Talk:George Washington Williams

message: I removed the following from the historian section "Incorrect - phrase originated from tour of congo, see reference" (Broader context "Here, Williams used the term “crime against humanity” in his reflections about the immorality of slavery in the United States, which was one the earliest usages of the term in its modern sense.")
First, I don't believe such a 'call out' should be put in the main page of an article, or am I wrong? 
Secondly, this call out is unsubstantiated itself. As is prooved at the given reference (Lösing 2020: 80, footnote) Hochschild and many other scholars have overlooked that Williams himself had used the term much earlier then in his widely quoted Congo lettre, precisely in his History of the Negro. So the term in no way 'originated from his Conog lettre' as is claimed here.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.28.233 (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'call out of unsubstantiated claim' 22 August 22 

message: One thing which Google books is good for is finding earlier dates for a phrase than one cited in more recent books. For example by putting in search dates from 1750 to 1850 it is easy to see that there are lots of earlier publications that use the term "Crime against humanity" many to do with the slave trade. Restricting the search to 1750 to 1810 and the earliest book returned is  Public characters, [Formerly British public characters] of 1798-9 - 1809-10, Published 1804. pp. 526,527 "offensive war is a high crime against humanity and Christianity." by Dr Knox from a sermon he gave in Brighton in 1793, almost 100 years before George Washington Williams sent his letter.--PBS (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: @Philip Baird Shearer You must. 2603:6000:D70A:BC00:5D19:E5B8:3247:B000 (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime against humanity 

message: The subject of this article was born in 1849 in Pennsylvania, after that state abolished slavery, and therefore as a free man.  However, I found the article under the category "American Slaves."  How did it end up there?72.29.105.2 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @72.29.105.2  Yes. Not all Afro-Americans were slaves. 2603:6000:D70A:BC00:5D19:E5B8:3247:B000 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect categorization 

message: I removed the URL www.georgewashingtonwilliams.org from the list of External Links. A look through the Wayback Machine archives indicates that this URL was relevant to the topic of this article from 2003-2011.  But the current content of this URL - such as it is - has no apparent relationship to the subject of this article.  Looking into the background of this URL on WHOis.net indicates that it was registered anonymously in 2013. Unfortunately the old posts accessed via the Wayback Machine appear to have suffered severe link rot, since only the header graphic/banner appears to have survived.* So it hardly seemed worth substituting any of those archive URLs for the one I removed.
*A bit of further clicking within the archive.org site took me to a site which asked me to install QuickTime in order to see the content; I may do so later when on a more suitable PC, but I am not well situated to do so at this moment. If anyone else wishes to check this out, and decides it is worth it to update the article with the QuickTime-containing link, knock yerself out. GWW was clearly a remarkable individual; his story is very much worth chronicling as thoroughly as possible.
Sharl928 (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of URL from 'External Links' section