then the edit could be within Wiki guidelines. I maintain that I did and that editors here and there are missing that.

Here are direct quotes from my source describing their Juneteenth commemoration:

"Black suffragists, including Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper, Ida B. Wells and countless others continued to agitate.."

"those suffragists who more than 100 years ago fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens."

Editors conclude that my RS of a Juneteenth celebration honoring the struggles of Black suffragists to be recognized as "humans," "women" and "citizens" does not suggest coverture. It does for two reasons. 1) "Women" and "citizens" refers to two distinctly different legal states (if they didn't the speaker would not have to use two different words) and 2) The list of Black suffragists she is referring to by name gives additional context that what the person is talking about is coverture, because those women clearly spoke out against coverture, specifically.

Here is a logical analogy to further illustrate what I see as flaws in the assessment of my source, in order to build consensus (which is also what a talk page is for):

Imagine an article on the Veteran's Day holiday that framed war as a fun party for soldiers and all the editors were in agreement that war is a fun party and Veteran's Day a joyous occasion. And you read the article and thought that was an implicit bias because that's definitely not the experience a huge number of soldiers and there are plenty of sources on PTSD to confirm that. Further, those soldiers have a distinctly different experience of the Veteran's Day holiday than it being "joyous." You could connect war to PTSD easily enough, but you'd still have to connect PTSD to Veteran's Day celebrations to correct the implicit bias in the article that is exclusionary on its face. Your only motivation/agenda is to bring more accuracy and neutrality to the article through inclusion of diverse voices.

You find a RS saying "Our celebration of Veteran's Day this year is honoring all the people who fought for the humanity of soldiers" and then the person went on to list a number of people active in the Veteran PTSD healing movement by name. You think "Great! That source connects Veteran's Day celebrations to PTSD." Because taking the quote and the list of people together, it's clear that what the person is talking about is PTSD.

The new edit quotes that source connecting Veteran's Day to PTSD and goes on give basic context on what PTSD is and then goes on to quote some of the very same people mentioned in the RS on the subject of PTSD.

Now imagine that the same editors that thought war was a fun party were not familiar with PTSD (which would be the likely case, right?) so, they obviously would not also not be familiar with the PTSD healing movement or its leaders. And imagine that one editor even said out loud "We can't talk about PTSD! Because all of the peace-loving hippies would use that to discredit the military!"

In this climate, the editors took a quick look at your source, only read "humanity of soldiers" and determined, "I'm not seeing the connection here between Veteran's Day celebrations and PTSD." So the edit was removed as an "off topic" "coatrack" issue. And everybody shuts down further discussion, being 100% sure that they have accurately assessed the edit and come to the correct decision to remove it.

That would result in a biased Wikipedia article and would also be incredibly disrespectful to veterans.

That is what is happening here. This article is biased and incredibly disrespectful to Black women.

I know you are supposed to discuss content and not editors, but how can a person make this necessary argument to shed light on the problem here, without pointing out implicit bias in both the article and the editors who see neutrality in an article with bias?

AmorLucis (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The content makes sense in the context of the Female slavery in the United States article. It does not make sense in the Juneteenth article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's like saying that Jim Crow content belongs on the Jim Crow page and doesn't make sense in an article on the 19th Amendment. But Jim Crow is part of the Wiki article on the 19th Amendment because outside sources made that intersectional analysis and connected the two.

Just like my source made the connection between Juneteenth celebrations and coverture.

Again, if intersectionality is permitted on other pages, it would have to be allowed here, to be consistent.

AmorLucis (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion from Schazjmd. If you act on the suggestion it will raise the community's estimation of you. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If the community acts on my suggestion to redress the bias in this article with a sourced edit that restores neutrality, it will raise my estimation of the community.

Also, it's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Coverture belongs on a whole bunch of pages. And there's time enough for those edits. The discussion here is why it belongs here and my belief the I did connect Juneteenth to coverture with a RS, but people are missing that connection. And

A lack of inclusion (on this page) is not solved by exclusion (to another page).

AmorLucis (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Everyone can see that you are not going to find satisfaction at this article about Juneteenth. Consensus is very clear against coverture material inserted into Juneteenth—unanimous as far as I can tell. If you keep pushing your position here, you'll be blocked for tendentious behavior. So it's a matter of wiki-survival for you to work out portions of the material in a fitting place, adding cited text without violating WP:SYNTH.

Beyond the article about Female slavery in the United States, you could add a brief section describing the African-American experience to the Coverture article. Assuming there are secondary sources making the connection. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

AmorLucis cites one reliable source: Blackston's Commentaries on the Laws of England e--a 1770 English law textbook that does not mention the American colonies. Blackstone does not apply to USA in 1865. What happened was the Married Women's Property Acts in the United States passed in most states (including the South) before 1865 and ended the main provisions of coverture regarding property. Our Wiki article on it states the Texas law of 1840 " It was the most expansive legislation of any enacted in the South and allowed a married woman to enter into certain contracts, write a will, and sue for divorce. Not only could she veto the sale of her property, but she could veto the sale of the family homestead even if she was not its owner. Without referencing the independence of the wife that advocates for such legislation envisioned, legislators argued that the legislation protected the wife and children from irresponsible husbands." Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A few words on the Married Women With Property Acts (which covered only a very small part of coverture for only a very small percentage of married women):

1) It only applied to property brought into the marriage or received as a gift or bequest during marriage. If she didn't bring money into the marriage, once a woman was married, any power she had for earning her own keep on her own was gone, as any wages she earned during marriage were the property of her husband.

