Talk:John Punch (slave)/Archive 2

Sources and Citations
Have deleted Henry Robert Burke as a cited source, as his article, "Slavery in Virginia," is undated, on his personal website, and does not add new material to the discussion. Historians in 1913 and 1926, published by RS academic presses, established the facts about the case. Will add him as an External Link - he's an example of people who especially contribute to local history.Parkwells (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Costa

 *  Comments have been successfully removed by author: Dr. Matt (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tags are used for the article because they ask editors to supply necessary sources to support changes they've made to the article. The tags you've added to quotes from a secondary sources basically equate to you demanding that Tom Costa appear on Wikipedia and supply you with sources already listed in his publication. Furthermore, I've already explained to you that original research is not allowed in articles on Wikipedia. So your own interpretations of the terms "slave" and "servant for life" carry no weight and do not merit a rebuttal/response. If you have reliable secondary sources, as defined by WP:reliable, that say Punch remained an indentured servant and didn't become a slave, then you're welcome to post those to the table in the same format that the other sources are presented. From there, we as editors, can discuss how the article should accommodate those new sources.


 * I'll also add that Costa merely refers to the fact the some scholars and historians consider this the first legal distinction between races which is not the same as affirming the statement itself. This assessment of his is clearly supported by the fact that there are other historians and scholars presented in the table that do affirm that statement.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comment has been successfully removed by author: Dr. Matt (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Affirmative. It's not difficult to understand that people with different backgrounds and different biases will have different considerations of what they define as "truth". Your extreme example might sound silly to you, but it becomes less silly when applied to someone arguing that our solar system is geocentric as opposed to heliocentric and becomes more relevant when someone is arguing that creationism is "true". So the articles on Wikipedia do not reflect the subjective interpretations and opinions of editors for this reason. Instead, Wikipedia has created specific set of rules to address these difference between editors. Those rules take the form of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and WP:OR. It doesn't matter what we believe to be "true", what matters is what's verified by strong reliable secondary sources. Regarding your text color example, I could just as easily claim, with every bit of certainty as you, that the text is "magenta" and now we're even further from establishing what is considered "true". This is why we use sources from academic and accredited institutions to support the information on Wikipedia. If those sources don't exist, you're welcome to use less reliable sources like a book published by a private company or a primary source, but they do not hold more weight and aren't to be considered over secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's more stringent guidelines for reliability.  Scoobydunk (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome to WP PresidentistVB. Despite many attempts there has been no consensus attained regarding Punch being a slave or servant. Unfortunately the question is somewhat politicized so it is difficult to get input from other editors. The terminology used MUST reflect the mainstream view of historians. I believe that view is that Punch was a servant or that at the very least mainstream views are divided on the subject. Scoobydunk however believes Punch was a slave and claims ownership of the article by reverting any text that suggests otherwise in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT no matter how well supported. Scoobydunk wont compromise and as I don't want to edit war I gave up arguing with him leaving John Punch by Scoobydunk a better title. If I get time I'll help you argue the case for a NPOV article. Cheers Wayne (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wayne, I'll take this time to remind you about wikipedia's policies regarding personal attacks. PresidentistVB, Just to clear up possible confusion, WLRoss just spent a fair amount of time talking about "beliefs" but personal beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia articles. What is relevant is what can actually be verified through the use of a reliable source. The table has multiple sources that reference this case as a racial distinction and that also refer to John Punch as a slave. To the contrary, the table supplies 0 sources that say Punch remained an indentured servant and/or wasn't a slave. The article should reflect information from reliable sources and it does.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wayne, as you know, it's not just Scoobydunk that disagrees with you on this particular issue so it seems inaccurate to say he's monopolizing the article. Scoobydunk, what personal attacks are you talking about? I certainly don't see any. Obviously Wayne's not your biggest fan (nor mine, I'm sure), but I don't think I've once seen him attack anyone personally.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neil P. Quinn, I'm be happy to answer your question. As a matter of fact, you referred to it directly. WP:Personal states:


 * "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."


 * "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor."


 * Criticizing someone for ownership is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. On top of that, article talk pages are not the place to make criticisms about other editors. So here you have Wayne criticizing my behavior as "ownership" and also criticizing me for not compromising. Also, the remark about "John Punch by Scoobydunk" is not constructive and is a personal criticism suggesting ownership as well. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have previously been warned regarding ownership. It may not have been this specific article but it was over the question of whether Punch or Johnson was the first slave. You are exhibiting the same behavior again here. Wayne (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes and I requested that person to supply evidence in the forms of diffs or links as is required by Wikipedia. He could not supply any diffs or evidence to support his claim and I told him he was in violation of WP:Personal. I even gave him an example of what "ownership" actually looks like as described by WP:OWN and he still could not do the same. I planned on pursuing additional assistance against that editor since he was also in violation of guidelines set for administrators, but I found that he fled from Wikipedia during the midst of an arbitration case against him involving abuse of his powers on a multitude of incidents against other editors. Since he left, I felt it was no longer prudent to stack on to the plethora of accusations against him. Either way, this does not enable you to violate Wikipedia's policies the same way he/she did and the article talk page is certainly not the appropriate place for these criticisms.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of a personal attack that not only lacks substance but also indicates a confrontational and blinkered attitude to editing. Wayne (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that was an explanation about how attempting to piggy back on other peoples' unsubstantiated accusations is still considered a personal attack, not a personal attack in and of itself. If you're referring to the examples I gave to that other editor, those are not a personal attack because I have yet to levy such accusations, but if I did choose to levy them, I have direct instances that clearly follow the behavior described by WP:OWN. So I have serious evidence to support that serious accusation and am not in violation of WP:personal.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference if you make the claim on another editors talk page or on this Talk page, especially as you repeated the claim on this talk page anyway. Regarding your examples, please explain how a list of articles I have edited is evidence of ownership and explain why my asking you not to delete unreferenced material for a "day or so" because I was adding references to the article is also evidence. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't made a claim about ownership except for "what it looks like" and that is not a personal attack. I then provided quotes from WP:Own of what ownership looks like and then gave evidence in the form of diffs and links to behavior that meets those Wikipedia's description of "ownership". The quotes are right there and they are self explanatory.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never disputed that some historians consider Punch a slave. The problem is that you will not allow the use of the word "some" or give equal weight to other historians views. I have provided a source that specifically discusses the three mainstream views yet you continue to cherry pick only sources that support your view.
 * History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom Philip Sheldon Foner 1975: "They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians beliève that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way." Wayne (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have not presented any historians that have published strong reliable sources that say John Punch was not a slave. So how can we give equal weight to something you haven't provided. Also, Foner specifically says:


 * "...others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant." (my emphasis)


 * Here, Foner is speaking about slavery as an institution and the Negro in general, not about every single slave and every single negro. His mention of the institution is explicit and, at best, his mention of the Negro can be considered dubious, though I feel it's clear he's speaking about Negros in general. To clarify this, we have another strong reliable secondary source.


 * "On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989.


