Talk:1838 Jesuit slave sale/Archive 1

Merger proposal
I propose merging Isaac Hawkins into this article. The Isaac Hawkins article falls under the guideline of one-event notability, specifically crime-victim notability. Under this guideline, it is the presumption that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. In this particular case, Hawkins' notability is solely the result of the subject of this article (i.e. the 1838 slave sale). This is evidenced by the fact that all of the secondary sources about the subject are in reference to the 1838 sale; all the sources that are not about the sale are primary sources, which is discussed at WP:BASIC. Moreover, the contents of the Hawkins article can easily be incorporated into this one.  Ergo Sum  19:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:VICTIM applies to "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial", but Hawkins' notability mainly comes from the naming of the Georgetown University building after him, and he is covered in-depth in reliable secondary sources in this context. Also, this article is only slightly longer than the Isaac Hawkins article, and it would be awkward to combine the two.  (This may be a technical point, but another issue is that slavery was not a criminal act at the time and place of the sale.  I don't believe this guideline is generally intended for victims of injustice, which is definitely the case here, but for situations where there is a specific indictable offense in a modern sense.)  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It very well may be the case that the guideline was not intended to cover slavery (although I'm not positive about that). Nonetheless, the rationale for the guideline is equally applicable here. The naming of the building after Hawkins is purely the result of the sale. Were there no sale, no building would be named after him. Likewise, all of the secondary sources that mention Hawkins mention him in the context of the renaming, which is in turn the result of sale. Whichever way one cuts it, Hawkins' notability derives from the single incident of the sale. Just because the renaming of the building happened at a different time than the sale does not mean that it is not a part of the same event that confers notability.  Ergo Sum  18:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sale and the naming, which were separated by 179 years, are one event. The naming was not an inevitable result of the sale; there were many slaves sold who were not honored in this way.  Hawkins  and his immediate descendants   also appear in sources prior to the September 2016 renaming announcement, supporting that the sale itself is a notable event separate from the naming.  In any case, if you're not convinced I'm happy to get a third opinion to settle this, as it's holding up a DYK nomination.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a third opinion would be a good idea.  Ergo Sum  17:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Third opinion requested. Just to succinctly reiterate, I'm arguing that the 1838 slave sale and the 2017 building renaming are separate events that were each mentioned independently in reliable sources, making Hawkins notable for two events.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frank Campbell of Georgetown 272 - ca 1900 - 1.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frank Campbell of Georgetown 272 - ca 1900 - 1.jpg

Move Proposal
I propose moving this article from "1838 Georgetown slave sale" to "1838 Jesuit slave sale". While it is true that the sale entered the popular discourse in recent times because of its connection with Georgetown, the sale itself was not conducted by Georgetown, the slaves were not owned by Georgetown, and they never resided or worked at Georgetown. Rather, they were owned by the Maryland province of the Society of Jesus, lived and worked at various locations throughout rural Maryland, and the proceeds went to benefit Georgetown (primarily, but not exclusively). Hence, the sale was actually arranged by William McSherry while provincial superior (not president of Georgetown) and was executed by Thomas Mulledy while provincial superior (not president of Georgetown). Therefore, it only makes sense that the article be titled Jesuit, rather than Georgetown.  Ergo Sum  19:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing no opposition (or response one way or the other), I'm going to go ahead and move the article.  Ergo Sum  18:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but I agree with the proposal, I'd even previously considered proposing it myself. Its a small difference, one that the press on this subject generally glosses over, but is something that the article's title should make clear. I imagine there's some sort of Venn diagram between Jesuit finances and Georgetown finances in the 1830s, but I agree with how you described the history above.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late too, but I'd caution about WP:COMMONAME. The sale is notable solely for its association with Gerogetown University, and not with the Jesuits as a whole.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sloppy writing
“news of these facts came as a surprise to the public in 2015” What is the source for this statement? Who is the public? Is the public a person? 2600:6C64:667F:DB94:B855:7F3D:3520:8DE1 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the source but your complaint about "the public" is a bit silly. How about giving it a rank? like "the general public"? Drmies (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it ranked so highly? I think we have to start with "private public" and let it earn its stripes from there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As the author of this "sloppy writing", my own two cents is that it is quite clear from context that "the public" refers to those who were not privy with a slightly niche academic literature about the sale. Hence the public surprise that is described shortly thereafter.  Ergo Sum  17:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

perhaps “some of the public” is a better phrasing to be clear it’s not all as this tries to show RJS001 (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)