Wikipedia:Peer review/Benjamin Tillman/archive1

Benjamin Tillman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC. Ben Tillman, I think speaks for himself, and defies any attempt for me to describe him. So I'll let him take the stage (ducks pitchfork) ...

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• Why not just include the Jr when you first mention his name?

He was less than two years old when his father died. I don't know of him ever using the Jr. It seems odd to call him by a name he never used.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• In 1902, during a heated Senate debate, Tillman punched his fellow South Carolinian, John L. McLaurin. - doesn't seem to synch with the other parts of this paragraph
• They believed that the previous five years had shown it was not possible to outvote African Americans; Gary and Butler deemed compromises with black leaders to be misguided—white men must be restored to their antebellum position of preeminent political power in the state. - Having a semi colon and an mdash in the same sentence feels like overkill
• the African American from power. - missing a plural?

See below, under "farmer"--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:REDLINK, names of individual should not be redlinked
• had little to offer the farmer, - the farmer or farmers?

I think both are acceptable and you don't have to be consistent. I'm interested in hearing what reviewers think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• farmer's groups or farmers' groups
• Yet as governor he was sworn to uphold the rule of law. - I think this one's a sentence fragment

I've added a comma, which may help. It's the other side of the narrow line I've spoken of him walking. The dilemma of the Red Shirt as governor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Darlington riot - worth an article?

Hm, borderline, it might be best under the Dispensary heading. I looked at our existing article on that, it gets into a discussion of bottles from the dispensary, which apparently are very collectable today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Crime of '73 - Not really NPOV, though I'm sure that's what they considered it

It's to give an example of the sort of language that Tillman could sink his teeth into.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd find a way to make that more explicit, if possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• The New York Times after those attacks deemed him "a filthy baboon, accidentally seated in the Senate chamber" - Cleveland or Tillman?

Cleveland was not a senator. I think it's overwhelmingly clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but it may be a point of confusion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Social Security - Dab link
• There are a couple of duplicate links

I'll look at them. At least one is intentional due to distance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall this was a very easy read. Appears to be neutral. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably be blamed for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've gotten those two additional points.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, why is the name "Benjamin Ryan Tillman Jr." listed separate from the boldface in the lede? Did he not use the "Jr.", effectively dropping it from his name? Just something I was wondering about. Connormah (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

He never used it that I'm aware. His father died when he was 2.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• facepalm* Just saw you answered it above. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

It isn't easy to review an article when one is striving mightily to avoid throwing up, but here are my few gleanings:

• General: I hesitate to shove a foreign oar into American notions of political correctness, but to me it looks silly that in the main text "white" is mirrored not by the obvious "black" but by "African American" (unless you call the whites European American, I suppose). No response needed on this point, as I'm in no doubt you have your reasons, but I just offer a European perspective.
• "snuck into Hamburg" – I am aware of this AmEng verb, but a more internationally recognised synonym might be preferable
• "he was most proud" – "he was proudest"? Merely a suggestion, to be discarded ad lib
• "had controlled the state prior to the Civil War" – I think a plain "before" is always preferable to "prior to".
• "He initially was unsuccessful" – perhaps "Initially he was unsuccessful"?

I think I'll keep it. Even if don't put a comma in your version, I hear it and I think it slows the flow of the text.

• "The lack of success" – "The failure"? (Maybe)

I wouldn't go that far. Tillman wanted too much too soon. He got it, soon enough. It just took time, the death of a rich man, further organization by the farmer, and continued frustration with the Conservatives.

• "graft and corruption" – is there a difference?

Nepotism would be corrupt but is not graft, I guess though graft is contained within corruption. Tweaked.

• "the slimness of his triumph" – not all that much of a triumph if so slim? Perhaps "win"?
• "the units of the militia which had refused his orders" – clearer, I think, if "that" rather than "which"
• "Tillman, however, refused" – there are seven "howevers" in the current article, and I'd lose some of them if I were you – this one being a case in point.
• "80% of the value" – I believe the MoS bids us not to use the % sign in the text, but to write out "percent" for AmEng.
• "He was uneasy as Wilson's Secretary of State" – that stopped me in my tracks till I read on. Perhaps "when" rather than "as"
• "in support of the man" – in support of him?

