Talk:Sarah Kemble Knight

Appletons' gaffe
Appletons' CAB records Norwalk, Connecticut, where Norwich is meant. Other than this, it seems a useful source, and I just worked around the error. 71.233.62.241 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Skeptical paragraph about trip
I removed a skeptical paragraph about her diary, which has been challenged over a year. It is in no way supported by any of the sources, though I have not been able to examine Her story. The 2007 Britannica supports the record of the trip as authentic. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings: I would like to add some details about SKK's complexity as a human being, her treatment of class, and her discussion of race relations. Please let me know if you have any questions.Heidi.HHH (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, All, I will be adding content to the "Biography" section within the next few days. I have several books on SKK that include more about her life, so I will be able to strengthen this section quite a bit. I do also want to add more about her infatuation with food under some sort of "themes section." but it will not be until later this week until I get to that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan.G.tcu (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, all. I was hoping to add some details concerning the nature of Knight's trip. Megan.G.tcu, what details were you planning on adding to her bio, as her previous work details, prior to the trip, will help me explain this portion of the wiki. I don't want to be overly redundant. Let me know, I was hoping to do my contribution sometime today. --K.Snitz (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added an info box to the page. If anything, it just gives it that extra, professional looking touch of tlc. Megan.G.tcu, I am actually just looking to add about a sentence to the journey bit. I am going to go ahead and add this. Everyone, please let me know if you choose to revamp the journey section entirely. Just ensure that my little addition will remain included within the information. --K.Snitz (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to blow up the feed, but I wanted everyone to be aware that there is an error with the citation in the second paragraph of the bio, at the end of the sentence "Madam Knight, as she was generally called as a mark of respect,". I am unsure as to why this is. Seeing the issue in red at the bottom of the references, I tried to fix this but was unable to. This is not something that resulted from my own edits, but one that was already in existence on the page. I went to the help page and tried to resolve the issue, but was unsuccessful in my efforts. Since I can't seem to resolve the citation issue, I am going to leave it for someone working on this section to correct as you may choose to simply redo it entirely. --K.Snitz (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will add some graphics to the site as well as a section under the journal section that enhances the comment about her humor in the journal. Amanda50973 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just kidding about the graphics as they are already there and look lovely. But the other thing I will do. Amanda50973 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have inserted a couple of links but I cannot figure out how to make a new page open with them. I know we have the html way to do that but I don't think that works in the wiki right?Amanda50973 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Amanda, I found this link that may be of use: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Opening_external_links_in_a_new_window I will try it and see what happens.Heidi.HHH (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Amanda, I went to read your contribution and see that others have completely removed all of your additions to the site, saying it was possible "vandalism." I would go ahead and reedit the page and put your comments back. Maybe see why they are marking it as vandalism? Hopefully this is stopped. K.Snitz (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)104.56.49.29 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, so, I was thinking about doing one of several things: one, trying to dig up more information on her education and the school she opened, or two, discussing some of the actual writing in the journal (not food or humor), but something else (maybe the poetry?). However, I want to make sure not to step on anyone's toes...Meghan, are you going to discuss education/the school in the biography section? --Meta50973 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC) One more thing, I think a map image would be nice in the journey section. I can look for one unless you want to handle that, K.Snitz. --Meta50973 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta, I can do a map image as well in the journey section, however, I think I remembered someone saying something about it in class (maybe Jacquelyn?). I came across one in my research and would be more than happy to go ahead and put one up if no one else wants to. Just let me know. K.Snitz (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I know!! I have no idea why they marked it that way. I changed it back once and then they changed it again. I have no idea why. I added a link to a map plus her journal plus a section on the humor (which includes the rum poem) in the journal and it has all been taken off. It wont let me undo that action and again I have no idea why. It is super frustrating but I am going to try to report a false positive and see what happens. Also, I guess I will rewrite the portion they took down.Amanda50973 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have re-added the humor section but not the links as I am afraid that is what that bot caught as spam. Amanda50973 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So, for now, I think I am going to work on doing