Talk:Edward Mitchell Bannister

Not quite a GAN peer review

I notice that this article has been added to the GOCE queue. I have nominated another article in the queue but in the meantime I thought perhaps I might offer some suggestions on this one? (I am not a GOCE member).

My immediate reaction is that it is GA material, I saw no deal breakers (though the red warnings about invalid infobox arguments need to be resolved). There were a few items that jarred with me.

• "... had difficulty finding an apprenticeship or academic programs that would accept him, likely due to racial prejudice." Nearly, but not quite wp:the sky is blue. Can it be cited?
• "... a stop on Boston's Underground Railroad". For an international readership, this is a WP:EGG. How about

... a stop on Boston's "Underground Railroad" (the support network for escaped slaves).

• "During the US Civil War, Carteaux lobbied for equal pay for black soldiers during the Civil War ..." doesn't really need "during the Civil War" repetition
• "... although historians have challenged the authenticity of the story." (New York Herald). Clarify - is this saying that the Herald made it up or never said it in the first place?
• Philadelphia Centennial: most of the text suggests that the awarding jury were not aware of his colour until after he arrived to claim his medal - but second sentence suggests otherwise. Is that sentence misplaced in the time-line?
• "He supplemented his sailing trips with journeys to exhibitions in New York and planned a prospective European trip, although his funding fell through." How about "He supplemented his sailing trips with journeys to exhibitions in New York but a planned European trip fell through." ?
• "Late in the 1890s, Bannister seems to have sold sell fewer paintings, perhaps due to waning popularity, and exhibited less often." Remove "sell"?
• "After its disrepair made it unsuitable for residence, Brown renovated the property and restored it to its original appearance." I would write "the University renovated" but this may be a WP:ENGVAR.

In summary, I really enjoyed this article and will be astonished if it doesn't achieve at least a GA. I hope my notes (a) make sense and (b) are helpful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Thanks for your replies and advice on sections! I've written and re-written in so many places that I have a hard time spotting errors. I agree with most of the suggestions, but some things I'm unsure how to fix and for reference to anyone who wants to improve the page:

• re: "... had difficulty finding an apprenticeship or academic programs that would accept him, likely due to racial prejudice." I think this line would be hard to find a specific source for; it's something that's mentioned indirectly in Bannister quotes and those of his art club friends. Not sure what the best course would be then, since it no doubt affected his early career.
• re: New York Herald story. I've seen this anecdote quoted in a ton of sources, but the specific article isn't cited by them. I've searched newspaper archives for that year, and specifically in the New York Herald, but couldn't find the story. I have a sneaking suspicion that the story is apocryphal, but I haven't been able to confirm that, which was what the footnote meant to express.
• re: Philadelphia Centennial. The Bannister quote does contradict that second sentence, but a protest by the jurors is mentioned in several sources. It could be that once he presented himself for the award, some of jurors protested, possibly after that event, but I'm not sure because the sources don't give a detailed chronology. Wingedserif (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. Fresh eyes see different things.

• I understand that. I can't see this one being an issue for a GA rating but I think you might have an FA candidate here and maybe at that point people are more picky but equally someone may have the answer. It is one of these points that would need a whole other article as a citation!
• I was just suggesting that you need to make clear what "story" are you referring to: are the historians challenging the Herald's version of events, or are they challenging that the Herald ever wrote it in the first place? It just reads as an odd loose end (which, as you say, it is! but you don't have to make it so obvious).
• If the chronology is not documented but it seems self-evident that the jury couldn't have objected until after (a) the work was honoured and (b) they saw the person who claimed the medal, then it seems to me to be entirely reasonable to put the line about the objecting jurors after the report of his arrival rather than before it. So long as you don't make any unsubstantiated claims, your aim is just to write "engaging prose" and a compelling narrative: you are not preparing a witness statement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you have already done these. I'm pleased that we concur. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusing or Contradictory Statement

"Bannister credited his mother with igniting his early interest in art. She died in 1844, however, so Edward and William moved to live on the farm of the wealthy merchant Harris Hatch." Then, "Still adolescents, Edward and his brother found work aboard ships as mates and cooks and immigrated to the US in 1840. They moved to Boston sometime in the late 1840s."