Someone would roast me for using "he" or "him" to refer to two different people in the same sentence.

• "Lyndon B. Johnson said of Tillman" – full marks to LBJ!

I cannot imagine why you felt inclined to write about this disgusting person, but you have kept a neutral tone throughout, and I can't see any obstacle to FAC in due course. – Tim riley talk 00:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and for not using the white paper bags. I did Tillman because GMU library had two books on him, and that was enough, with JSTOR, the ANB, and my 1896 material to get the job done. And my evil side was demanding its share. I'll work through these tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Except as commented, I've done them now. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton commnets

It's taking me a while to rediscover my reviewing skills, but here is my first instalment. I'm inclined to endorse Tim's opinion of this rebarbative character, but he does make interesting reading and I am, shamefully, enjoying it. But I enjoyed Greeley, too. and he was a definite goody. Thus far:

Early life and education

• A regular beef of mine: the section covers a great deal more ground than is implied by the section title. There's a lot about his varied farming experiences, for example.
• "Beginning in 1860, he was sent to Bethany..." – the first word seems entirely superfluous
• "remained there as the American Civil War began" – for "as" read "after"
• "He returned to Bethany in 1864 for what was planned to be a final year of study prior to entry to the South Carolina College". This could do with some tweaking, to avoid over-repetition of "to"
• Why does he suddenly become "Ben" Tillman?

He was pretty universally known as Ben, even before politics. A WP:NAME argument could be made for it.

• "One gain from his convalescence..." – not really neutral, encyclopedic, more romantic mag wording
• I wonder about the use of the word "unprecedented" in the fourth paragraph? Pretty well all the circumstances in those days were unprecedented, it was a whole new world.

I'm trying to make that clear, thus the slight clunkiness about it and the "astonished ex-slaveholder" point of view. I've cut the word, but may reconsider.

Resistance to Republican rule

• I think that the final sentence – possibly the final two sentences – would be better placed as the introduction to the following section.

Hamburg Massacre; campaign of 1876

• Being pernickety, I wonder if "subsequent events" (plural) can be "one of the memories of which he was proudest"? Maybe "...were among his proudest memories" (saves a few words too)?
• "Five were murdered as having white enemies" – seems a strange construction as, clearly, all the black militiamen had white enemies. Perhaps: "Five, who had specific enemies among the white forces..." or some such.

It's not that simple. By Tillman's account, which as noted below seems the basic source, there had been only two blacks killed in the fighting, and one of the Georgians objected to ending it with the score so "close". So they had the local man who would host Tillman and others for breakfast (most of the Red Shirts were not from Hamburg) point out five, and they were shot.

• "At least seven black militiamen were killed in the incident..." – presumably including the five murdered? Were any white men killed, beyond the one mentioned?

No other white men. It's set out in some detail in Tillman 1909, which I think is the basic source for his biographers.

• What was the reason for the action at Ellerton, other than sheer blood-lust?

That was more or less the reason, to frighten and intimidate, and the dead don't vote (except in Chicago). There was some connection with an "attack by a black man" incident, but we don't really know as much about Ellenton as we do about Hamburg.

• Close repetition of "according to...", 5th/6th paragraphs

Struggle for the farmer

• (first line): "by which" → "by whom"?

Are you sure? We're discussing Tillman's use of terminology in the parenthetical.

• "...and to gain reforms such as the college" – needs a little amplification
• "Instead, the legislature expanded the Bourbon-controlled South Carolina College..." Instead of what?

Cut.

1890 gubernatorial campaign

• "Despite the slimness of his win, Tillman spent the summer of 1890 making speeches and debating two rivals (former general Bratton and state Attorney General Joseph H. Earle) for the nomination..." - it needs to be made clear that this refers to the official Democratic Party nomination.
• "...Tillman promoted support for Clemson" – who was I think dead by then, so I assume this means the university. Best clarify.