 * This verifies that almost everyone acknowledges that slavery existed by the 1640s. That doesn't contradict Foner because Vaughan is not speaking to slavery as an institution like Foner is, he simply saying that almost everyone acknowledges that slavery did exist by the 1640s. This is a clear assessment and declaration of the "mainstream" view that does not contradict or conflict with what other strong reliable secondary sources have been saying about John Punch. This also means that the people who do not fall into the category of "almost everyone acknowledges" are an insignificant minority and Wikipedia does not give insignificant minorities equal weight or mention, whatsoever, unless in an article that's specifically written to address those minority viewpoints.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Vaughan specifically backs up Foner in that there are varying views. Regarding Punch, show me a single primary source that says he was a slave. Secondary sources are reporting their own interpretations rather than accepting what the primary sources say and are divided on the matter anyway. This article is presenting the views of some historians as the mainstream view to the exclusion of other views that have equal weight. Wayne (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Primary sources don't take priority over reliable secondary sources and WP:Reliable does a sufficient job in explaining why. So I don't have to provide a primary source that says any such thing. Also, Vaughan was saying almost everyone acknowledges slavery existed by 1640, which means, John Punch being considered a slave does not contradict with what Foner mentioned about some historians not considering the institution of slavery starting until 1660. So Foner doesn't contradict what other historians say about Punch, and Vaughan clarifies this. I'm still waiting for you to post those reliable sources that say John Punch remained a servant and didn't become a slave. We can't give equal weight to sources you haven't supplied yet. It's that simple, supply the sources, stop claiming they exist and showing up empty handed.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comment has been successfully removed by author: Dr. Matt (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Jordan, Winthrop
That particular source from Winthrop can probably be rejected as a strong source because his claim that Punch was sentenced to "hereditary life time service" is not remotely supported by records. Wayne (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The strength of an author or source is not dependent upon what you feel is remotely supported by records. You also need to read the passage because he didn't say that Punch was sentenced to "hereditary life time service." Winthrop said that this was the first "trace" of life time heredity servitude in that fact that it was the first documented instance of life time servitude. It wasn't until later that heredity became part of the formula of slavery, but the Punch case was the first trace of what eventually became slavery as we know it. That was the point he was making and it's a point shared by just about all of the strong reliable sources listed here.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not "what I feel", it is an indisputable fact that there are no supporting records for the claim. Punch was also not the first documented instance of life time servitude as there are earlier documented cases of life time servitude for whites and according to Toppin, there is also documentary evidence of life time servitude for blacks in the 1630s. Punch is merely the first documented "court case" involving a black sentenced to life in a country where the majority of court records are lost. Wayne (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We will come to a consensus based on what the reliable sources do actually say and not based on merely your assertions, and that consensus will be based on material relevant to John Punch and John Casor. Also, Toppin fails the criteria for a reliable sources for 2 reasons. First, the book you quoted from is a text book and is therefore not considered a reliable source when dealing with other secondary sources, which North Shoreman informed you of weeks ago. Second, the publisher is not a scholarly journal, university press, or specialized reference work, it is a textbook publisher. Our first dispute resolution third opinion informed you of this, Neil specifically didn't include him in the table, most likely because of this, and now I'm telling you this. It does not meet the criteria of a strong reliable source, please remove it from the table.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wayne, I hear your point. I have to say I disagree, but at this point I'm just focusing on defining which are the strong sources that we should rely on in taking the temperature of the scholarly consensus. Scoobydunk is correct here: I am deliberately excluding textbooks, because their function is to give a very broad, shallow overview and to abstract away some of the historical nuance. That type of literature definitely has its place, but it doesn't belong in a deep discussion of a very narrow point. Regarding Toppin's book, I was torn about including it, but I just noticed on Worldcat that one of its publisher-defined subject headings is "African Americans -- History -- Juvenile literature." That convinces me that we shouldn't include it. However, Foner (I think you originally brought that one) is a good source, and you should feel free to add more like it. —Neil 09:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Neil I just wanted to make sure that you're also checking sources for "John Casor". I feel whatever consensus we come to should include a comparison between the two and whatever criteria we use for John Punch also gets equally and fairly attributed to John Casor. For example, if we're going to make the consensus that historians debate about when slavery actually began, then I feel that also applies to how we describe John Casor. I feel the sources we've already listed as strong sources give an in depth look at colonial slavery in Virginia and equally apply to both John Punch and John Casor. However, I just wanted to make sure you weren't limiting your search to just "John Punch" as there might be some credible strong sources that don't mention Punch but mention Casor instead. This is what WLRoss should be doing, but since you're a neutral third opinion, I think you should be doing it as well to give both of our positions fair representation. I know this can be a bit laborious but thank you for your participation.-Scoobydunk (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a scholarly source from a historical sociologist that studied the history of racial oppression. Since many historians are keen are describing and analyzing the disparate treatment of blacks based on race in colonial Virginia, I think including the input of someone who specializes in race relations and sociology gives more credence to claims of that nature. Coates received his Ph. D. in sociology from the University of Chicago. He serves on the executive boards of the Southern Sociological Society and Sociologists without Borders and was the former chair of the Section of Race and Ethnic Minorities of the American Sociological Association.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, good point about Casor. I found a couple of references to him in sources I had already logged, plus one new one at the bottom of the table. None of them cite him as a first. I don't consider Coates the strongest of sources on this point because, among other things, he cites a secondary source rather than primary sources for his knowledge of the Punch case, but I think it's within the bounds. I think we've gotten to the point where more sources would be superfluous. Let me sum up my conclusions: So I think we can very safely say: Punch's sentence is the first documented case of lifetime slavery in the Virginia colony, and he is often considered the colony's first slave, or something else with the key modifiers "documented", "lifetime", and "in Virginia". I'm also wondering if we should also remove the mention of Casor being the first slave in a civil case from his article unless we can find a strong historical source saying so. Toppin is our only one, and it's not the strongest. —Neil 01:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost every source explicitly uses the term "slave" when discussing Punch, and certainly none of them argue that he wasn't.
 * Most of them make a point of calling him a lifelong or lifetime slave, I suspect because it's not clear that his slavery was hereditary (and may not have been at the time either).
 * Six explicitly label him the first documented case of slavery, and none of the rest attempt to rebut this.


 * I will piggyback on your assessment with my own regarding the similarities of John Punch and John Casor. The majority of the sources explicitly say that John Punch was the first documented slave in Virginia. Others regard Punch as the first official slave or say that his case was the first legal sanction of slavery in Virginia. They characterize John Punch as a slave because he was forced or "reduced" to mandatory servitude for the rest of his life as the result of a court decision. This is why they say he stopped being an indentured servant and became slave as the result of his court case. John Casor is considered a slave for the same reason. John Casor was forced to servitude for the rest of his life, the same way John Punch was. So they are both considered slaves because they were both reduced to lifetime servitude. The difference between them, is that Punch was sentenced to slavery 14 years before Casor was ruled to be a slave. This is why these historians frequently discuss the importance of the Punch case and scarcely even mention the Casor case at all. Many historians also point out the importance of the Punch case as being the first documented evidence of racial disparity between white and black indentured servants. The other 2 servants that ran away were sentenced to 4 years plus lashings, while Punch, for no reason other than the color of his skin, was sentenced to lifetime servitude and lashings. None of these sources indicate the Casor trial as being important or influential to the development of slavery. The only source that did give it any considerable recognition was Foner who only used it as an example of how planters were started to impose slavery onto their indentured servants and ignore when indentured contracts were fulfilled. None of them characterize this as being the first legal recognition or documentation of slavery.


 * My conclusion of the evidence and the sources is that Casor and Punch were both considered slaves because they were legally documented as being reduced to lifelong servitude. I don't much care for the exact wording that is used in the article, as long as the consensus represents that Punch was a legally documented slave before Casor became a legally documented slave and, in turn, that Hugh Gwyn was legally recognized as a slave owner before Anthony Johnson was legally recognized as a slave owner. There is no strong reliable source that tries to claim that Casor was the first slave or that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner, while there are many that explicitly say Punch was the first slave and recognize Hugh Gwyn as his owner. Any attempt to pretend that Casor was the first legal slave is simply unsupported by the sources and is a clear misrepresentation of the history of Virginia. This is the essence of what I've found to be true from our strong sources. Feel free to offer your opinions.


 * As per Casor and the civil case, though it is factually accurate, it is clearly not mentioned or emphasized in the strong reliable sources. So I agree with you that it should probably be removed because it gives Casor a false sense of historical importance which is not even remotely shared by the sources we've identified as strong. I personally believe that his importance is trumped up and misrepresented as an attempt of revisionist history that ultimately tries to blame a black slave owner(Anthony Johnson) as the founder of slavery or a key contributor of the development of slavery, which is not expressed by a single well credentialed historian or source that we've listed here. None of them say that explicitly or implicitly.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Claiming the Casor claim is revisionist history is WP:OR. None of the sources say Johnson was responsible for slavery, merely that his was the first case where a court recognized chattel slavery as legal. The only revisionist history I see is the push to say "most historians" support Punch being the first slave when the sources say "some" or "other historians" support this view. Wayne (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You cant say that Punch was a legally documented slave because he wasn't and the sources don't claim he was. He was a lifetime indentured servant which some historians consider slavery. Hugh Gwyn was no more the first slave owner than any of the other planters who illegally held slaves at that time. The main difference between Punch and Casor was that Punch had an indenture while Casor did not, the court extended Punches servitude (bondage slavery) while in the case of Casor the court specifically found that he had no indenture and was owned by Johnson (chattel slavery) which is a significant difference.


 * Wayne, you've failed to provide a single source to support your argument that John Punch remained an indentured servant. It's been over a month now and you haven't listed ONE SINGLE SOURCE to support this claim. Many of the sources I've posted said that Punch was legally made a slave and the point is that he was made a slave the same way Casor was. As the result of a court decision. The only difference is one is a criminal case and the other is a civil case. If you had any interest in representing the truth or bothering to read the sources, then you'd know this.
 * "Rather than take on additional years, he was made a slave for life. Scholars have argued that this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts."<--What's the first legal distinction? Oh, it's that John Punch was made a slave. Why is it legal? Oh, because it was the result of a court sentencing and recorded in the same court records that the Johnson v. Parker trial was recorded in. Legal distinction means legal ruling, which then means legal slave, and this source says exactly that.
 * "Thus, John Punch’s name should go down in history as being the first official slave in the English colonies." What does official mean? Oh, it means it was legally and officially recognized by the courts in Virginia.
 * "This can be interpreted as the ﬁrst legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake."Straight up says this was the first legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery, thus making Punch the first legal slave.


 * The real funny thing is, NONE of these historians call Casor the first slave. None of them. Not a single one says that John Punch wasn't a slave but that Casor was different and was a slave. Most of them don't even mention Casor at all. It's clear you're set on holding your position which is completely void of any strong reliable source and set on ignoring the dispute resolution process and what historians have clearly said in their works. You even had to misrepresent the only strong reliable source you listed by spreading your quote along 6 paragraphs and arguing that it said "some historians" when regarding Punch, when the full text clearly doesn't. It does say "some historians" consider slavery to have existed since 1619. It does say "some historians" don't think any slavery existed until the 1660's. But, it doesn't say "some historians" in any way shape or form when discussing Punch. Foner makes no indication on the quantity of historians when discussing Punch. He doesn't say "some" or "other" when talking about Punch and actually describes Punch without using qualifiers describing its support by historians. He describes Punch as a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion. So, you're wrong. I'm not pushing for the article to say "most historians" because you haven't presented a single contradicting opinion from a strong reliable source. We can say it as a matter of fact, just like all of these sources do.


 * Your explanation of the differences between Punch and Casor is purely original research and isn't supported by a single source represented in our strong reliable sources table. If you continue to edit and revert based on it, it is strictly a violation of WP:OR. Casor and Punch were BOTH reduced to serving their masters for the remainder of their lives. This is what historians call slavery and why they say both of them are slaves. The Punch decision came before Casor, therefore Gwyn was a slave owner before Johnson. Both of them were recognized as slave owners through a legal court process, but since Hugh's ruling predates Johnson's by 14 years, he is the first legally documented slave owner.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re the bullet points:
 * "the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts." The source is saying that Punch was sentenced to a far more severe penalty than the two white servants for the same crime which is clear from the rest of the paragraph. It did not make slavery legal. Your interpretation of the source is WP:OR.
 * "official" means "information that has been announced publicly," it does not mean "legal." "Legal" means "according to the law" and the court extended Punch's servitude. The court did not use the word slavery which was still illegal in Virginia despite the ruling, it made him a "legal lifetime servant" which some historians consider slavery.
 * "This can be interpreted as the ﬁrst legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." A legal sanction is "penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law." The penalty was lifetime servitude. It does not give legal status to slavery.
 * BOTH Punch and Casor were reduced to serving their masters for the remainder of their lives. Historians call this slavery, however, Casor had committed no crime and was found to belong to his owner. Therefor, Punch may have been considered a slave but according to the primary source, Casor was the first documented legal slave. None of this is OR. Regarding your interpretation of Foner, he doesn't have to mention Punch by name. If he says that some historians believe slavery existed since 1619 then Punch could not be the first. If some historians believe slavery didn't exist until the 1660's then Punch could not be a slave. If some historians believe slavery developed over time then this includes Punch. Using "most historians" for your preferred position just because the source doesn't refer to any particular slave by name is a violation of WP:RS/AC. Wayne (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Black's Law Dictionary defines precedent as "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases." Of course, regardless of precedent, the British Colonies had a common law court system. Common law is LAW developed by judges through court decisions and rulings. As just about all of the strong reliable sources say, this was the first time a court sentenced a Negro to lifetime servitude, which is slavery. Since this was the first time a court made this sentence, it established precedent that people could be made slaves for life. Thus, by definition of precedent and the power of common law, it became lawful/legal.
 * Also, interpreting primary sources is OR. You're not suppose to do it and you're certainly not suppose to use primary sources over strong reliable secondary sources. You have yet to give a single strong reliable secondary source that supports anything you say. Everything you assert is strictly OR and that fact that you just admitted to interpreting the primary source as the basis of your argument is a violation of WP:OR. Also, can you quote me where in the primary source it says "Casor is the first legal slave"? Last time I checked, it didn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, the case didn't even say Casor had to serve Johnson for life, it simply ruled that Casor be returned to Johnson and that Parker pay whatever costs. It doesn't matter anyway, because our interpretations of primary sources is OR and doesn't belong in the article. I'm surprised that someone who's been on WP for so long doesn't understand this. I picked it up in only a few days.
 * For the last time, I didn't interpret Foner. I said exactly what he said and made no conclusions based on my own position. You're the one trying to interpret Foner to argue that he said "some historians" when talking about Punch. He didn't say that. Also, if "some historians" believe the first slaves arrived in 1619 and "some historians" believe there were no slaves before 1660, it is still possible for "MOST HISTORIANS" to believe that Punch was the first slave. Though this is true, it's still OR the same way you trying to say "some historians" is OR and that's why I'm not editing the article to say "most historians". Like I've already said, Foner makes no indication to the quantity of historians when describing John Punch. What Foner does INSTEAD is describe Punch as an objective matter of fact. That's how Neil and I plan to describe Punch since there is not a single strong reliable source arguing a minority opinion. Punch was the first legally documented slave in Virginia and Hugh Gwyn was legally recognized as his owner. <--See how I didn't use "most historians", it's because I don't have to. I already conceded that I wouldn't say "most historians" like 5 days ago and explained to you exactly why. "Most historians" is no longer a matter of discussion because we are not saying "most historians". The secondary sources don't say "most historians" and they don't say "some historians" when regarding Punch, they state it as a certifiable fact, and that's how the article will read, as FACT and NOT OPINION. This is the third time I've said this.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wayne, I agree with Scoobydunk. We've had an absolutely massive discussion, and it's pretty clear what the sources say. I'm updating the article to reflect the conclusions I listed above, and that's pretty much the end of the story. If you feel differently, you're free to pursue other avenues for dispute resolution, but I strongly doubt you'll find much support for your point of view. —Neil 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point of view regarding the use of "some" v "most" is strongly supported by WP:RS/AC and the fact that none of the sources say that Punch was legally a slave means we can't claim that based on an editors interpretation of what the sources meant. Consensus can not overrule WP policy based arguments. Wayne (talk)
 * The whole issue of "legally a slave" is based entirely on your own doubts and interpretations. Overwhelmingly historians call Punch a lifetime slave and none of them bring up any issue of legality or engage in any semantic handwringing over the definition of slavery, and that means we need to do the same. —Neil 18:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am curious to hear what you think about Donoghue saying this was a "legal sanctioning" or Costa saying the decision was a "legal distinction". Both of those speak to the legality of the ruling. Like I said before, there are many documents that could potentially list slaves, like shipping records, captain logs, and inventories, but this document is the official legal record of the court. Court writs or court processes are legal instruments/documents by definition, not by OR or POV. Like I said before, I don't really care so much about the wording we actually use, as long as the decision applies fairly to both Punch and Casor. My insistence on using a form of "legal" is because, as you can probably already infer, some people will try and use it as a semantic wedge to give a false sense of importance to Casor where none exists. They were both made slaves through the legal decisions of the court and I don't want people trying to undermine our consensus by pretending Punch wasn't legal while Casor was. Not a single strong reliable secondary source makes this distinction. I'm fine with not including legal, so long as I can get a consensus that "legal" doesn't apply to Casor either. Sorry, if this feels like I'm putting you on the spot, but I don't think such a request is a stretch since we can base it on the sources we've already exhaustively researched.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Scoobydunk, sorry for the delay in responding. When I said that legality was a non-issue, I was thinking about Wayne's opinion that Punch's slavery failed to meet some nebulous, unsourced standard of legality. I agree that historians clearly interpret this case as a legal sanction of slavery. If you want to try making that characterization more prominent, more power to you (we shouldn't imply the court explicitly used the term "slave" or explicitly made the status hereditary, but I'm not worried that you will). —Neil 10:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your assistance.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems 3O has failed and we can not resolve the argument so what do we do now? Wayne (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not an "nebulous, unsourced standard of legality" and it did not "established precedent that people could be made slaves for life." Slavery was illegal under common law. Documented servitude for life was already established for various crimes long before Punch but the documents only mention white people. Punch may well have been the first "documented" case of a black person so sentenced but we also know that there were black people already serving for life at the time of that case. Casor's case was the FIRST documented where a court ordered servitude for life where no crime had been committed.