So, if he was already working and living in Boston why did he need to go live on some guy's farm when his mom died? Could the date be incorrect and 1850 intended as the date he moved to Boston? (He'd have been 22 then.) --2601:8C3:8001:3940:A0B5:14E5:13F9:3FC4 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Holland book does not specify what year Bannister emigrated to the US, but does place it after his mother's death; he is said to have worked on the Hatch farm until adulthood. I've adjusted the text there. Ewulp (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this: the 1840 date came from a census entry, but obviously it can't be correct. 1850, or thereabouts, seems more likely, but there'd have to a source for that. Wingedserif (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be very concerned about suspecting the census data. I can't see how a census enumerator would have had the foresight to invent a record for a family that weren't going to arrive in Boston for another ten years! Clearly there is an error but exactly who made it and when, can't be assumed. Rechecking needed, I'm afraid. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The 1840 immigration date originally came from Bannister's 1900 census response (link site registration req.), Bannister recorded his date of immigration), which is why I feel like it's more likely that the year of immigration was mis-recorded somehow. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that is more convincing. I misunderstood the discussion as implying that a census enumerator had incorrectly recorded his presence at his residence. So yes, your supposition seems reasonable one to make provided you acknowledge openly that you have made it, with at least a footnote.

Even so, it would be ideal to have had a reliable source make that judgement. I think you may have a Featured Article Candidate here and, whilst it would be acceptable for a GA to make a reasonable surmise, the standard for FA is that bit higher. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward Mitchell Bannister/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alan Islas (talk · contribs) 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be taking on this review. Comments to come soon. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry the delay. This is a very well-written and extensively researched article. Thanks for submitting it. Some notes and questions below.

• "...near their home at the Hayden House". Is this the same Hayden house as this: Lewis and Harriet Hayden House ? If so, a wikilink could be added.

 Done —WS

• "Bannister donated his full-length portrait of Robert Gould Shaw, the commander of the 54th killed in action, to raise money for the cause." Is this sentence also sourced in reference 9?

 Done, this actually was only implied in refs 8 and 12. But Ref 2 from the Kenkebala House book states it explicitly. —WS

• "The Bannister portrait of Robert Gould Shaw was one of several reclamations of Gould Shaw by members of Boston's African American artistic community such as Edmonia Lewis" Wikilink to Edmonia Lewis

 Done —WS

• It was displayed with the label "Our Martyr". Mixed italization inside the quote marks.
  • This is an odd one. A letter quoted in Kresser reports the caption of the portrait as having the italics on only the first word, "Our": "Over it was the touching and appropriate motto, "Our Martyr". There are no photos of the picture or its display, so it can't be confirmed that way—it might have just been how the letter writer styled their handwriting or how it was transcribed. The most neutral thing to do would be to just take the ital out, since I think we have MOS approval to style quotes on things like that. However, I kept the one-word ital because it seemed important to the meaning of the painting at the fair: "The possessive inscription "Our Martyr," claimed Shaw for the black community". (Kresser) —WS
• "Over time, he was drawn to paint more landscape". More landscapes?

 Done, and made the sentence a little more brief. —WS

• "Stetson mentions Bannister frequently in his diaries, claiming that 'He is my only confidant in Art matters & I am his.'" Could this be paraphrased to avoid the nested quotes?

 Done —WS

• "Historian Joseph Skerrett has noted" Wikilink to Joseph Skerrett

 Done —WS

• "This lecture and its Idealistic view". Does Idealistic need to be capitalized here?
  • It's definitely a choice. I capped it to emphasize that it's meant to indicate a specific philosophical movement, rather than the more general meaning of the term. What do you think? —WS
• Could an archive link be added for Ref 21 (Robinson)?

 Done —WS

• "My Greatest Successes Have Come Through Her": The Artistic Partnership of Edward and Christiana Bannister. Check quotation marks.
  • The quote is Edward Bannister's, so the quote marks are part of the exhibition title: exhibition page. —WS
• (Herreshoff died in 1967 and the extensive porcelain collection filling the Bannister House was donated to Washington and Lee University.) Are the parenthesis needed here?