To an American ear, "Clemson", by itself, is going to mean the university, but I'll transition it off better.

I looked at it, and it is hard to find phrasing, if I call it "Clemson College" then I can't use the word college for "women's college". Maddest folly going.

• "Stated the Charleston News and Courier..." – this construction always reads awkwardly, and is not general idiom, despites its journalistic popularity.
• 1990 election result – were Tillman and Haskins the only candidates? No Republicans?

Yes, the Republicans didn't bother to run a candidate after 1878. It wasn't worth the cost.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm traveling again so it may be fits and starts in response. I'm glad you think well of the article, I'm sure Tillman lacks present-day fans. I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm up to date but see comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• The following brief list brings my comments to Tillman's election to the Senate:

Inauguration and legislative control

• "Benjamin Tillman was sworn in..." – just "Tillman" will do

Policies and events

• "...where the constitutional convention failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority" – to avoid close repetition I suggest "where the convention proposal failed to attract the necessary two-thirds majority".
• What is meant by "Northern aid"?
• "sale by the drink" – does this mean "sale of individual drinks"?
• "...to be frustrated by the fact that the South Carolina Railroad was in federal receivership". Somewhat verbose, try "but were frustrated because the South Carolina Railroad was in federal receivership"
• Butler hasn't ben mentioned for a while, so it might be helpful to give his full name again.
• I am not sure of the criteria by which a town might be described as "progressive"

I have no idea, but that's the term the source uses.

Senate election of 1894

• I am not sure what political spectrum is being used in relating Butler's "shift to the left". Tillman would be more generally described as on the extreme right of the spectrum, so if Butler was shifting his position towards Tillman, in normal terms this would be considered as a shift to the right.

South Carolina wasn't normal. Tillman was a radical compared to the Conservatives, but it was more issues like free silver, more access to higher education, assistance to the farmer. Race did not define the political spectrum in South Carolina as most whites were in agreement. Anyway, I've rephrased.

• "...with all Democratic legislators pledged to vote to elect the winner". I struggled with this; I believe it means "after which all Democratic legislators would give their support to the winner". In any event, I think the wording could be clearer.

Changed to "committed", which is what pledged means under those political circumstances.

I'll try and complete tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've gotten those. I hope your trip went well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Last lot:

Senator: Disenfranchising the African American:

• "Legal challenges failed to the convention..." – missing a word?
• The disenfranchisement story seems incomplete. When were the provisions adopted by the convention, and when did they become state law?

1896 presidential bid

• No issues – clear and concise

Wild man of the Senate

• "Kantrowitz deemed Tillman "the Senate's wild man", applying the same techniques of accusation and insinuation that had served him well in South Carolina". The problem with this construction is that it reads as if Kantrowitz was "applying the same techniques..." etc. I'm not sure what would work best. It's not clear whether "applying the same techniques..." etc is part of Kantrowitz's criticism; if so, perhaps: "Kantrowitz deemed Tillman "the Senate's wild man", who applied the same techniques of accusation and insinuation that had served him well in South Carolina"?
• "In 1897, he accused the Republicans..." → "In 1897, Tillman accused the Republicans..."

Race relations

• I would drop the first sentence, as a statement of the glaringly obvious.
• When did the "biracial Populist-Republican coalition" take control in North Carolina?
• "chautauqua" – lower case? (Chautauqua in WP article and elsewhere online)

Legislative activities, re-elections, and death

• I think a rare "However," is necessary after the firat sentence, otherwise the war paragraph reads curiously.
• "... though he was ultimately outmaneuvered by Roosevelt, who got a provision for federal court review of agency decisions included, that Tillman opposed." The phrasing seems wrong – has something been inadvertently left out?
• Paragraph 7 ("Tillman had been re-elected in 1901..." etc) is hard to follow. I think I get the picture: Tillmam and Blease, in separate electoral races, agreed not to oppose each other, but Tillman reneged. Nevertheless, both won their races. I think the beginning of the story could do with a bit more clarity in the telling

Legacy and historical view

• "Tilmannism" should presumably be "Tillmanism"

Fascinating and repellant. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)