# Talk:Clarence Lightner

The source I used for the opening sentence (New York Times) says Lightner was the first black mayor of a Southern city with a white majority. I assume they mean Atlanta's Maynard Jackson was voted in before Lightner making him the first black mayor of a Southern city, period. According to Jackson's WP article, he wasn't elected until 1974, the year after Lightner. Although PBS says Jackson was indeed the first black mayor of a Southern city, Raleigh's government website states that Lightner was the first. Anyone know which one was the actual first? I want to make sure to get the opening line correct and it's an important detail. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually the election would be in the fall and people would take office in January, as Maynard Jackson did in Atlanta, and also the first black mayor of Detroit, who both were elected in the fall of 1973 and took office in Jan. 1974.
Raleigh's cycle seems to run oddly; the city site said Lightner was elected in Oct. 1973 and that he served through Oct. 1975.  Usually the election cycles are for taking office in even years, so you may want to check - he may have started serving in Jan. 1974, and served through Jan.1, 1976, when the next mayor would have been sworn in.  The only other thing I can think of was that it was a special election because someone died in office, but it's probably just the difference between election date and starting date. Still, you can probably go with Raleigh's material - the big cities probably overlooked its achievement.--Parkwells (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the Raleigh mayor list, they appear to all be on odd numbered years. I'll remove the 'with a white majority' for now. If someone else has a source saying that Jackson was the definite first, then please add the phrase back. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the articles said he was elected Oct. 1, 1973, which implies the election itself. Another hint is first "popularly elected".  Maybe before this, mayors were elected from among the City Council - you'd have to look at form of gov't.  If Jackson and the mayor of Detroit were elected in normal cycles, they would have been elected in Nov. 1973, and started to serve in Jan. 1974.  So that makes Lightner the first of all!--Parkwells (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If he was the first in the country, then that would definitely be important to mention. I just need to find a source to back it up. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The first black mayors in the country were elected in 1967 in the north - Cleveland, OH and Gary, IN.--Parkwells (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
APK, you got a good tag team partner in Parkwells. He's done an awesome job on Mississippi. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 13:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that. He's a good Wikipedian. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First ever, or first since reconstruction?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 

First ever. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added references to place this in historical perspective - Lightner came of age when most blacks were still disfranchised; he was of the first generation elected to office after the Voting Rights Act, but was already established as a leader in the community. It's important, because we forget so fast about where people have come from and where we've come from as a nation.--Parkwells (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have used material from this article to add back to the one on Raleigh - especially about early voter registration and strong black middle class in the city, plus Lightner being elected by white-majority city. Good to have a fuller picture!--Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it to the Raleigh article. I've been adding the history section the past 2 days and it needs more material like that because right now it sounds very time-liney. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions in passing that he was the first "popularly elected" mayor of Raleigh -- it would be interesting to know how earlier mayors were selected (elected by the city council, maybe?). --Jfruh (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I can find out. When I was writing the history section of Raleigh, I noticed that as well. It's kind of confusing. The sources I used had described the election in that manner, so that's why I used it. Thanks for pointing that out. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the articles about his election said it was the first popular election for mayor since 1946, or something like that. They must have elected the mayor from within the City Council, but the city manager was the real head.--Parkwells (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clarence Lightner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727032905/http://www.lightnerfund.org/index.cfm to http://www.lightnerfund.org/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Clarence Lightner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727032020/http://www.lightnerfund.org/about.cfm?Section=Background to http://www.lightnerfund.org/about.cfm?Section=Background
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304122634/http://www.king-raleigh.org/pgms/waterm.htm to http://www.king-raleigh.org/pgms/waterm.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

[1]
[2]
[3]
-Indy beetle (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

[4]
-Indy beetle (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

[5]
[6]
[7]
-Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

[8]
-Indy beetle (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Citizen Revolt Buries 'Old' Raleigh
The News and Observer Index : 1973
-Indy beetle (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clarence Lightner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: Thanks for your patience; I've finished, just a couple more for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
All issues addressed.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
One concern with dead source addressed
C. It contains no original research: 
Spotchecks clear
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Spotchecks clear, Earwig's tool clear, though it flags titles he held
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
No issues
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
All feedback taken care of, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
Can you find links for "black" and "white" at first use in the body that would be appropriate for the US context?
I've simply inked to black people and white people if that suffices.
That's fine; African Americans and White Americans would be another option.
Link "football" and "quarterback"
Done.
Do we know where he served in WWII?
Sources do not specify.
"He later served as president" "He" is ambiguous
Changed to Lightner.
Find a link for "desegregate"
Linked to School integration in the United States.
"During his tenure" tenure on what?
Err to which instance are you referring? I have now clarified all anyhow.
"Mayor pro tempore" shouldn't "pro tempore" be italicized?
It is a Latin phrase, but its also an official title, like President pro tempore of the United States Senate, so italicization seems unnecessary.
Link "South" (in the American context)
"Southern" is already linked to Southern United States.
Missed that.
Link "mass transit system"
Done.
The first paragraph of "later activities" is verging on proseline. I'm not going to hold up the GA review over this, but I would suggest varying the sentence structure a little there.
Minor revision made.
Acronyms, while useful, can be confusing, and I recommend avoiding them where possibly. NCCU and CIAA are both used just once; you could substitute the full form without any length issues.
Done.
Can you find an archive url for the dead link?
@Vanamonde93: No, it seems permanently lost. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: strange. Given that it's a quote from a living person, I'm not too happy signing off on a permanently unverifiable link. Can you look for an alternative? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I've found another source to corroborate the existence of the foundation, and have thus added that, but nothing for the quote, so I've removed it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)