 Done, I had thought that sentence might be too tangential to the section, but v. happy to remove them. —WS

--Alan Islas (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Alan Islas, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article for GAN. I've been looking for sources again, and it looks like there will be several more large exhibitions of Bannister's work coming up, so I'm really glad his article will be ready in time for those. I've implemented almost all the suggestions you made: for the rest, I think it's a choice that could go either way. I explained my rationales above, let me know what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif, thank you for the edits and explanations. I'm satisfied and passing to GA now.

If you think it's useful you might want to add a bit more context to "sloop". Maybe "sloop sailboat"? Not sure if the redundancy is allowed. Maybe just adding a wikilink could help. To be honest I didn't know what it was and gathered from the context that it was some kind of boat. But maybe that's just me and my utter maritime ignorance, hehehe! I'll leave it up to you to decide if anything is needed, passing either way. Alan Islas (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I love boats, so I totally didn't realize I was using jargon. Being more clear can't hurt; I'll spell it out. And yay, thank you! This was my first GA, thanks for shepherding :D —Wingedserif (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Did you know" candidates

Did you know that... now that the article has achieved GA (overdue, IMO), it qualifies for a "Did you know?" submission to go on the front page? See WP:did you know. You get two shots. This is my favourite but I'm opening this discussion topic for others to pitch in their own favourites. You get the final call.

I feel torn. I definitely think your DYK is the single thing he's known most for. But one of the things I found myself curious about was his abolitionist work in Boston, since most sources don't talk about it much. I'll include another below, and we can see what people think! —Wingedserif (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It could certainly be argued that it should come as no surprise to anyone that the art establishment in 1876 was racist. Reminds me of the newspaperman's maxim "dog bite man: not news; man bites dog: now that is news". Of course the DYK doesn't have to be a jaw-dropping fact, it just helps to get it selected given that there are about four candidates for every slot, even though nowadays each DYK 'page' only lasts twelve hours. There is no great rush but I wouldn't leave it much more than a week as the reviewers like the content and the GA award to be "fresh". As I said, the selection is entirely up to you, including even whether to bother. [While I think of it, my DYK today (re the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750) nearly got rejected because every paragraph didn't end with a citation. Which is not a GA criterion but probably good practice. I notice that there are a few paragraphs in this article that fail that test.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I go with yours; I'll just see if there are comments about the choice. And if you're referring to the "In 1855..." graf, we're in luck! I just finished reading a dissertation on Bannister that should help fill in the gaps. I'm hoping to improve the article up to FA candidacy.—Wingedserif (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You can propose two DYK 'hooks', so why not do both?

Have you got an FAC 'mentor'? I understand that it is advisable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Just proposed both here. And I don't... would WP:FAM still be the right place to look? —Wingedserif (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that ...

• ... when Edward Mitchell Bannister won first prize for his large oil Under the Oaks at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial, some jurors tried to rescind his award when they realised that he was an African-American. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• ... that Edward Mitchell Bannister's portrait of Robert Gould Shaw reclaimed him as a martyr for Boston's African-American abolitionists? —Wingedserif (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Edward Mitchell Bannister, carte de visite

• ... that when Edward Mitchell Bannister (pictured) won first prize for his large oil Under the Oaks at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial, exhibition officials unsuccessfully tried to rescind his award when they realised that he was an African-American? Source: "At the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876, his painting Under the Oaks was awarded the first-prize gold medal; Bannister reported that when the judge discovered that the artist was Black, he wanted to reconsider the award." [1], pp. 21
  • ALT1:... that Edward Mitchell Bannister's (pictured) portrait of Robert Gould Shaw reclaimed him as a martyr for Boston's African-American abolitionists? Source: "Edward Bannister, a talented African American painter today best known for his landscapes, also displayed his portrait of Shaw at the Colored Ladies' Sanitary Commission fair in Boston in 1864. While that artwork and its visual content are now lost to us, it might also have been perceived as an appropriation of its symbolic subject. [...] Nast, ostensibly ignorant of Shaw's symbolic import, joined Lewis and Bannister in subordinating the colonel's Brahmin identity to the wider abolitionist cause." [2]
  • ALT2:...that when Edward Mitchell Bannister (pictured) won a first prize for painting at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial, officials tried to rescind the award when they realized he was African-American? Source: "At the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876, his painting Under the Oaks was awarded the first-prize gold medal; Bannister reported that when the judge discovered that the artist was Black, he wanted to reconsider the award." [3], pp. 21

Improved to Good Article status by Wingedserif (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC).