2) It only applied to property, not a woman's person or her children. Consent for sex was implied, so marital rape was legitimate and so was wife beating. A husband had custody of her children.

3) There's so much more to coverture, but just a couple more...Husbands had control over a wife's movements and education, too.

4) Not having a legal way to support yourself and being economically dependent on another for your food clothing and shelter, not having protections from beatings and rapes, and not having any legal right to your children all falls under United Nations' standards for slavery.

Now people are trying to water down the egregious nature of coverture which was a form of legal slavery, by definition. Even the Wiki article the above commenter is referring to makes that point in the article, stating

"In the years following the Civil War, Harriet Beecher Stowe campaigned for the expansion of married women's rights, arguing in 1869 that:

'The position of a married woman ... is, in many respects, precisely similar to that of the negro slave.'"

If people can post misleading assertions about the Married Women With Property Act and the page will block me for correcting them, well...my estimation of the community will continue to lower. (If other people can post about the community's estimation of me, then I can post about my estimation of the community).

AmorLucis (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a deeply problematic intersectional inconsistency running through nearly every comment I've received on this edit.

Yes, coverture should be added here and in many other articles. Unfortunately I will not be the person to do it as I have a policy of leaving communities that have displayed the dynamics I have seen here across the board.

That's not sour grapes, that's healthy boundaries.

That last attempt to misrepresent the Married Women With Property Acts was the last straw.

AmorLucis (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

AmorLucis badly hurts his own argument by failing to cite the source for his curious notions. As for coverture by the time of the Civil War and Emancipation it was no longer the powerful factor he assumes. Princeton Professor Henrik Hertog says: "By the 1850s, many aspects of family law appeared uncertain and contested. Legal reform had altered the balance of legal power within marriage. A mid-nineteenth century American husband knew—or might suddenly discover—that he was no longer sure of his legal rights over his wife, no longer sure of his rights over his children. He had lost some security of possession over his domestic domain. In the zerosum game of marital struggles, wives had gained public legal rights, and that necessarily meant losses of rights for husbands." [Journal of American History June 1997 p 67 ] Rjensen (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(I'm just correcting the record about what people are posting about coverture. I get that my edit is not going to happen.)

Two things: it’s interesting that this discussion has now morphed into a discussion of the meaning of coverture itself and

I’m not sure that failing to source “badly hurts an argument,” if the argument is based on attributable facts, but anyway…here ya go.

“The laws varied from state to state and the wording in some of the laws was vague. Moreover, in the ensuing years, many of the first married women's property acts were challenged in the courts and their usefulness negated by the restrictive interpretation of the conservative judges.”

“Because of the conservative interpretation of the property act by the Judiciary the laws did not change a great deal in the lives of women.”

“Moreover since the married women's property laws that were passed in the 1840s only covered property that a woman brought into marriage or received the gift or bequest during marriage all of the money that a married woman earned was legally her husbands.”

Warren, Joyce W. (2005). Women, Money, and the Law: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Gender, and the Courts. University of Iowa Press. pp. 51–3

(I got that source in the Wikipedia page on Married Women’s Property Acts in the United States)

The Married Women Property Acts that are being cited here by Rjensen did not legally substantially change what coverture meant because they only addressed property, only certain types of property and not the woman’s person or her children. And what they did address was explicitly reversed in practice by the judicial system and/or implicitly by the culture at large.

Coverture was a form of slavery. There are Black and White women’s rights leaders of the time who said so (like Sojourner Truth—who I quoted in the original edit and sourced). And it was worse for women with even less resources because of their class/race, etc. So it was worse for Black women.

It’s interesting that even in 2021, we do not have an honest and accurate understanding of what coverture meant for half of the population, which is why, I believe, people are not seeing its relevance to this article.

Coverture is relevant to any article that touches on "emancipation" and specifically uses the language "freedmen" as this article does. It's inclusion is necessary for a neutral point of view. As it stands, this article assumes that the legal identify of "Freedmen" was the legal identity for all. That's a bias that misrepresents the history of Black women in general and historical icons like Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper, Pauli Murray, etc.

Yes, coverture belongs in other articles about slavery and emancipation. It also belongs here.

I do appreciate the editors who have acknowledged that this just can't be put in because the public doesn't get this at large yet, so it's not part of common knowledge. But it's kind of circular, ya know? If it's not here, people don't know, if people don't know, it's not here. Rinse, repeat. And some people do know. Like the source that I cited that honors women's leaders who spoke out against coverture in their Juneteenth commemorations. But people didn't see that connection, so they saw this as somehow adding "feminism" to the article (as one editor commented).

It's the same old chestnut. It's like when people say that adding the experience of Black people to history is creating an imbalance, not correcting one. The idea that adding the true, verifiable history of Black women is "feminism" and therefore, off-topic is, again, intersectional inconsistency.

It should be obvious that coverture is relevant to the subject of this article. We're just not there yet.

But I am.

AmorLucis (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop with the walls of text, it does not make your argument stronger. Do any RS discuss the topic you wish to add, so any RS say black women were not emacipated and thus Juneteenth is not about them? That is all that matters, not what you see as facts, what RS consider of note.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Name origin an pronunciation?

As a Non-US-Person this article never answers two important questions to me, at least not in any spot it can easily be found, i.e. the (way too long) blurb or a separate section.