 * Just about all of the sources we've identified and discussed completely contradict your assertions, which of course, you've provided no sources for once again. If you have strong reliable sources that prove there were legally recognized or legally sentenced lifetime slaves in Virginia before John Punch, then we can look at qualifying the consensus with the word "negro" if it is necessary. Also, none of the sources we've identified as strong give any significance to Casor as being the first of anything. Also, 3O hasn't failed and we have reached a consensus which does not have to be unanimous, see WP:CON. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've ignored sources and tried to change the argument. We were actively trying to reach a consensus about whether Punch was a slave or an indentured servant and this whole time you've not provided a single source for your argument and have tried to keep changing the argument to things not relevant to the topic of this dispute resolution. So your unwillingness to cooperate does not mean that this dispute resolution has failed. So, you ask "what do we do now?" and the answer is either you can provide sources for your claims and participate in making a consensus, or you can disengage from this dispute resolution, which is also considered consensus. Any reverting or editing based on OR will be handled in the appropriate manner.-Scoobydunk (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wayne, I wouldn't say that 3O has failed—as Scoobydunk says, we did reach a consensus. I understand you don't agree with it, which is certainly your right. If you want to bring more editors into the discussion, I'm not really sure how you should do that. I'd suggest reading the page on dispute resolution. —Neil 00:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Scoobydunk claims I failed to provide sources to support my view yet I can say the same for him. He uses WP:OR to interpret the primary sources reported by the secondary sources to claim "legality" etc and is also claiming it is the view of the majority whereas I have clearly shown that his is a view held by some on a subject where historians are sharply divided into three or more groups, none of which hold a majority. I've made concessions but as Scoobydunk is not prepared to make any the dispute remains unresolved and he has also failed to show civility to me as required by the 3O process. WP:3O is third party mediation in order to help two arguing parties come to an agreement and I thank you for that but if the two still cant agree then there is no consensus regardless of the 3O's view and we need to find another resolution. Wayne (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Scoobydunk claims I failed to provide sources to support my view yet I can say the same for him.
 * At this point, it doesn't really matter who provided what. We took an inventory of the strongest sources, as judged by explicit criteria, and it supported the view that I summarized above. If you think sources were unfairly included or excluded, try the reliable sources noticeboard.
 * He uses WP:OR to interpret the primary sources reported by the secondary sources to claim "legality" etc and is also claiming it is the view of the majority whereas I have clearly shown that his is a view held by some on a subject where historians are sharply divided into three or more groups, none of which hold a majority.
 * I think the conclusions I mentioned above are clearly supported by the sources, not based on any synthesis or speculation. If you disagree, you might try the original research noticeboard.
 * I've made concessions but as Scoobydunk is not prepared to make any the dispute remains unresolved
 * There's no requirement that the dispute be resolved by equal concessions from both sides. If, hypothetically, we have heliocentrists arguing against geocentrists, the heliocentrists win completely, no concessions given (I don't mean that as an analogy for this disagreement).
 * and [Scoobydunk] has also failed to show civility to me as required by the 3O process.
 * I don't recall any incivility from either you or Scoobydunk. If you're going to make that accusation, please give specific quotations. As an aside, civility isn't a just requirement of 3O; it's a universal requirement on Wikipedia.
 * WP:3O is third party mediation in order to help two arguing parties come to an agreement and I thank you for that but if the two still cant agree then there is no consensus regardless of the 3O's view
 * We can argue all we want about the meaning of consensus, but let me be clear: there are now three editors (myself, Scoobydunk, and Parkwells) who disagree with you on the basis of well-considered reliable sources. I personally consider that consensus.
 * and we need to find another resolution.
 * No, I don't think we do. If you want to escalate this discussion further, perhaps to the dispute resolution noticeboard, the onus is on you to do so.
 * —Neil 10:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another response and not a single source provided. Neil is right, if you want to claim WP:OR then take it to original research noticeboard.-Scoobydunk (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Communications
[Emailed response from author whose quote is being considered for use in lead and follow-up reply emal.] Dr. Matt (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

From: Coates, Rodney Date: 5/26/2014 10:11 AM To: PresidentistVB

You are absolutely right, slavery rarely is used in legal documents in this early period. But, even though the actual term was not used, does that mean that this group of servants were not de facto slaves. If we were to take what is today the United States of America, and not just the 13 English colonies, we can identify slavery as early as 1501. I actually deal with this, along with French slavery in another work. But for this article, I limited myself to the the 13 English colonies. The fact that these 20 Africans were actually considered slaves by the Dutch merchants (recognized by English and other National governments of the day) is central to my use of the term. The fact that these Africans were abducted by the Virginia oﬃcials served to introduce this form of servitude into the English Americas. The fact that they were ostensibly called servants is more an attempt to be "politically correct" than anything else. The fact that they were a distinct form of servants, more distinct than the European servants of the day, is the point that I am making here. This was the birth of Slavery in what was to be the United States. Why is this point of interest, because it begins the racial distinctions between classes of labor. Perhaps I should have used the terms de facto slaves to make this distinction.

With reference to Punch, he was the first "documented" servant/slave for life in the colonies. All other servants were special variants of indentured servants. The fact that the African servants were treated as a diﬀerent species of servants is the beginning of our unique form of slavery in the U.S. The fact that slavers are a particular form of servants allows for the confusion regarding the terms, and the very confusion by which the early English colonies avoided the legal problems associated with slavery. (An English Cannon law prohibited slavery) The Virginia oﬃcials, wary of stepping on these laws (being the smart lawyers they were) therefore used the term servants to avoid the problem. But, if a rose is called a flower, does it stop being a rose (even while it is yet a flower)?

I believe the distinctions are important. My purpose for writing this article was to document the racial distinctions and identities that were created. The diﬀerence in treatment of these forms of servants was and continues to be at the heart of what constitutes racial diﬀerences. Limited by both time and space, the article collapsed this more nuanced argument. The fact yet remains, a distinctly diﬀerent form of servants arrived in the English colonies ﬁrst in Virginia. This distinct form of servants were implicitly diﬀerent than other servants of the day. With time these diﬀerences became more explicit. And these diﬀerences lie at the heart of both slavery, and the core of our culture of race and racism.

Thanks for both critically reading and holding me accountable for my work.

Dr. Matt (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Vaughan

 *  Comment has been successfully removed by author: Dr. Matt (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Context
Old Point Comfort - First Landing Site of Africans

http://books.google.com/books?id=_DpAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=comfort+servants+african&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mgR2U-LuJo_zoASw_YCABA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rot0HHDFlVoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:OC1awXtqGtwC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1AV2U9e0GZDooATrqoJY&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EqHVUV_3GR4C&pg=PA19&dq=point+comfort+africans+1619&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2wt2U6iBDI6GogTo2IHAAQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Not a very good publisher, but we can use this as a placeholder for a better source in the opening phrase of the first sentence in the context section. It's not a disputed fact... so either ID it as Cape Comfort or Point Comfort. Slaves didn't just sail to Jamestown... "Africans were first brought to Jamestown and Virginia in 1619, however, their status as slave or indentured servant remains unclear. Philip S. Foner pointed out differing percept...

Old Point Comfort

http://books.google.com/books?id=ntHTAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=howe+history+of+virginia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nxd2U-vyI4mhogT7_oCgBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EqHVUV_3GR4C&pg=PA19&dq=point+comfort+africans+1619&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2wt2U6iBDI6GogTo2IHAAQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false John and I are good friends.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LyENAQAAMAAJ&q=africans+arriving+in+Virginia+17th+c+point+comfort&dq=africans+arriving+in+Virginia+17th+c+point+comfort&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0RR2U7q-IY_ooAS1k4GgAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ

Sentenced to Life
It is quotable, so take note. Long before I typed my first word on WP about this article, my opinion was published: "There is no doubt that, by our standards, any form of ownership without compensation should rightfully be labelled as slavery, whenever, in human history, it occurs. Even those who believed themselves servants, indentured or otherwise, could learn, retroactively, and as in the case of John Casor, that what they thought was their term of indentured servitude was, all those years, nothing more than a type of slavery (servitude without compensation at the end of the term).  I believe that understanding is both universal and timeless.  So, to that end, there is no definitive way to argue against your case; especially since I agree with you on that issue.  John Punch, the servant, was “substantively enslaved."

To that ultimate end, we are in agreement. But the entire focus of the article was a reminder that what the people, the subjects, the world felt at the time is what is important. Two years ago, the country's majority believed recreational marijuana use was (and should be) illegal. Do we, still? Isn't it important what we believed when we believed it?

It's a simple concept, and if you don't get it, then your thinking is trendy. You're a follower and not a leader. Wikipedia needs editors who are leaders.

Either way, IF I were to come close to agreeing with the title and thrux of the article, as is; it most certainly should at the least show a logical progression of thought, especially as regards how the editors and their "reliable secondary sources" arrived at the final ruling (which I will always view as presumptuous, unfounded and, possibly, entirely wrong) that John Punch was what the title declares. I don't think any of your reliable sources' works, incidentally, are scholarly, or they would not cite opinion, unless it could be supported by facts.

So, there's no harm in quoting other reliable secondary sources of the time... especially those which do not opine and do rely on facts. It also shows, in each and every century, the vast crevice in opinion, and why it should not be so surprising to see today. In each of the centuries, you could list each author, cite a quote but, to be fair, write a 1-2 sentence summary of the overall conclusion of the work. If there are more than one from a single author, then give each its due weight. The only alternative is to create a section, as the NPOV chat people suggested, entitled, "Alternative Theories," but I don't like it, because it sets out to create a division. I think showing the myriad "thought processes" over time, 400 years of them, is best...

Importantly, this article isn't about servitude v slavery. It's about John Punch, which makes the evolution of every issue pertaining to his case relevant... discussing the evolution of thought, punishment and legislation pertaining to runaway Negros, for example, is relevant.

17th Century
Were there any writers on the subject? Newspaper articles? That would be an interesting source of "of the time" sentiments.

19th Century
There are plenty of "of the time" items to show - numerous ads in newspapers re. runaway slaves...

21st Century
Food for thought... Dr. Hoo (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Passing the Past
There's valuable content to be found in Shakespeare's famous quotation, "What's past is prologue;" namely the concepts expressed in the first two sections and only because, with all due respect to the words "slave" and "slavery," it is the elephant in the room in the "John Punch (slave)" article on Wikipedia®.

Winston Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." What if it had been said, first, by John Punch... or by the whole of the Colony of Virginia? It is essentially as if they had. After all, what is written of the time is what the editors really have to work with, because they are relying on all that their reliable secondary sources had to work with --- the facts from the time and the most recent accounts about them thereafter.

Is history kind in the article... in the cited sources... to Punch... to the Colony of Virginia, both of which have rested for nearly 400 years on what their written records state? How many reliable secondary sources have written specifically on the subject, stating "what's past  isn't prologue?"

My final words on the subject of this article, and one which the editors should thoughtfully consider, is the issue of credibility. Making assertions, whether or not supported by reliable sources, which contradict other sources (even if they are not as credible) only make the editors look like they are the judge and jury. Before anyone makes any changes to the main article, a thoroughly vetted discussion, which yes, means it may require expert testimony, should be contemplated. To date, I have seen nothing of the sort. Final version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PresidentistVB/sandbox  Dr. Matt (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This post of yours and the opinion of whomever wrote it does not override Wikipedia's policies defining how articles are written and what qualifies as a reliable source. So, how is your search for a strong reliable source that supports your point of view going? It seems from the multiple post you've made that have failed to present one, that it's not going very well at all and now your attempting red herring arguments to try and redefine what WP considers a reliable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you read the dialogue section, which has nothing to do with WP policy, then look at the final mock-up... it reads far less controversial and doesn't beg for revision like yours always seem to.Dr. Matt (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you really want to take on the whole of Virginia's historian collective? With one email broadcast, I can level you if for no better reason than to defend the honor of Virginia's very proud history. You are hell bent on insulting the Old Dominion. Consider our runs ins thus far as civil. If you don't believe me, push a few more buttons and abscond once more with consensus. Dr. Matt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, more threats that you said you wouldn't permit. Seems like you're perfectly fine with threats, so long as you're the one levying them. Also, I'm not concerned if the "Virginia's historian collective" can't seem to accept the clear academic consensus available on the subject. There are numerous strong reliable source (defined by WP's policies) that support the information in the article and you've yet to provide any that refute those sources. If you do, in fact, have a whole team of the "Old Dominion" on your side, then it shouldn't be hard to follow the guidelines of WP and provide equally strong sources. Likewise, if the "Old Dominion" are correct in their views, then they should have no problem getting a paper/work published by a scholarly journal or academic press. Though, I fear, even if they did, it might constitute as a conflict of interest since you're determined to "defend the honor of Virginia's very proud history," rather than acknowledge what strong reliable sources have said on the subject.


 * Furthermore, you had some concerns with some of the specific aspects of the lead and I've already edited the lead allowing for those concerns. I've included the term "legal" and Wayne promptly removed it and completely changed the subject the sentenced addressed. So now directly quoting form sources removes any accusations of misrepresenting or misquoting those sources. Also, none of the sources say "court-based" and this does not do justice to the historical importance placed on the issue. Yes, it is the first court-based instance of "outright enslavement" but it is also the first of any legal document to specifically include an individual, by name, as being sentenced to serve for life, which is what historians consider slavery. I've also changed the lead to include "one of the" first racial distinctions to comply with your concerns and accurately represent the source. Also, your proposed lead can not be used to replace the current lead because it essentially removed cited material from reliable sources. You are allowed to edit any problems explicitly defined by WP policies and you are allowed to add to the lead so long as the information you add is explicitly supported by a reliable source. This is why I've been asking you to provide a strong reliable source to support your POV since the beginning, so it can be included in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have tried not to be bothered by ignorance, but it appears your handicap is greater than mere stubbornness. Takes 6 minute to find just about anything the heart desires online. It's not hard to disprove something, if one feels it necessary. Massachusetts had the first slaves... even admitted it. Visit a book store or library sometime... best.

Or try this one beginning on page two: http://books.google.com/books?id=2H3S1OLtmagC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false   You'll find the new englander's did not mince words and were not reticent about the concept of slavery. Look at a few of the cited books and get busy. You now have a whole new world of strong in sheer volume secondary source references to refute...

Let me know when you want to see census and tax records showing servants and NO SLAVES in Virginia... well into the late 17th C., and a few of Gwyn's own journals... I told you, I am friends with the lead archeologist of Gwyn's Island... sheesh.

Anything else I can do FOR you, ? [cc to ] Dr. Matt (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote from a reliable secondary source that supports your argument. That's what you can do, you can actually form a coherent argument supported by strong reliable sources. Also, linking to "theinternet.com" or "google.com" and claiming that I have numerous sources to disprove matches behavior described in WP:tend. You can not request that other editors find material to support your argument for you and this is exactly what you've done on multiple occasions. The first source you linked says nothing about John Punch and that goes for the second as well. The second page of "Black Bondage in the North" says nothing about the status of John Punch or the status of Negroes in Virginia. So neither of these support the statements and arguments you've previously made. The image you posted also doesn't say anything about John Punch and only makes claims based on New England's first slave holder. It doesn't actually mention who those slaves were and doesn't mention anything about their status being recognized by a legal institution. So none of these are in contention with the sources cited in the article. If the internet is so easy for you to use, why haven't you found a reliable secondary source that supports your view that there were no slaves in Virginia before John Punch's case and that John Punch was not a slave? Also, and this has been mentioned numerous times, it's not the responsibility of WP editors to refute what sources say. So, "No", I don't not have "a whole new world" of references to refute. So, again, where are those strong reliable secondary sources that support the arguments you made earlier? Maybe you should spend time looking for sources relevant to John Punch and the article instead of chasing red herring arguments about slavery in New England? Just a suggestion, good luck and fun.