• The article was promoted to GA near the time of its nomination for DYK. It is long enough, well-referenced, and is free of copyvio issues (Earwig flags a couple of sites that have copied text from the article). Both hooks are backed up by references here and within the article; however, the first hook has a couple of issues that need to be addressed before it is ready. It is a bit over the 200 character limit for DYK hooks, also the article seems to use US variant of English while the hook doesn't (realized (US/CAN) vs realised (UK))? There are no issues with the image provided. QPQ not necessary since this is the nominator's third nomination. Good work so far, the article was a pleasure to read. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 03:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Mccunicano, for your review! How about this version of the first hook?: "that when Edward Mitchell Bannister (pictured) won a first prize for painting at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial, officials tried to rescind the award when they realized he was African-American?" —Wingedserif (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It's a bit on the long side, but a good hook nonetheless. Both hooks ALT1 and ALT2 are now good to go. Excellent work all around on the article, its topic certainly deserved more than the Start-class article you expanded it from. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wingedserif:, I wonder if you may need to amend the first DYK nomination text? The nomination says "some jurors tried to rescind", but the cited text says "the judge wanted to reconsider". The article will need to be revised too, of course. Unless I have missed something? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're totally right! I'll amend the DYK and the article. —Wingedserif (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

More revision needed: you have written "to rescind", the source says "to reconsider" (which we know means rescind but an RS would have to make that call). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best way to reconcile would be. There are many sources that refer to Bannister's description of receiving the award from the judge. And then a few other sources mention a separate attempt by jurors, or exhibition officials, to rescind the award (eg, "In attempting to claim his award, Bannister was met with overt discrimination from exhibition patrons and officials, who only recanted their insensitive remarks when he revealed his identity as prizewinner. The backlash continued in the aftermath of his win, when Exhibition affiliates attempted, but failed, to revoke his medal on the grounds of his race alone." [4], pp. 21–22) —Wingedserif (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I preferred the original text so where we got derailed was the particular citation you provided: I think that the DYK 'hook' is less eye-catching if it just says 'reconsider'. So why not use the RWU citation? (If a thesis fails the RS test(?), does it cite a source that is ok?.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked into the thesis citation, and the citation I quoted above goes back to a 1985 Smithsonian museum publication ([5]). It's probably not an entirely bulletproof source, since some of the entries describe it as a "brochure", although it's ~120 pages long. I think it should be OK for DYK purposes? How does this sound as a replacement for the end of the first hook? "[...] exhibition officials unsuccessfully tried to rescind his award when they realised that he was an African-American?" —Wingedserif (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

MSN source note

For the FAC, I found a recently published MSN article that seems to have taken its line of research/reference from this Wiki article. As a note to other editors, it should be avoided as a source in the future, to prevent circular reporting. —Wingedserif (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ann Eliza Club identification

This is half a note to self to see if the "Ann Eliza" of Bannister's art club years was in fact Ann Eliza Hammond. Have not found a source to support it. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Inflation (Under the Oaks)

I was struck by the footnote "The location of Under the Oaks is unknown. It was sold to a "Mr. Duffe" of Boston for $1500, after the Centennial Exposition." I wonder if it would be possible without bogging down the article in detail, to observe that this was a very tidy sum: about $36,000 in 2020 prices, using CPI. (I guess that should be about $360,000 using recent fine art prices as an index :-D but I don't know of any such published index.) The main point is that $1500 would have been a lot of money back then to an 'unfashionable' artist.

To qualify for FA, you have to specify the end date in the inflation template. In 'ordinary' articles it is usually omitted and the most recent data is used automatically.

If it doesn't go in easily, don't stress over it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Edward Mitchell_Bannister_by_Gustine_L._Hurd.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 2, 2028. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2028-11-02. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Edward Mitchell Bannister (November 2, 1828 – January 9, 1901)

Photograph credit: Gustine Hurd; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured: