Talk:John Punch (slave)

Lead Thinking - Who Comprises "Consensus?"
Also- Obama's Y-chromosome cannot be descended from Punch, unless a descendant of Punch went back to Africa and his line produced an ancestor of Obama's father there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.207.214 (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

To Lead or Not to Lead
There are those who feel the opening (or "Lead") section of a Wikipedia® article should be more than just a basic summary of the article; that it should “hook” the reader, stretched -even- so far as to employ elements with shock value, simply in order to entice.
 * The only real requirements for the summary are that the information be
 * reflective of the article’s content
 * general enough not to require detail for conveying a basic understanding, and
 * accurate to the extent it will be supported.
 * W P : L E D E

That is Not the Question
Before the composition process even begins, however, it is useful, when “tooling” the content, to determine the article’s intended category… a shoebox, if you will, into which the information is placed and stored for ease of retrieval at a later time. In the case of “John Punch (slave),” which pertains to an historical event, an individual involved in the event, and myriad interpretations of and purported consequences resulting from the event, identifying the category is more difficult than it would, at first, appear; certainly more than it should be. It’s not a biography, as the title implies. Too little information is known about the subject, which actually plays a very small role in the plot. It is also not just about an historical event. "I hated history as a child and well into my thirties. I saw it only in terms of references to isolated events which occurred in the past… as facts established (as if written in stone) at the time. I would often defend my position by saying, “It’s history.  It will be there when I am ready for it.”  I realize now that I couldn’t have been more wrong." There are three main uses of “history,” which apply to writing about an historic event. Any or all may be employed when composing an article, although confining it to just one makes it easier to clarify a purpose and relate it to a title:
 * as a reference
 * as a chronology
 * as a study.

"Half of writing history is hiding the truth. - Mutant Enemy/Joss Whedon" Writing about the July 9th 1640 event, for example, purely in terms as a reference, would necessitate the use of primary source documentation, and that would clearly undermine the established perspective of the article, which incontrovertibly labels John Punch a slave. There are simply too few sources from that window of time to support any stand-alone article, much less one with such a protected perspective. Instead, the article becomes a tidy study about an event from the past. It is also a chronology.

The Question's 'Gone Fishing'
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach. ― Aldous Huxley, Collected Essays" Exploring an historic event chronologically is problematic if it endeavors to describe an evolution relating to any event other than that identified as the subject in the title, and I’ve already establish the fact that it is a veritable impossibility. While it may make sense to editors to elucidate the evolution of slavery, or entertain meaningful discourse on the “slave v. servant” debate, such discussions must comport with the title. As presently written, they do not. Neither does the last sentence of the first paragraph, which reads like an editorial commitment to reveal content which can only be perceived as “proof” in support of an argument most people will not even know exists. So, to that end, the title is not a statement; it’s a question on a fishing trip.


 *  DID YOU KNOW?  ...English historian E.H. Carr was actually in the process of revising "History" when he died?

Much Ado About Nothing
There's another general concept which, especially with respect to Wikipedia®, eludes me: the much-too-much ado made about reliability. Reliability itself, isn’t inherently reliable; at least, not on Wikipedia®. Neither the Wiki article about it nor the credibility of those whose writings are considered it can truly qualify, by anyone’s standards, to stand the test of time so crucial to "reliability." Reliable is not contradicting oneself in writing. Reliable is predictable, consistent and committed. Reliable is not defined by an opinion arrived at by consensus. (That is more accurately defined as “pure democracy.”) Reliable is not information sourced from any Wikipedia® article, nor is it characterized by interpretation based on current trends absent proof absolute. Editors who proselytize strict adherence to "reliable" reporting should remain vigilant in practicing it themselves, particularly when linking selected phrases to other Wikipedia® articles. (They are self-described as unreliable, tertiary sources.) It almost makes the purpose of sweating over a Wikipedia® article comedic, if not altogether futile.
 * W P : N O T R S
 * W P : R S

There's Something Rotten
The following suggested revisions to the lead attempt to excavate the stench which seeps out, almost imperceptibly, about the history of Virginia, and it avoids the use of citation templates linked to reliably unreliable content. It is written to rely solely on supported content and depart from issues prone to be contentious, if for no other reason than because they invite opponents to want to deconstruct the article. No editor, pit bull or not, can be willing and able, much less expected but for only so long, to defend the opinions of others, especially when there are so many. It may be a contradiction, but I offer the below “before, during and (elsewhere) after” paragraphs freely and without expectations of any type of acknowledgement or appreciation from the majority. Members of the “consensus" group may take it or leave it. Either way, as soon as I have posted it, because I do not wish to be reminded of my own wasted efforts (other than as written herein), I shall begin deleting my other loquacious comments germane to the subject article, which, to my knowledge, failed in meeting with approval to improve the article. I hope this will, at least, help those who read it, to see things in a slightly different light, if one even exists at the end of this tunnel.

The Infobox
They actually mean two completely different things. It is not "probable" that there is more than one place of birth, nor is it probable that it is either Cameroon, Gabon or Cote Ivoire. Just because DNA markers indicate a preponderance of sub-Saharan attributes specific to those three countries, does not mean Punch resided there. The markers could point to his father or grandmother, the DNA from whom he inherited. Using the source considered reliable enough for the editors to base all of the content of their infobox, there is revealed only one way to report Punch's place of birth without risking offense to the truth. (It would be an interesting discussion to parallel how immigrants from this area, influenced at the time by every single nation involved in the African Slave Trade: Muslim Fulani, Dutch, Portuguese and English, might have perceived slavery as status quo upon arrival at Cape Comfort.  It certainly would correspond with what Ancestry.com asserts: "Slavery in the earliest decades of Virginia did not exist in the same way that it did at the time of the Civil War.")

"John Punch ( fl. 1630s[1], living 1640s[2]) was an African indentured servant[3] who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced him to remain a servant[3] for the rest of his life as punishment for running away to Maryland; in contrast, two European men[4] who also[5] ran away with him were sentenced to longer[6] indentures[3] but not total loss of freedom. For this reason, historians[7] consider Punch the first documented[8] lifetime slave[9] in the colony, and his case a key milestone[10] in the development[11] of the institution[12] of slavery in the United States[13]."

The First Paragraph
"It often is used in ...historical writing when a person's birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when he or she was alive. For example, if there are wills attested by John Jones in 1204, 1207, and 1229, and a record of his marriage in 1197, a record concerning him might be written as, "John Jones (fl. 1197–1229)". There being no documents to support 1630s solely, the correct use would be the range 1634-1640 (with the first date being whichever date Ancestry claims as the birth of his first child.)  Instead, Ancestry carefully employs only one date as certain, "living 1640," thus removing any support for the use of "fl." Ancestry.com also claims he may have had two children ca 1636-38. If you're not even remotely certain, or if your assertion is contradicted (or would contradict; thus tear down another theory, especially that of Ancestry.com linking him to Obama, I would just omit it altogether. Besides, his period of greatest activity was in 1640; not in the 1630s.



And if he was not, then the two others sentenced in the hearing could not have received longer indentures than he did; they simply received extensions to their existing indentures. Also, the word "remain" is inaccurate if, especially in the same paragraph, it is proffered that he is a specific type of servant and that type changes... There's nothing to indicate he "remained" in any type of state or status whatsoever. Again, like the other two, his existing status was ruled to be extended; in his case, it was clarified to be for life. Whether that was an extension of time or a legal ruling to prevent Gwyn from freeing him by manumission, upon completion of an as-yet-undetermined period of time or upon purchase outright, is not certain. (I do plan to ask Ancestry to further its research to offer the "status" of Punch's children, so we may work backwards in identifying his status at the time of their respective births... contrary to what ancestry claims about the mother's status).

If we don't know Punch's age, and there's no documentation to state either the dutchman or the Scotchman were actually men older than the legal "age of discretion," then how can we assert it? First, the lower case "D" in dutchman may not be an error. If not, it is a general term to distinguish from female. Viktor could have been the youngest of the three servants... 12 or 13. (Read "Huckleberry Finn" or "Tom Sawyer.") If you want to do your own research, WP:OR, as Scoobydunk is wont to write, then call them men, but put the word in quotations, to be safe. Legally, they were probably all "infants," since they (Punch especially) had not entered into any agreements to get out of their presumed contracted period of servitude; something which could have been negotiated when they turned 21. The quotation marks, at least, leave open the possibility of two of these being young teenagers who coerced their elder negro friend to help them... which may be why he suffered the most. Do we know otherwise?

"Also" is redundant and misleading.



Some, not all. Do not push a concept intentionally to mislead.

Documentation = documents. I'd say something more accurate, like legal or or just leave that out. You expound upon it later anyway. Use that sentence again, and include the right word, but elsewhere...

(Rather than appearing to reiterate the "lifetime" part, it actually makes it look as if "lifetime" is needed in order to define slavery, and your entire article is predicated on the fact that "lifetime" actually IS slavery.

If it's not the first, then what's the article about? If it is the first, then just say it.

... or better still... "gradual evolution?"

C'est la vie.

You have to be correct, first, about your assertions in the Colony, before you can claim them as firsts, also, for the nation.

My edits were driven by the WP claims that its articles cannot be considered reliable. That disclaimer does not necessarily mean editors need accept a license to make it so. Particularly in the face of reliable secondary sources existing to contradict what could be first read by the audience, it should be written to reflect the least contentious perspective which can still support the title and perspective of the article. While important to grab the reader and entice them to want to read more, in all likelihood, they won't. So get it right in the opening paragraph...   Note also that it does nothing to detract from the power of the piece if it is crafted cleverly, yet correctly. Of all places, let the Lead be written so as not to incite continued opposition. The title does that well enough on its own.

"What is history, but a fable agreed upon? - Napoléon Bonaparte"

first slave?
The first slaves (indentured or not) in Virginia came from Angola, and had preceded this report by at least a decade. Therefore, Punch/Bunch was not the first slave (in the legal sense) in colonial Virginia. The adds doubt to some 'facts' stated in the rest of the article.72.174.131.123 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Punch vs. Bunch
Their is absolutely "no evidence" John Punch is the patriarch of the Bunch family. It is very shoddy guess work. Jack Goins states that John Bunch Sr. was brought to the colony by indenture in 1651. This means he was transported from somewhere where he could not afford his passage. Our Bunch DNA matches EM2 Bunch in the England, Barbados, and Bermuda lines, all of which have trees with the name Bunch that predate this event. Nothing fits. 198.208.72.240 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)