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 Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Article is new enough (created 1 November, nominated 6 November), long enough (1983 characters), neutrally worded, cited inline, and no copyright violations. Hooks ALT0 and ALT1 are short enough (74 and 93 characters respectively), formatted correctly, cited inline and interesting. ALT3 is short enough (102 characters) and formatted correctly. However, looking at the source (Worse Than Slavery) he appears to have made his millions with the railroad: "He would later use the profits he made from convict leasing to buy a piece of the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad ... The railroad would help spur the great timber boom in Mississippi ... it would also make Hamilton a millionaire", ("it" being the railroad) so that needs clarifying. But hang on! He killed someone in a duel?! Surely that is a better hook? QPQ in progress, ALT0 is fine, ALT1 is fine, ALT2 is not. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 21:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
He used convicts on his railroads. So the blurb is still valid. But the duel could work too...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That isn't what the source says. He became a millionaire because he owned shares in the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad (though the wiki article doesn't mention him) rather than because of his leasing and sub-leasing of prisoners. Jumping from leasing to millionaire and missing out the middle is incorrect. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is. "He would later use the profits he made from convict leasing to buy a piece of the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad, an operation maintained, in large part, by the prisoners under his control."Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
According to the wording of the source: "The railroad would help spur the great timber boom in Mississippi ... it would also make Hamilton a millionaire". IE "[The railway] would also make Hamilton a millionaire" not "[leasing prisoners] would also make Hamilton a millionaire". The fact that prisoners he leased maintained the railways is not directly stated as the reason he became a millionaire. How about something like "Hamilton made large profits from convict leasing. He used those profits to buy shares in the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad. With the railroad's role in the Mississippi timber boom, and Hamilton providing the prison labour for its upkeep, he became a millionaire." Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be close paraphrasing. Yes, since the railroad was run by his own convicts, that's what made him a millionaire. Did you read the whole chapter? It's about convict leasing, not the railroad.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes I've read the whole chapter. The only mention of him becoming a millionaire is in relation to the railroad; the quote I gave above. The chapter focuses on leasing prisoners because its a chapter about the horrors of leasing prisoners in a book about Jim Crow laws and the treatment of black people after they were supposedly freed. Its not a chapter or a book specifically about Jones S. Hamilton. He gets a mention because he did well out of (sub)leasing prisoners. BUT is doesn't not directly say that he became a millionaire because of prisoners. He became a millionaire because of the railway.
Here the whole quote:
“
He would later use the profits he made from convict leasing to buy a piece of the Gulf and Island Railroad, an operation maintained, in large part, by the prisoners under his control. The railroad would help spur the great timber boom in Mississippi by opening its vast pine forests for exploitation. It would make Hamiliton a millionaire.
”
Lets say I had a cleaning company that did well enough for me to buy shares in Apple. I also had the contracts to do the cleaning in Apple shops and offices. It is reported that:
“
GOA would later use the profits she made from her cleaning company to buy a piece of Apple, a company cleaned, in the large part, by cleaners she employed. Apple would help spur the great smart phone boom by introducing the iPhone. It would also make GOA a millionaire.
”
Is "It" the cleaners or Apple? Is "It" the railway or the prisoners? The source explicitly links him being a millionaire to the railways. It does not explicitly link him being a millionaire to the leasing of prisoners. Does that make any sense? Hope you enjoyed my (unfortunately fictitious) story, Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 00:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Apple would make you a millionaire because of the factory workers they exploit. So if you were the contractor who supplied those workers, they would make you a millionaire, yes.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps (and completely coincidental given that the actual source is about the exploitation of people). HOWEVER, as per WP:SYNTHESIS, you are using the source material incorrectly. Yes he became a millionaire, yes he made money from leasing out prisoners, but the two are not linked in the source: you are the one linking them. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 00:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I realise this might be turning confrontational; I hope it doesn't seem like that to you as that's not my intention. Hamilton has clearly got rich by doing something awful. Its just the third hook, and the current wording of the article, isn't supported by the source. At least the way I'm reading it. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 01:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
"It" is ambiguous here. But would you prefer, "Did you know that Jones S. Hamilton became a millionaire after the war through investments in railroads run by convicts he supplied?" We can also just go ahead with the Belhaven blurbs...Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I have rephrased it in the article, too!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! That reads much better now. Would you like to propose this new DYK as an official ALT? Otherwise, I'd be happy to give this a tick for the first two. Or leave it up to the promoter to pick. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 23:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The altblurbs are fine but why 'was'? Because it burned down? It's still the namesake.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I've corrected the tense in the hooks. This is good to go. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Article is new enough (created 1 November, nominated 6 November), long enough (1983 characters), neutrally worded, cited inline, and no copyright violations. Hooks ALT0 and ALT1 are short enough (74 and 93 characters respectively), formatted correctly, cited inline and interesting. ALT3 is short enough (102 characters) and formatted correctly. However, looking at the source (Worse Than Slavery) he appears to have made his millions with the railroad: "He would later use the profits he made from convict leasing to buy a piece of the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad ... The railroad would help spur the great timber boom in Mississippi ... it would also make Hamilton a millionaire", ("it" being the railroad) so that needs clarifying. But hang on! He killed someone in a duel?! Surely that is a better hook? QPQ in progress, ALT0 is fine, ALT1 is fine, ALT2 is not. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I've corrected the tense in the hooks. This is good to go. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)