1. Where does the name come from?
2. How do you even pronounce that? Like "teen"? like "ten"? Like "ten" while pulling the e long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.46.143 (talk • contribs) 03:48, June 19, 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pronounced "teen", like in "nineteenth". Also, in the future, please sign your name on your posts by typing 4 ~ characters after your post. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Juneteenth is poor English and a colloquial mispronunciation by Black Americans. This should be mentioned in this Wikipedia article because so many people are wondering about it. 47.205.199.6 (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You can consult a dictionary and even listen to the audio, if you like [5] [6]. While it may have one time been a colloquialism, it's obviously now in multiple formal writings for decades, including journal articles, books, and laws. As for how various individuals pronounce June and teenth, it probably depends on their accent, [7]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Etymology!

Why is the etymology of the word "Juneteenth" completely ignored in this article (as far as I can see)? I have lived in 5 U.S. states for dozens of years, had lots of black friends & associates, and never I heard of it until recently. Who minted the word? When did it reach mainstream media? Have reliable sources praised the word; criticized it; commented on it at all? Is it considered degrading? Humorous? Ethnically dumb-dumb? Fabulous? White supremacist? Soulful? Was their any discussion about using it in the name of the national holiday? Needs to be addressed, or smacks of censorship. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Juneteenth is short for June 19th....Not all Black Americans know about the holiday and the the history behind it. That might explain why you haven't heard about it before. It's also possible that they Knew about Juneteenth but it never came up in discussions with you. With 44+ million black people in the United States chances are you haven't converse with the right ones. Here's some info that might help you. Regards.. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-holidays-juneteenth-lifestyle-f8648a23f2f6bdb2db3d648458828651 Robjwev (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, not helpful at all. I know what the word means. The issue here is only where this word came from, who made it up: "Who minted the word? When did it reach ... (please reread above and don't bother to reply to anything else). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

But your original comment makes almost no sense, especially here. In part perhaps it is because of your WP:SHOUTING. If you have reference questions, take them to Wikipedia:Reference desk, see also, WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not a forum your personal anecdotes, let alone your personal anecdotes of your ignorance. Your then jumping to a claim of censorship after going on about your ignorance is absurd.

As for etymology, to the extent it exists, this article already covers it, to the same extent as the dictionaries above, see Juneteenth. If you actually think there are answers to your personal questions, do your research, find sources, and don't make bizarre and baseless claims of censorship, based on your own attempt turn this into a forum on your ignorance anecdotes. To begin with, perhaps read all the sources in this article, they may point a way for you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that it's not helpful to you. Everyone else understands the meaning it's up to you to find your understanding. The fact remains that Juneteeth is short for June 19th...Nothing is going to change that because someone can't understand it. I hope you find out what you're looking for. Robjwev (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Anyone answering my query address its essence if you know anything about that: who minted the expression "Juneteenth", when and where did the word originate and when did it begin to be used in mainstream media? (Please stop criticizing me, putting me down, ordering me around & writing about other issues than the ones I've asked about, such as over and over about what the word means, which I have not asked - these are clear, legitimate questions and the article lacks this information entirely.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As indicated above, the Wikipedia article already says when originated and among who, with citation. So, it is not the case that the article does not have any such information entirely. If others wish to research your other questions, or tell you of published research already known to them, or find additional information to find sources for this article, they are free to do so or not, or you can, but it should be with citations, as this is not general forum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There are some inexplicably angry responses here. I too, as a non-American, would love to know how the name came about. Does nobody actually know? HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if we have to wait for some balanced input so long that this goes to archive. That would be sad, because the absence of this info is glaring. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

June nineteenth. Or alternately (makes no difference) June nineteenth. Blended into one word. Such constructions are of organic origin and are commonplace in English. Halloween, for example, came from Hallowmass eve(ning). 9 o'clock is from "9 of the clock". Juneteenth is no different..need it be mentioned that "June" and "nine" both end with the phoneme /n/? And that is what makes the construction work with the date of 19th? I don't know what more information y'all are asking for.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no question of the word's construction and meaning here. Several other users and I are asking for the origin of the word, who made it up, who promoted it, when did it begin to be used generally, and where if any of that is known. The issues seem to me to be abundantly clear here, and there is no comprehensible explanation of this in the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The word "Juneteenth" is cited to this JSTOR article as beginning in the 1890s in Texas. The source says, "In the early 1890s, blacks began using 'Juneteenth' to describe Jubilee Day." To support this statement, the authors provide a citation to three published works:

• William H. Wiggins, Jr.; Douglas DeNatale; McKissick Museum, eds. (1993). "From Galveston to Washington: Charting Juneteenth's Freedom Trail". Jubilation! : African American celebrations in the Southeast. University of South Carolina Press. pp. 61–67. OCLC 28633949.
• Sitton, Thad; Conrad, James H. (2005). Freedom Colonies: Independent Black Texans in the Time of Jim Crow. University of Texas Press. pp. 104–107. ISBN 978-0-292-70642-2.
• Pemberton, Doris Hollis (1983). Juneteenth at Comanche Crossing. Austin: Eakin Press. OCLC 9530143.

I don't have these publications at my fingertips, and I couldn't find anything from the 1890s supporting the assertion. When I went looking through Google Books to see what they have as the earliest published instance, I found two works dated from 1909: The Current Issue from January 1909 which complains about the high cost of getting ready for Juneteenth, and San Antonio: Historical and Modern, which condescendingly describes the city of San Antonio as having many different kinds of people including "negroes discuss of 'possum and taters' and the glory of 'June 'teenth'..." Note that the latter source splits the word into two parts, making the contraction more obvious. The main interpretation is that the term is combination of "June" and "nineteenth".[8] In 1999, The Baltimore Sun wrote that an alternate interpretion of the contraction embraces the imprecision regarding which day the news arrived, it was somewhere between June 13 and June 19 that news of emancipation came to Oklahoma and Texas, so the "-teenth" covers all those days. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! No need to repeat that "the term is combination of 'June' and 'nineteenth'" again here or the speculated (?) alternate interpretation by the Baltimore Sun.

To the point of this talk section: where, in this article, is there anything about the word's origin in the 1890s, which you write of, and in 1909? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

By the 1890s, Jubilee Day had become known as Juneteenth.[38] with that same source mentioned above ... -- Mvbaron (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Serge, the 1890s part is right above "Decline during Jim Crow" section. The 1909 stuff is not in the article—I just was showing what I found in Google. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed (I hope) as per the above info & sources. Thank you all who made constructive comments here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit in "Juneteenth in pop culture and mass media"

My proposed edit for the "Juneteenth in pop culture and mass media" section. (I came across this while I was researching connections between Juneteenth and women and thought it should be considered for inclusion in this article.)

The 2020 mother-daughter film on the holiday's pageant culture, “Miss Juneteenth,” celebrates African-American women who are “determined to stand on their own,” while a resourceful mother is “getting past a sexist tendency in her community to keep women in their place.”

The RS is the review of the movie in Rolling Stone magazine.

Any objections?

AmorLucis (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We have it in the see also section. But I have no objection to this addition.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on this, User:AmorLucis. No objection as proposed. Here's a formatted cite for your bare link: . BusterD (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, added.

AmorLucis (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections overall but, the first sentence is a quote from the director. The last sentence is part of the movie plot. They seemed to represent one quote from the director that's my only concern. Robjwev (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please cite the quote you are referring to from the director in the body of the Rolling Stone review? Because in my reading of the review, both quotes are in the voice of the reviewer, Peter Travers. Thank you.

AmorLucis (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

My fault I have no objections. Robjwev (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, Robjwev. AmorLucis (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Date

I went to the article curious as to the date, and didn't find it although it was there. So I found a reference that seemed to answer the question, and added the information.

It has been reverted, and it's true that the information was already further down. It's at the 14th of 17 occurrences of date in the article, and in a paragraph headed National.

No doubt we can do better than my edit, but I think we can also do better than the current article. How the date is decided is something that I think should be fairly easy to find in the article, probably in the top section or sidebar.

And it's I suppose possible that some states do have the holiday but don't follow the nationally legislated date, for example. It would be good to say either way.

Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Juneteenth on June 20

@Fyunck(click): either you're misinterpreting the officeholidays.com source, or the source is misstating the facts. Juneteenth is celebrated on June 19 every year. If it falls on a weekend, many American workers will get either the Friday or Monday off, but that doesn't mean the celebration will occur on any day other than the 19th. I'm not confident that the source is reliable enough to hold fast to absurd claims like Christmas on December 26th or Independence Day on the 5th of July. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I agree with your recent edit, but I want to make sure you're aware of this talk page discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'd removed the newly added date with inadequate sourcing from the infobox. Yes, Juneteenth is June 19, and your Christmas and July 4 similar examples seem apt. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not the same at all. Veteran's Day stays the same.... observed November 11 every single year. No matter what day it falls on. Christmas is observed December 25 every single year, no matter what day it falls on. Juneteeenth is celebrated on June 19th, UNLESS it falls on a Saturday or Sunday. If it falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is observed on Friday or Monday. Martin Luther King's Birthday is January 15. Now some may celebrate it on January 15, but it is observed and celebrated on the third Monday in January and that's how it's written in the infobox. I don't see the issue here. My goodness there are heaps of sources that say this. Bloomberg, Federal Pay, AP News, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

And now someone has removed a special template against Wikipedia policy. It needs a thorough vetting here before that can be done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No it's not. There's absolutely not a major problem of POV in the article, and you shouldn't drive-by tag it like this. This discussion might go in your favor anyways, no reason to POV-tag the article for such a minor infobox issue. Mvbaron (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It was not drive by at all. The article had long said the date varies. The prose and source in the article says the date varies. Someone removed that fact and when I attempted to correct it I was reverted and this discussion took place. That article as it stands has an issue and that template cannot be removed till it's resolved. I asked you to put it back and you refused. That is a problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Rather than having this pointless debate, let's talk about your proposal. The 2nd source above says: It is celebrated every June 19th with a footnote ... when a holidays falls on a weekend the holiday is observed on the closest regular workday. The holiday is observed on Friday if the holiday falls on Saturday and Monday if the holiday falls on Sunday So the whole contention here is the difference between "celebrated" and "observed". We can (just like in your sources) put the 19th in the infobox and have a footnote (exactly like your sources) saying "when the holiday falls on a weekend the holiday is observed on the closest regular workday". I don't see the problem. Mvbaron (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• This seems easy. Juneteenth is and will be "celebrated" on June 19. If it falls on Saturday or Sunday Federal workers will get a Friday or Monday off, but that Friday or Monday will not be Juneteenth, which is set in stone as June 19. Just as Christmas is December 25, no matter when workers get the day off. So saying Juneteenth is June 20 in the infobox is simply incorrect as to the day. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Veterans Day in the US is similar too. Whereas, MLK Day, like Memorial Day and Labor Day is fixed to a Monday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Veteran's Day is celebrated on Nov 11, Christmas on the Dec 25. The nearest Monday will never say "Christmas Observed" on Dec 26. Juneteenth will... even my latest 2022 calendar says Juneteenth Observed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  'Federal Pay', which you cited above, does say that Christmas will be observed on Dec 26th in 2022. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  To the contrary, the sources you're using all note the "observed" date as being off from the celebration date. The "observed" doesn't mean the holiday is celebrated that day, just that employees get an additional day off. See:

  • The UPenn source you added has Christmas Day observed on Dec. 24 and Independence Day on Jul. 5
  • OfficeHolidays.com uses "in lieu" instead of "observed", and also has Christmas on Dec. 24 this year

  I like Alanscottwalker's footnote solution, which can help readers understand if there will be a different day off of work without making the absurd claim that Juneteenth will be celebrated on the 18th or 20th. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  So do we change the other holidays? Washington's birthday is Feb 22, but it is observed on the 3rd Monday in February. Martin Luther King's bday is January 15, but it is observed the 3rd Monday in January. You find me any calendar that "observes" Christmas on a day other than Dec 25th. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I just linked you to two, and they're both your sources. We may want to discuss more at Template talk:Infobox holiday, but it's clear that common practice is to list the celebration day. I think it's common sense that if we're going to show only one day, it should be the celebration day. If we're also going to show the "observed" date, it needs some explanation, and I think a footnote is a good place for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you mean by change other holidays. In Federal law there are at least two types of holidays: ones that are fixed on a date like Juneteenth, Christmas, etc.; and ones that are fixed to a particular Monday in a month (or in the case of Thanksgiving a particular Thursday). Also, my edit did not remove any sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  The observed date is pretty much always the celebration day, and it's the actual date that gets lost. Juneteenth will get celebrated on a Monday next year. It's an in-between sort of holiday. It is not fixed like Veteran's Day and it is not like the always Monday celebration of Washington's Birthday. It is usually fixed but sometimes movable, like in 2022. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  No. As our article already says, Juneteenth is fixed like New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, and Christmas. And those sometimes happen on a Saturday or Sunday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Would it help you to see the legal code itself? Juneteenth National Independence Day is listed with June 19 as the date. The next bit of the code lays out the rule about holidays falling on the weekend getting a Friday/Monday off. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  The legal code only does so much and says nothing about what day a holiday is observed. States can celebrate it any day of the year or not at all. Legal Code also says we celebrate Washington's Birthday when many states celebrate President's Day. Christmas is only celebrated and observed on Dec 25. Memorial Day is celebrated and observed on the last Monday in May, though it is actually on May 30. Juneteenth is celebrated and observed on June 19 unless it falls on a Saturday or Sunday. In 2022 it should be celebrated and observed on June 20 in most states. It'll be interesting to see when most parades are organized. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Should? Is that some kind of made up rule. People are free to observe how they want, eg. many people celebrate Christmas not on the 25th, otherwise whole Decembers would be much freer and 24th's less hectic, or St Patrick's Day the weekend before, much more sober, with fewer parades, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

All I ask is that the conventions used on the infoboxes here and on Independence Day (United States) and Veterans Day (the other U.S.-only, federal holidays that are celebrated on same calendar date each year, irrespective of the day of the week) stay rather consistent (I'm not concerned with New Year's Day and Christmas Day right now because those are worldwide holidays and thus require different discussion and consensus). It seems the current consensus being formed is to use this footnote that was added. Although it is possible to do something like what Fyunck(click) suggests: this is done on Koninkrijksdag and Tynwald Day where code is added to Template:Infobox holiday/date to automatically compute the date if the holiday falls on the weekend. The other extreme is to do nothing special to the infobox at all, like on Canada Day and only mention what happens to employees and businesses on the weekend in the last paragraph of Canada Day#Commemoration. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The infobox is for quick facts. The relevant quick fact is that Juneteenth is set by federal statute as June 19. Complexity belongs in prose in the article body, not the infobox; we can and should describe in prose how the observed federal holiday may shift around to give a free weekday to federal workers. But that doesn't change the base date of June 19 as the focus of celebration every year. Let's keep the infobox as simple as possible, without resorting to footnotes. Prose is your friend. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Its called Juneteenth, not Junety. It's official date is the 19th, the 19th is what we put.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As to other articles, I don't know think we can assert authority over other articles, here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought this was a meme by Plainrock124

. 110.5.69.161 (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a sugested edit?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

History Map

Am I going colorblind or is the map found in the 'early history' section have completely different shades of colors than those shown in the legend? I count multiple shades of green and blue even though those are not present. Makes reading the map very confusing.Yeoutie (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Significance

It states: Emancipation of slaves in states in rebellion against the Union. This is not true. Only Texas was involved. Alexander R. Burton (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Juneteenth Flag.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Juneteenth Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Capitalizing Black

I would like to change this article's established style to capitalize the B in 'Black' when it's used as an ethno-racial color descriptor. Per MOS:RACECAPS, both the capitalized and lowercase styles are acceptable, and per MOS:VAR we shouldn't change between them without discussion. I am hopeful that discussion will lead to consensus for the change. As this is a US holiday, and US-based style guides overwhelmingly favor capitalization, I think the change is warranted. This would also mean capitalizing "White", though the status quo version of the article has no uses of that descriptor that would need changing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I support capitals for Black, White, and any other races mentioned in this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I would favor capitalizing "black" but not "white". The idea is that most black people in the United States are descended from enslaved people from west Africa and, after that, people who experienced Jim Crow and other forms of racial discrimination, and therefore share a common ethnic identity. But white people in the United State do not share a common ethnic identity, and the idea that they do is sometimes associated with ideologies of white supremacy. Capitalizing "black" but not "white" is pretty common in current style guides -- for example, Associated Press, Columbia Journalism Review, and the New York Times. But as far as I can tell, this is contrary to MOS:RACECAPS, which seems to be saying to capitalize either both or neither. (My second choice would be to capitalize neither, as I think that capitalizing "white" is inappropriate for the reasons that I mentioned.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You would have to propose that change at a higher level. It cannot be implemented here in violation of the guideline MOS:RACECAPS. Wikipedia's house style doesn't always match other style guides. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mudwater, could you support capitalizing Black in this article specifically? "White" as a racial descriptor is only used once and it's at the beginning of the sentence so it needs to be capitalized no matter what. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I think this is not a good idea, as I explained above. And it would be easy for someone to update the article so that the word "white" is used in the middle of a sentence. But my real issue is with MOS:RACECAPS. If other editors want to switch this article to capitalize those two words, I would go along with it, just to try something different. As I said, the part about capitalizing "black" sounds good, it's the package deal that I object to. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it should only be, "B", if at all, when used for the ethnicity, see African Americans, German Americans, etc., but "b" and "w" when used as a racial moniker, otherwise it is reifying race/racism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Suppose a person did want to propose that MOS:RACECAPS be changed, to suggest the use of "Black" and "white", at least for articles about the U.S. What would be the best forum for having that discussion? (Pinging @Binksternet and Alanscottwalker:) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The best forum would be either WT:MOSCAPS or WP:VPP and I'd recommend the former. You should review the most recent RfC on the matter and prepare to field the same counterarguments. There's also some relevant post-RfC discussion in the WT:MOSCAPS archives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's another thought on this subject. We're not bound to follow MOS:RACECAPS. That's a guideline. As it says at WP:GUIDES, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." And as it says at MOS:CAPS, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So if most editors agree that for the Juneteeth article, it's better to capitalize "Black" but not "white", then we can do that, as one of the occasional exceptions. I would be in favor of that approach. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Intro para

Good Lord, folks - this ain't rocket-science: "... it has been celebrated annually on June 19 in various parts of the United States since 1865." "Celebrations date to 1866, at first involving ..." "First time, June 19, 1866 (celebration)" Sadsaque (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

Change in external links: 2022 Holidays, United States Office of Personal Management (excludes Juneteenth)

To

2022 Holidays, United States Office of Personal Management 2600:6C44:4B7F:484D:A0D9:1889:60F9:92AA (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracies, last instance of slavery

This article is incredibly historically inaccurate and has a great deal of bias. Slavery is documented and persisted well beyond 1865. Of which the document used for corroboration was a video from the history Channel??? A television show, should not be allowed as a valid form of documentation as you would need the videos source material. 50.216.106.8 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Junteenth, not slavery. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Like the article says, Juneteenth is a holiday "...commemorating emancipation of enslaved black Americans.... Juneteenth's commemoration is on the anniversary date of the June 19, 1865, announcement of General Order No. 3 by Union Army general Gordon Granger, proclaiming freedom for enslaved people in Texas, which was the last state of the Confederacy with institutional slavery." In fact African-American chattel slavery in the United States persisted in a few locations -- Kentucky and Delaware -- for several more months, until December 18, 1865. Anyway, the article would appear to be accurate. Further reading: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What? I can't find a History Channel video being used as a source. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not take comments from an IP-signed user seriously. This one is unable to differentiate between legal slavery and crime. Suggest: plonk. Sadsaque (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Change: By 2008, nearly half of states observed the holiday as a ceremonial observance.[95]

To: By 2008, a little more than half of U.S. states acknowledge Juneteenth in some form or another.[95]

Reason: The change is to an exact quote from the article. Before this change, the quote was not true. Cbb330 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Partially implemented. I'd prefer not to quote the source text directly, so I paraphrased. Cbb330, thanks for catching the error, and I could use a double-check of my summary text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No idea why Trump rally is in article

I have no clue why a trump rally would be in a Juneteenth page. NPOV is needed. This should be about the holiday. 47.203.28.160 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it is undue emphasis on an ephemeral minor controversy, but I wouldn't claim that it's not NPOV. I'm in favor of removing it as a stale news item. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

LIf you read the section you can see why it caused controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. No reason why this should be on here and I think that it’s a tad bit biased. This should be about the holiday. No clear reason why a trump rally should be on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes you have made that point three times. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If the editor want to move this to a page about trump rallies I think that would be fine but not in the history of Juneteenth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It really is a stale news item that has nothing to do with the holiday. That's a president Trump article item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay well. It looks like there is a consensus. Let’s go ahead and remove the section about the trump rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird that trumps rally is even mentioned in Juneteenth.

Addition 'confederate'

Emancipation of slaves in Confederate states in rebellion against the Union 162.251.174.124 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

MLK Day details

An IP is edit warring to mention the date Martin Luther King Jr. Day was established as a federal holiday and the president who signed the bill. I don't think this level of detail on a different holiday is WP:DUE for the lead. I wanted to make sure that's the consensus view before reverting again. Courtesy ping for Binksternet, who also edited the content in question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the inappropriate details are being coatracked into the article. It's off topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That should be on MLK day article not Juneteenth. doesn't make since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

First picture could be better.

Hey all. The first picture looks a little weak. Maybe we can find a better, more festive picture than this one. Just a suggestion. Tentemp (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Juneteenth celebrations nationwide today. Maybe you could go out and snap the picture, since you've expressed interest. BusterD (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I have a picture but not sure how to post it. Tentemp (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

hey BusterD can you please help me post it since you made the comment? I have the picture. Too bad you do not have a picture, seeing it's a nationwide holiday. Maybe you don't celebrate it? I do, just need to know how to post it up since I'm new and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Tentemp, please read Wikipedia:Uploading images. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

awesome! thanks for the reference. but... it's protected :( and i'm unable to edit... i actullay do have a few pictures saved to my computer. it's not that big of a deal but i thought we should have a better picture. that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentemp (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

matbe we should get rid of the first picture and use the pic of biden signing into law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentemp (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tentemp, upload it to Wikimedia Commons instead, then come back and one of us can go find it. valereee (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

change "Those enslaved people were freed with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished chattel slavery nationwide on December 6, 1865." to "Those enslaved people were freed with the ratification (December 6, 1865) and proclamation (December 18, 1865) of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished chattel slavery nationwide." Goldencork (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A bit wordy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

not sure where you're going with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus for this change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

The following text in the first paragraph -- Juneteenth National Independence Day Act -- should be linked to the actual law -- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117s475enr/pdf/BILLS-117s475enr.pdf Ammills01 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Links should be to our article about it, a link to the law should really be in either the sources section or external links. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There's actually a section in the article on the act. It possibly could be spun off. valereee (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ammills01:  Partly done I linked to the section where the law can be read instead. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

about the WORD....

"Juneteenth" has to be the worst portmanteau ever coined. for staters, it should logically apply to ANY of the teens, i.e. June 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th as well as 19th! Frankly, it would be LESS ambiguous if it were called "Juneninth" -- there's only 3 days in the month with "nine-" in them, compared to the 7 with "teen".

Plus a portmanteau lopsidedly using a full word on one side only is always a bad idea. Yeah, we do have "cheeseburger", but in general, they're just ugly.

So, i'm asking: with all of this baggage, was there ever any debate over what TERM to call it? Did everyone in Galveston just suddenly jump on "Juneteenth" over more logical (and appealing) candidates like "Emancipation Day" or "Black Independence Day"? 2601:19C:527F:A680:F1CE:7340:3D2B:CB58 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

JUneteenth is what what it is called, in the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

i'm talking about in the 1890s. who came up with such a ridiculous coinage to begin with? 2601:19C:527F:A680:F1CE:7340:3D2B:CB58 (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I see, I am finding nothing that discuss this topic. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why Galveston?

Why is Galveston any more important than any other place in TX, and why is TX more important than any other state? I hear colloquially that Galveston was the LAST place the proclamation reached -- is that true? If so, it needs to be made clearer in the article.

At present, article makes it sound like Galveston is simply the place whose commemoration CAUGHT ON -- steamrolling myriad other cities and towns who had their own dates to commemorate.

In fact, the Emancipation Day article indicates that 7 other states + DC, PR & VI *officially* celebrate other dates. So what's to become of those? Are they synching those up to June 19 now, or is everyone having 2 separate days?

Seems a very basic question but neither this article nor the Emancipation Day one addresses it, AFAICT. Anyone? 2601:19C:527F:A680:29B4:B41C:75A8:70BA (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

yes, it was the first place it was really observed, as the article says. Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

so it is a myth that galveston was the last place originally reached? they simply grabbed the spotlight first?

what about the other issue, does no one know? those 7++ states with *other* state holidays to celebrate this -- are they now scrapping those in favor of juneteenth? 2601:19C:527F:A680:3C52:2BA8:B31C:FE0 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No, read the article and it will explain it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

so your FIRST reply was wrong then?

ok, got it! 2601:19C:527F:A680:5DBA:E21:B23A:F839 (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

NO, it was not. "Originating in Galveston". Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Recognized"

that map is wildly misleading. what does it mean that 47 states "recognized" juneteenth, if it was not a legal holiday in 46 of them?! so some state official read a statement and possibly raised a flag, big whoop. they do that for gay pride day, st patrick's day, national secretaries day, fraternal twins day, world pizza day, caramel macchiato day, who knows what.

it gives a state far too much credit to put them into a category like "2000-2009" based solely on that. i am in one such state, and until 2018 or so, barely anyone outside of the 10-15 activists running the flag-raising had ever even HEARD of juneteenth. i would not say that the state "recognized it" in any significant way until maybe 2019.

the last line in that section "as of 2020 only Texas had adopted the holiday as a paid holiday for state employees" says it all. in other words TX "recognized" it; the other 46 did not.

a passing mention of announcements or declarations from those other states is ok, but don't categorize them as "recognition". that implies something more. 2601:19C:527F:A680:29B4:B41C:75A8:70BA (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Recognized comes from the Congressional Research Service, all 50 states have done so. [9] As of June 2022, it is now a paid state holiday in 18 of those states. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

so it has only been recognized AS A HOLIDAY in 18 states! what has CRS "recognized" it as in the other 32++, then? a cute word?? 2601:19C:527F:A680:F1CE:7340:3D2B:CB58 (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The article covers two types of holiday: commemorative/ceremonial, and paid. People actually worked hard to get state's to recognize the day as a commemorative/ceremonial holiday, and they succeeded in all 50 states (leading to the federal holiday), and some have then succeeded in getting it paid in states, and no doubt are now working hard to get the paid holiday in other states. You may view the commemorative as "nothing" but your view is 1) irrelevant to this article and 2) does not change the facts. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: actually, pls clarify what exactly a "paid state holiday" is? forget special cases (state vs federal workers), aren't private employers required to make any fed holiday a day off or else pay overtime? so what diff does it make whether a state adds "yeah, u have to do that" as well?

