Talk:James Forten

Re: Birth/Death Year Links
hello Hi, not sure why you removed those links. I don't recall ever seeing a bio article which doesn't have Birth/Death Year links. I think it's fair to say this is Wikipedia Standard -- maybe not officially (I'm not sure) but certainly in practice. BTW, I have removed some year links from articles when they added nothing, just visual clutter. But Birth/Death Year links actually make good sense. Cgingold 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The newly added material
Hello, WBardwin - you've made a good start on integrating the new material into the existing article! I was afraid I would have to do it by myself (whenever I found a nice chunk of time to work on it). I will lend a hand in the near future.

In the meantime, I am puzzled as to why you've left certain paragraphs indented and italicized. Did you intend to leave them like that as a temporary measure?

Also, if you have the time, all of those new footnotes should be converted to some reasonable approximation of Wikipedia-style citations. Just give it your best shot, if you are so inclined!

Regards, Cgingold 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that material was placed in quotation marks in the newly added material, so I am going on the assumption that they are actually quotes from source material. When I can manage time (sigh!)to find the source material at the library, we can trim them down or, possibly, paraphrase to more accurately represent the author's opinion.  If you find the source first, be my guest.  As to the footnotes, I've been away from Wiki for several months and should renew my knowledge of footnote protocol before proceeding.   Best wishes.  WBardwin 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be better to paraphrase some of the material rather than having such lengthy quotes in italics.  Makes it difficult to read, for one thing.--Parkwells (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * okokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokokookokokokok 108.240.1.34 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Too much flowery narratives and subjective statements
Some of this article reads as though pulled directly from a biography or other non-encyclopedic material about this man. Articles on wikipedia should hold to encyclopedic standards and should describe basic facts without flowery embellishments. I know people care about this man's leagcy but lets remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a history textbook.

To illustrate, consider the following statement which has no place in a modern encyclopedic article: "His rise to prominence his understanding of the nature of power and authority, his determination to speak out and be heard are object lessons in the realities of community politics. Disfranchised he might have been, but voiceless he never was."

To those who follow this article, please work toward making it more compliant to encyclopedic standards. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

more new material…

 * “The Life of James Forten: Revolutionary Era Model in the Other Tradition”, by Julie Winch Ph.D., published by National Center for Race Amity (Facebook), November 19, 2016.
 * Not sure how you want to integrate a Facebook video… Smkolins (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
How could he act on the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 if he died in 1842? Bill S. (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)