 * Oh, and when you think you do find a source that supports your argument, be sure to quote the actual relevant part to the talk page so it can be seen by others, just like you attempted to do with Ballagh and Winthrop.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Portending Presence
View and comment on a proposed working draft below. Dr. Matt (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(Version current as of most recent signature date stamped):



"John Punch ('living 1640, York County, Virginia'), with ancestral links to western Africa, was a servant who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced two of his fellow servants (one of them Dutch; the other, Scottish), with extensions to their existing indentures for running away to Maryland.  By stark contrast, Punch, who ran away with them, was sentenced to a lifetime of servitude, officiating his total loss of any opportunity for freedom.  It is for this very reason that some historians consider him the first court-ordered slave in the Colony, and his case, an early foothold for the insidious and pervasive institution of slavery, which would be legalized in Virginia and other colonies, evolve (and devolve) with the growing nation; and, ultimately, become the single most divisive factor of the American Civil War." "In July 2012, Ancestry.com issued a press release and announced 'President Obama descends from the first African enslaved for life in America,' publishing two papers [1][2], which suggested that, based on historical research, genealogical proofing and scientific analyses, Punch was his apparent eleventh great-grandfather. Punch, whose descendants are believed to have become known by the 'Bunch' or 'Bunche' surname, is also believed to be one of the ancestors of the 20th-Century American diplomat Ralphe Bunche,[ibid] the first African American citizen of the United States to win the Nobel Peace Prize."

About Prototype Lead Template
(SEE ABOVE)

Addendum to discussion and explanations in First Paragraph. Dr. Matt (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC). Dr. Matt (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * text changed from "African" to reflect actual data provided by cited source;
 * info box updated to reflect same; map provided for informational purposes;
 * changed "both European" to "(one of them Dutch; the other, Scottish);"
 * since source of council's ruling was not cited, the image of the three council cases re. runaways was positioned at the top but can be relocated later in main to support content elsewhere;
 * "officiating" was added because it is not known if he was indentured with a definite end-of-service date or already one of a number of those in "servitude-for-life" (or living under some other arrangement), so either case may remain an option ("officiating" applies equally to all scenarios without implying one to be more likely than the others);
 * while the exact phrase "court-ordered" is not written in stone, it is important to distinguish his case from other legally documented instances of "servitude-for-life;"
 * as generally accepted knowledge, I shouldn't think the assertions in the last sentence of the first paragraph would require citations;
 * rephrased last sentence of lead to remove WP:OR and disclaim the assertions that he fathered anyone (also added citations thereto); and
 * added "in the United States" to distinguish from other African-Americans, notably, those who suffered from legalized slavery in South America and the Sugar Islands prior to its advent in the colonies.

Dr. Matt (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * changed "date stamp" to "signature date stamped;"
 * first sentence, ¶ 2: changed "stated" to "announced" as appropriate and to more accurately reflect what is linked;
 * changed "inevitable" to "apparent," with usage as in "heir-apparent;"
 * last sentence, ¶ 2: added "citizen of," since I personally do not know if he was residing in the U. S. at the time.

About Current Main Lead
(SEE BELOW)

Addendum to discussion and explanations in First Paragraph and further elucidated in "About Prototype Lead Template" section, immediately above. .

(Version current as of most recent signature date stamped):

It appears as if Donoghue and Finkelman are attributed with "African" and place of residence, and, as the infobox accurately reflects, Harman, et al. are already attributed with that information in this article. (Just move the references to the specific parts of the first sentence to which they apply.)
 * if "Africa" is attributed to Harman, et al., then it can be changed to "western Africa."
 * similarly, there is absolutely no support for the assertion Punch was an "African" servant - only that his alleged descendants had markers pointing to sub-Saharan West Africa and, if the leap is taken to declare that link now connected, then we know only that some of his ancestors were from there. No one knows his age, where he came from, when he arrived and whether or not he traveled alone or with parents or siblings.  What is possible is that he was born in the Sugar Islands to slaves and sought a freer existence in the New World, leaving his parents and siblings behind.  (It was not unlike him to relocate in pursuit of something better.)  He may have been of West African extraction, but he most definitely isn't known to ever have been an African native.  (Let's just make him a midget, too, while we're at it.) Dr. Matt (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

John Punch (fl. 1630s, living 1640) was an African servant who lived in the Colony of Virginia during the seventeenth century. In July 1640, the Virginia Governor's Council sentenced him to serve for the remainder of his life as punishment for running away to Maryland; in contrast, two European men who also ran away with him were sentenced to longer indentures but not total loss of future prospects for freedom. For this reason, historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," and his case as the "ﬁrst legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake." Historians also consider this to be one of the first legal distinctions between Europeans and Africans made in the colony, and his case a key milestone in the development of the institution of slavery in the United States.

Whoever is doing the interpreting and quoting out of context is in absolute violation of WP:OR. will likely be interested in reading the following:
 * By the author's own admission, the statement cited in the main article (¶ 1), "...historians consider John Punch the "first official slave in the English colonies," ["his name  should go down in history as..."], but falls short in actually making the assertion that he, himself, is actually interpreting it in that manner.[Editor was quoting out of context, which is a violation of WP:OR].]
 * Support for OR assertion was sought and received from author; the quotation is no longer considered to be original research. Citation attribution has been moved to the specific quote.  Editors should consider appending the additional support to the footnotes section somehow..] Dr. Matt (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the author's own admission, the statement that historians consider Punch's case the "ﬁrst legal sanctioning of lifelong slavery in the Chesapeake."  can be interpreted as, but falls short in actually making the statement or recording it in history. [Editor is quoting out of context, which is a violation of [WP:OR].]
 * Where is consensus when we need it? Where was consensus when this was approved as content fit for publication? Dr. Matt (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither of these quotes are out of context and both represent how historians consider John Punch. The quotes are used to represent what historians have said about Punch. Not every historian has to say the same thing verbatim, but multiple strong sources support this same point of view. They recognize that the court decision was made by a legal institution and is legally binding. They recognize that this is the first documentation discovered from a legal institution, which is what is meant by "legal document", that shows "outright enslavement". I've already explained that use of the word "some" is a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weasel. You've yet to submit a strong reliable source that says anything to the contrary regarding Punch or him being the first person documented to be sentenced to slavery by a legal institution. Your accusing this content of being OR is unfounded, and as you're beginning to find out as much from the authors directly, though it's not necessary because the context and their meaning is plainly clear. You providing a supposed email from the author, doesn't affect the source or its contents. If you think my directly quoting an author to be OR, then take it to the OR noticeboard and maybe you'll finally learn what OR is.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to forward the actual email exchange to whomever you trust, since you refuse to provide a method to email you directly. Coates supported his statement to my satisfaction.  Again "should go down in history" is not the same as asserting Punch was the first documented slave.  I'm sorry if you don't agree.  He could have just said it.  Donoghue also refuses to accept the responsibility for making a similar claim about the Chesapeake.  Not only does he disclaim it to be nothing more than interpretation no matter who asserts it, he additionally makes the making of such an assertion optional ("can"), thirdly, he makes the statement in a footnote; not in the body of the article.  You took the quotations out of context; that is OR, esp when it changes the meaning.  Moreover, your citations were in reverse order at the end of the sentence.  Since all historians didn't make those cited assertions, you must attribute the quotes specifically and accurately.  I'll take it to the OR whatever, but you make this jumping through hoops process obstinately confounding.  Dr. Matt (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You keep going on about emails though you seem not to understand that they are often not verifiable, nor do they count as a reliable source. So they are ultimately irrelevant in determining the context of the article. Also, "should go down in history" is the same thing as "considers" which is exactly what the article says, it explains what historians consider. Regarding Donoghue, all historians have to offer is interpretation. It's intellectually dishonest of you to express an understanding that historian's interpret evidence earlier in your appearance on the article, and then to now, suddenly, feign ignorance to that fact. Just because Donoghue uses language that acknowledges the interpretative nature of history, doesn't make his claims hold less meaning. Secondly, the Punch article doesn't say that Donoghue said "xyz", it says "historians consider...his case as the" and then uses a quote that is representative of how historians view the Punch case in their published strong reliable sources. So there is no misrepresentation regarding Donoghue's position. Also, it's clear you don't know what "context" is. The footnote was to elaborate on a reference Donoghue made in is work. The footnote explained that he was referencing the Punch case and proceeds to explain the Punch case and its significance. That's the context of the footnote...to explain the Punch case and its significance. That's the same context of the lead of this article...to explain who John Punch is and his and his case's significance. So there is no misrepresentation of context and the quote isn't used out of context. An example of a quote out of context is if Donoghue was talking about Benjamin Franklin and I took those words he used to describe Ben and applied them to Punch, to make it appear that he was referring to Punch instead of Ben. <--That's an example of using a quote out of context, and that's an example of OR, which is clearly not what I did. Again, if you're trying to pretend that it's used out of context, then you can take that assertion to the OR noticeboard. The quote from Donoghue is representative of the interpretations historians have made. Again, they all use different words, but they recognize Punch's case as being the "first" or "earliest", recognize Punch as being a "slave", sentenced to "slavery", or "enslaved", and recognize that this was a "legal" or "official" decision/sanction/distinction made by a government institution. The quote from Donoghue properly exemplifies the positions of the historians as indicated by the supplied strong reliable sources, and you've yet to provide any strong reliable source expressing the contrary.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What about the concept of not asserting that any more than one historian (ONE PERSON) agrees with/stated/believes, etc. the same quotation is so hard for you to understand? Only one author wrote the first quote.  Only one author wrote the other.  You cannot make a general statement about what "historians" consider and then use quotes.  That is OR, not to mention plagiarism.  You are, in effect, stating that "historians" in general wrote the same quote as Donoghue.  To do that, you at least have to modify it by stating, "Mr. X wrote, 'bah blah.'  Mr. Y. wrote beh bleh.'  Historians agree, considering..." (then write in your own words a summary of the two.)


 * You should just write the summary in the lead without quotes and later, in the content somewhere, support it with the quotes.


 * If you don't understand this, then I cannot help you. Dr. Matt (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Re. "Neither of these quotes are out of context and both represent how historians consider John Punch." By "historians," I assume you mean more than one, as in "two."  I don't know how you know that any single other historian on earth agrees with the statement, verbatim, "first official slave in the English colonies."  They'd be pretty stupid if they did.  The first official slaves in the English colonies were in the Sugar Islands, where slavery was legislated before 1640.  That is what I mean - at least one example of - when I say "out of context."  You are presuming, which I believe it considered OR.  And I could care less what you or WP think about emails from authors.  It satisfied me, and that, alone, is enough for me.  Stop pretending you are better than everyone else.  Have you corrected the tags I "bombarded" the article with yet?  I am not deterred by rodents.  Have you corrected the citation errors  told you about yet?  Stop lecturing and start repairing the injuries you create.  Dr. Matt (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=6K-DocgDY6gC&pg=PA54&dq=sugar+islands+17th+C+slavery&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iCWFU6HHA4H4oASQooAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * http://hnn.us/article/150438
 * Dr. Matt (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Multiple historians have expressed beliefs that are accurately articulated by Donoghue. I've already explained this and you haven't refuted it. It doesn't have to be verbatim to be true in nature and accurately reflect what other historians have written. What is it that you don't understand about this? Also, there is no plagiarism. I didn't say "all historians have written x", I said "historians consider" and then used a quote from a historian that is properly attributed to that historian to represent what historians consider. So not only have you demonstrated a lack of understanding of what context is, but now you're creating strawman arguments to levy a fallacious accusation of plagiarism. Also, you can make general statements and then use a quote to illustrate it. In basketball I can say, "Most NBA players consider defense important and that 'offense wins the game, defense wins the glory.'" As long as I properly attribute the quote to the person who spawned it, this is perfectly acceptable and doesn't try to give credit to every NBA player for creating that quote. To assume that is an egregious display of feeble reading comprehension or is a patently dishonest attempt at creating a strawman argument. BTW, the summary was written without quotes until another editor intentionally started to suppress the significance of Punch by removing anything that referenced him as a slave on the basis of OR. So the quotes were used to remove any accusation of OR since the information is directly quoted by sources and not interpreted. If a historian came up with sufficient and accurate way of explaining something, then I can quote it as being representative of the general consensus of historians which is further supported by their individual sources.


 * You also keep saying "verbatim" and the article doesn't say that historians said this "verbatim". So this is another strawman argument. It's not relevant and an idea doesn't have to be expressed verbatim for it to still be applicable to multiple people. That quote is a sufficient way to represent the sentiment held by historians, for which there is much more proof than the argument you've put forward that there were no slaves before 1640 and that Punch was not a slave.


 * Lastly, it's not my job to correct the tags you littered the article with. If your claim that your intention is to make a stronger article then you should be the one solving those tags. Instead, you just attempt to throw up roadblocks, litter the article with tags, and expect other people to beckon to every new demand/issue you raise with the article. I edit the content I'm interested in and the only thing Ishdarian commented on was the relation to Bunche, which I'm not particularly interested in. I've never been concerned about the relationship between Punch and the Bunche family and I don't have to be. Sure, maybe if there's time, I'll adjust the article to satisfy those inquiries. However, I'm more interested in the slavery aspect of Punch and the role he played in the timeline of slavery and I take an active interest whenever slave apologists try to rewrite the article to reflect their unreliably sourced perception of slavery in the colonies. Also, I didn't create any "injuries", just because you want to complain about something doesn't make those complaints valid or merited in nature.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In July 2012, Ancestry.com published a paper suggesting that Punch was an eleventh-generation maternal grandfather of Barack Obama, on the basis of historic and genealogical research and Y-DNA analysis. Punch, whose descendants became more commonly known by the Bunch or Bunche surname, is also believed to be one of the ancestors of the 20th-century American diplomat Ralph Bunche, the first African American to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and others in his line.

Dr. Matt (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anachronisms and other reference errors

 * a·nach·ro·nism
 * /əˈnakrəˌnizəm/


 * noun
 * plural noun: anachronisms 


 * a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.
 * "everything was as it would have appeared in centuries past apart from one anachronism, a bright yellow construction crane"
 * an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.
 * ["Eleanor Roosevelt was the quintessential dyke"]


 * Origin
 * mid 17th century: from Greek anakhronismos, from ana- ‘backward’ + khronos ‘time.’

In Sparing Ishdarian
[This discussion has been transplanted from another user's talk page. I have opted to reply to sentences as they appear. My replies are in [green]. Sorry SD/WP.]


 * I don't know why Dr. Matt and Wayne are spending their time arguing on your talk page. Neither Wayne or PresidentitstVB have submitted any strong reliable source that claims Punch wasn't a slave, sentenced to slavery, or wasn't enslaved. [I agree that it is possible Punch could have been made "subject to a superstition, passion, etc.," and thus, enslaved, according to the definition of the word at the time.  I have stated ad infinitim et nauseum that he was not in any way made a slave, when viewed through any lens of the time, no matter how many oxymoronic historians state otherwise.  Slaves were specifically identified by the edicts of 1618 (as "slaves to the Colony"), by the slave traders and, most significantly, by the slaves themselves, especially those who converted to Christianity as slaves on board the early 17th C ships for the sole person of not being treated as slaves upon their arrival in the new world.  I'm tired of trying to argue the facts with a brick wall, except to ask you,, if I were to write what two other, reliable sources had considered in publications...  "Scoobydunk is a brick wall," would you be able to find two reliable sources, which specifically stated, as if to state the obvious for no apparent reason, "Scoobydunk is not a brick wall?"  I rest my case.]  They've also failed to provide any reliable source to claim there were slaves recognized and officially documented by a legal institution before Punch.  [Go ahead.  Do what  did at 5:36 PM (EST) on July 31st 2012, just make that leap of faith and write it!... (over and over again). [WP:OR]  After all, you have already said you removed it in response to my objections, so why should I be surprised, looking at the article's history, that you wouldn't continue the "flip flop flam?"] . Wayne thinks this quote from Foner supports his argument but it doesn't because Foner is specifically talking about the institution of slavery and when historians consider the institution to have originated. I've already supplied a quote from a strong reliable source by Vaughan that further substantiates this point:


 * "On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989. [It is well known,, that slavery existed long before Punch's case - it was documented in Massachusetts (in present day Somerville, I think), in the Sugar Islands (the English colony of Barbados, primarily), from where a number of our first black immigrants emigrated, and most notably, on the slave ships departing West Africa, from where Punch himself is alleged to have come.]


 * So, even though historians may differ on when the institution of slavery started, Vaughan clarifies that "almost everyone" recognizes the existence of both slaves and free blacks by 1640, if not, from the beginning of the colony. Wayne is trying to use his OR interpretation to pretend what Foner says contradicts what numerous historians have said about Punch, and it doesn't. He's failed to refute this fact and has repeatedly ignored this point made by Vaughan, yet keeps repeating the same tired OR unsubstantiated argument. [Stop picking on people.] Notice how he didn't supply any sources to his statement about white slaves? [Stop picking on people. I thought you were sincere when you claimed you didn't understand why Wayne and I were spending our time on someone else's talk page!  Sheesh...  you're oblivious to your own flaws.  Stop picking on Wayne.]  Wayne and I have already gone through 3O and he's since ignored the consensus [Stop picking on people.  A consensus of one hardly qualifies.] that was determined by an uninvolved third party. He didn't present sources to support his argument then and he isn't supplying them now. Both of these editors have been ignoring sources or have been trying to deny what current sources say outright. [Stop picking on people.]  Sorry that this has rolled over to your page, but I thought I'd address, again for the third time, the fallacious claims made against me. [What is the legal term?  "Malicious prosecution?"] Scoobydunk (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [QED.]  Dr. Matt (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's funny you made a whole new section to levy the same OR arguments you've been making this entire time, again, without a single reliable source to support it. Sorry, but you taking a word from the dictionary and trying to use that to imply that historian's whose work has undergone peer-review is wrong or unreliable is called original research. Also, if you feel my explanation of the behavior that you and Wayne have exhibited repeatedly on this talk page and other talk pages is "picking on" someone, then maybe you guys should cease the behavior if you're so embarrassed of it. Hey, I just found another example of hypocrisy. You have referred to me as a pit bull, a bully, a monkey, and have made numerous other personal attacks, when all I've done is asked that you follow Wikipedia policies and provide sources to substantiate your arguments. So you are telling other editors not to "pick" on people when that's all you've done since failing to meet WP requirements of providing reliable sources to substantiate your claims. Furthermore, Wayne was the one who involved himself and started making accusations against me on Ishdarian's page. I defended myself against those accusations and explained to Ishdarian Wayne's behavior. Also, regarding the "brick wall" example, if you had supplied strong reliable sources that made that claim, then I'd be perfectly happy adding it to the relevant article. If it sounded a bit outlandish, then I'd search for other reliable sources that might prove otherwise, but if I couldn't find reliable sources that said otherwise, then I'd accept that historian's consider Scoobydunk a "brick wall." I rest my case. FYI, you shouldn't try and set up a hypothetical where you can't predict the answer.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutralizing the "Punch" in the Title

 * Dictionaries are  the most reliable secondary sources, because they do not contradict themselves, they do not opine, they do not think, and they are predictably uniform, universally accepted and timeless. About 20 such sources are replete with consistency of information.   Thus far, I've fully sourced the root words "anachronism" and the meaning of the word "enslave" during its earliest (17th C.) usage.   They appropriately serve as two of the citation sources for the sentence, "everything about the Wikipedia® article's treatment of 17th-Century enslavement was as true to the time as it appeared to the members of the Colony's highest court on July 9th 1640, apart from one anachronism, the negro defendant's emergence from the courtroom as a slave."


 * The above-quoted sentence is irrefutably supported by very reliable secondary sources (Minutes of the Council and General court of colonial Virginia 1622-1632, 1670-1676, with notes and excerpts from original Council and General court records, into 1683, now lost is not a primary source). As the original title page clearly spells out, not only is the year 1640 not included in the collection of original transcripts (those actual transcript records were burned during the Southern Confederacy's evacuation of Richmond "on April 2/3, 1685"), the original records from that year (among others) were available to be combined and appended as a separate section by its editor, H. R. McIlwaine, only because two men, Mr. Conway Robinson and the clerk of Sir John Randolf, during separate periods and under differing circumstances, had previously transcribed them,  with their own respective notes and comments , along with those recorded by William Waller Hening, the former two of whose, McIlwaine freely admits to having included in the subject-relevant sections of the "Minutes."   [N.B.  Robinson was also a very prolific writer of scholarly works and would subsequently become the first president of the Virginia Historical Society.]


 * Prima-facie evidence, it  is . Primary source documentation, by its editor's own admission, it absolutely is not.


 * Citations just don't get much stronger than these; nor does the philosophical argument in defense of providence. Reigning above all other ironies woven throughout the history of America, the American Civil War, itself, is now to be credited with having triggered the sequence of events ultimately resulting in remembering and recording, of the time and for all time, the honorable truth about the "negro named John Punch,"  as (and only as) a " servant ."

Dr. Matt (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dr. Matt (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dictionaries are tertiary sources and everything you've said about them is patently false. Dictionaries change all the time to represent the vernacular and their definitions differ from each other. Furthermore, dictionaries don't say anything about John Punch. You took a word from a dictionary and are trying to apply it to Punch or to what historians say about Punch in an attempt to discredit them. That is an example of an original research argument because the dictionary, certainly, isn't arguing that historians are wrong about their understanding of Punch. Secondaly, McIlwaine is a collection of primary sources and you're trying to use the wording of the court case, a primary source, to substantiate your argument for the title of the article which is against WP policy. You trying to play semantics with what counts as a primary source is not going to suddenly create validation for your argument. The author does not comment on the case or make any interpretation on the case, he only records the case. Had he commented on the court's finding or commented on Punch, then it could be used as a secondary source, but he didn't. Trying to use the transcript of the court case, regardless of what medium it's published in, to create an argument is considered original research by WP policy. Take it to a noticeboard if you disagree. I'm not surprised at all that you still don't know the difference between primary sources and secondary sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Monkey See, Monkey Do
There are those with "selective hearing," a term which pretty accurately describes the phenomenon of "hearing only what one wants to hear." Similarly, there are those who exhibit the phenomenon of "selective seeing," which is either "seeing only what one wants to see" or an inability outright to see what is clear to everyone else. I suppose the terms could have originated with the three see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil monkeys, but that would be just a guess. Even so, there must exist those who speak only what they want to speak...

One of the editors of this page, whom I shall refer to as "Monkey One," cannot seem to see facts as facts... even after I have repeatedly rewritten the lead to read in support of his assertions, researched his sources to verify his own claims, offered suggestions to improve (strengthen and render impervious) his content, and even spelled it out in more than one sentence that I did not desire to derail the content of his article --- no matter what I say or do, said or did, I am still  and have been accused of being out to tear it all down. Moreover, because I won't give this editor sources to support his position that I oppose his work, I am somehow inferior an my every attempt perceived as a "red herring."

The user clearly has established himself as the canine pack's alpha male (or herself as the alpha bitch)...

"I have my own talk page if you want to ask me something, asking me on someone else's is ridiculous. Why can't you use 'Though historians disagree'? Because you haven't supplied a strong reliable sources showing there is disagreement on the status of Punch. That's why. The article already reflects that historians disagree about when the institution of slavery was started, so no, I'm not opposed to it as long as it's properly sourced and is accurately reflected in the article. To use that language in regards to Punch's status or the significance of his court case is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Like I've been saying from the beginning, find a reliable source and then the article can properly include that source. Like I've told you before, feel free to take this to dispute resolution if you want. I would, but you've made so many numerous red herring arguments that I wouldn't want you to suddenly feign ignorance and pretend that you never argued such a thing. So pick the argument or assertion you want, and take it to the proper noticeboard. Also, I didn't reference plagiarism at all. You're the only one who fallaciously made such an accusation. I've only said that emails are often not verifiable and don't count as a reliable source. Please make a stronger effort in reading comprehension before levying accusations...egregious accusations. [Then write, 'Editor's disagree (and always will)...' - Monkey Two]"

A person can only take so many of these types of allegations before he begins to believe the attacker is serious.


 * Enter double jeopardy

Inasmuch as I have been found guilty of the crime by this judge (and jury of one), I've the liberty and license, now, to respond befittingly.


 * Enter mens rea.

I should have done it when I first saw it, but I guess I was courteously seeing only what the article's alpha editor wanted me to.

The good guys don't always finish last, except to laugh.

It's the best.

Monkey Two (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC) .Monkey Two (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, WP articles aren't suppose to represent or comment on how editors feel about any given subject, they are to represent what the most reliable sources say on any given subject. Your inclusion of "always will" doesn't surprise me. It doesn't surprise me that regardless of how many strong reliable sources prove you wrong, you're still going to ignore them to hold on to your own unsubstantiated and fallacious point of view. If you're so certain that your interpretation is right, then go write an article and get it published by an accredited peer-reviewed institution. Though, like I said before, trying to use such a source could be considered a conflict of interest.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Punch (slave). 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/20131014135617/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books%2Fgreenwood to http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books%2Fgreenwood
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709055624/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/25.3/gross.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/25.3/gross.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Punch (slave). 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/20150402094350/http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/2012/07/ancestry.com-discovers-president-obama-related-to-first-documented-slave-in-america/ to http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/2012/07/ancestry.com-discovers-president-obama-related-to-first-documented-slave-in-america/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)