i get that not all state holidays are federal, but in the other direction aren't all federal ones mandated nationwide, whether or not individual states wish to symbolically (redundantly) make them "state" holidays? 2601:19C:527F:A680:F1CE:7340:3D2B:CB58 (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

We do not say (in that map) it is recognised as a holiday we say " holiday or commemoration". Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Those questions are beyond this article but I think in general, the answer is not necessarily (perhaps ask at the help desk or even the federal holiday article). But I gather, all a Federal holiday does is basically close the federal government (with pay for federal workers), private organizations then may also close as customary (usually Financial Markets and Banks) but I don't think there is a general law about it (there may be some separate regulatory federal laws that deal with banks and markets), and pay arrangements are up to private orgs or their pay contracts (in some cases union contracts). Similarly all a paid state holiday does is basically close the state government (with pay) (but that may differ state-to-state), but the federal law can't force the state gov to close (but in some states, their state law may mandate they follow the federal holiday, and again in some state's state-workers are covered by union contracts) and private orgs can do what they will. At this point, all I can really say is consult labor lawyers for a real answer. Maybe there is some labor lawyer that will come along here (with sources) but my guess is 1) go elsewhere for answers; 2) declared paid holidays probably lead to substantial pressure on private organizations to do something (in the case of federal law, across the nation), and 3) the effects of state laws and what they do varies state to state. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

the article on st patrick's day in the US begins by stating that it is only a legal holiday in 2 places in the country. they mention a couple dozen other places where various parades and proclamations have happened over the years, but to spread them out in a chart/map as if they're important in their own right is a bit much.

juneteenth did not have even THAT much official status until 2020. yes, we do use "holiday" casually to include minor commemorations like valentine's day and halloween, but i think most native speakers make a distinction with "actual" holidays. which juneteenth has only become in the past 2-3 years.

how about a map showing when (those 18) states did THAT? as in, dec 2020...sep 2021...feb 2022...etc. especially with respect to the dates for the federal version being a) proposed and b) implemented.

those other dates CRS lists from 2005 etc are just TRIVIA. why are we wasting anyone's time putting them in a map? 98.216.184.137 (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No, not trivia. The CRS compiled that list before the federal holiday was adopted (as was the map) as it is highly relevant. The CRS did so because it is part of the history of the holiday, and the history of official recognition. Moreover, these recognitions were already being complied in newspapers and encyclopedia in the early 2000's (see the sources) because it is highly relevant to the history. (Even in your St. Patrick Day example, it would be silly to at some point in the future to erase past recognitions -- new recognitions, should they come, would be added). I'm fine with you or someone else creating another map to add to the article, but it will not and does not replace the current map. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

those dates are only "highly relevant" as a curiosity to see when each state started becoming "vaguely aware" of juneteenth. the key date is when, and if, they recognized it AS A HOLIDAY, not when the recognized it as one of a thousand things to make some silly proclamation about.

by your logic, why don't we compile all of the "earliest mentions" of st patrick's day (1890s..1920s...etc) into a map?

i note that valentine's day, halloween, groundhog day, flag day, etc. are all treated quite similarly. none of them wraps state "recognition" dates up into a chart/map. pre-2020 juneteenth should be treated likewise.

to put it bluntly, it is belittling to the ACTUAL holiday it became to imply that previous mentions of it as a vague pseudo-"holiday" meant much of anything. heck, not even the MLK day article does that! 2601:19C:527F:A680:3C52:2BA8:B31C:FE0 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia subjects go by what the sources talk about, not by however anyone thinks the world should be. The sources for the Juneteenth article, for decades, have been covering these recognitions, and so this article will reflect that (not anyone's personal ideas about trivia, nor to satisfy anyone's personal ideas about what they personally were aware of, nor their personal peculiar ideas about belittling). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

red herring city!

st patrick's day article is chock full of the same sort of sourced info and dates that u speak of. so is the halloween article. so is the MLK article. the only diff is that it is laid out in prose form, whereas here certain editors seek to spotlight it in a attention-grabbing MAP...lending UNDUE IMPORTANCE to the day's pre-2020 status.

this is only occurring in this article, not for any of those other holidays. remind me again why juneteenth in 2005, say, was more important than MLK day? 2601:19C:527F:A680:3C52:2BA8:B31C:FE0 (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

How many of those had rolling acceptance over a period of 100 years or more? Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and the Congressional Research Service on Juneteenth devotes like 20% or more of its page space to explication and a tabulation graph of what it calls these state recognitions -- this Wikipedia article by contrast does not devote nearly that much space, including, by comparison, its very small map graphic, as it summarizes -- in no way is it remotely possible to argue it is undue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

define "rolling acceptance". i would note that there really has only been rolling "acceptance" outside of texas for 2-3 years now. there were rolling "mentions" and rolling "parades", etc. -- SIMILAR TO ST PAT'S DAY -- but when was the first actual "acceptance" anywhere? 2019, right?

i will concede ASW's other point, tho. if the CRS insists on using an alternate -- and misleading -- definition for "recognize", then who are we to correct it? i would contend that there are 32 states that still HAVEN'T recognized juneteenth --- any more than they have "recognized" st pat's day. or does CRS claim some nonzero number for that, too?

i also have to wonder if they apply the same logic to states "recognizing" same-sex marriage? are sympathic "declarations" over the years worth cataloging for states which still banned the practice? there's about a 15 year lag in most states before anything concrete ever happened.

once again, casual lay definition of "recognize" vs actual, legal, definition of "recognize". let's hope CRS never comments on taiwan! 2601:19C:527F:A680:916A:38D7:958A:AF7 (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)