a section concerning courage or determination under the journal section unless someone objects. I can also do some stuff with the school, but I am just not sure if that is already being covered. --Meta50973 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll add a sentence about canoes? I said I would in class, so I'll follow through ;) Angela50793 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'd like to include a short-ish subsection about how her piece is useful for understanding differences in social customs between New York and Boston, and maybe describe some of those differences. The journal intro paragraph mentions this but doesn't go into great detail. If this might be a problem or if anyone wants to add something or if you have suggestions or preferences about where I should put it, please let me know. I'll probably start working on it Saturday morning. --Preston50973 (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all, sorry I've been MIA for a few day. If anyone finds additional information about her biography during their research, please add it! I blended the information I had in some text books with her info in the American National Biography online. Megan.G.tcu (talk

So, I added a tiny, tiny bit more info about publication (as I mentioned in class), namely that the diary was passed into private hands and lay undiscovered for years before being published. I tried to blend this with what was already there, so I hope I did not step on anyone's toes in the process. Also, someone told me that they had heard that people on Wikipedia will routinely just delete any edits in which you do not leave a note about your edit, so that may be something we want to do. I just realized I forgot to do this, too...so, we'll see if it gets deleted. --Meta50973 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone! Shoot, it looks like a lot of what we discussed has already been taken. I'm going to do my best to add a section on audience for the text (what we discussed regarding her possible "reader" & external focalization) as well as a summary of critical reception to the text -- i.e., why it is relevant to scholars today (as an historical document, etc). Some of this will likely touch on Preston's work with the details of the different cities - but Preston, you said you were going to focus on differences between NY and Boston. I'll try to limit myself to mentioning her descriptions of New Haven and New York just to illustrate its value today as a first hand historical document. Also, something to be careful of is editorializing... I think we've had a little more leeway on this in the past, but Wikipedia is pretty strict about using only summary/supportable facts, and editorializing is something that might get your work deleted as well. Dianab tcu (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys! I'm mostly going to be working on the other page, but I'm going to just add that Kathryn Zabelle Derounian-Stodola is a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, because the part that cites her was a bit confusing since I didn't know who she was. --JamieK14 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Diana, I really like your idea. I think critical reception is very relevant and will help connect readers with the past. Given the challenges associated with class/race in this piece, I think your section will develop nicely and engage readers that might choose to neglect reading about SKK. Those are just my thoughts. Happy Saturday, Wiki-friends!Heidi.HHH (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Heidi! I really appreciate your comments :) I think it does help tie up that initial question about "Why are these women important?" and you make a great point about its usefulness in showing certain social attitudes/norms, especially with regard to race and class. Dianab tcu (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok! I added the section on Relevance and Reception (couldn't think of a better title, suggestions welcome). I also added a couple lines on audience after the bit about the poetry, and I fixed up the citations so that there is just one full citation to the actual journal, near at the beginning of TJOMK section. A lot of the structure section is missing direct citations to Knight. Anything after the first paragraph under "Structure" can just take the "Knight, para#" citation. I hope that makes sense! It looks great, guys! :) Dianab tcu (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So, in retrospect, I wonder if my section on courage in the journal is guilty of editorializing. However, I am not sure if I know how to fix it to be more objective without taking it out. I will think on that, but if anyone has suggestions, please let me know or feel free to edit it. I am so trained to do analysis and make arguments that straight facts are often harder for me, which seems backwards. Also, I was wondering about sections within the biography, but to be honest, there isn't just a whole lot of info on her biographically that I can find, and I am not sure there is really enough to add sections, so perhaps that is unnecessary. --Meta50973 (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I added just a couple of words to the journey section to note that the journey took 5 months to complete. I hope this is okay! I did not see it mentioned anywhere else on the wiki, but if I missed it, please feel free to delete the addition. --Meta50973 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi all! I added a breakdown of the main elements of the journal under a section titled "Structure" a few days ago. I hope it adds to people's understanding of the work without being confusing or rambling. Looks like someone graciously added references and wrapped it up nicely. Thanks to whoever did that! I briefly mentioned Knight's food fixation, which I thought could be expanded upon if anyone (Meagan in particular) wanted to. Meta, I totally understand your concerns, but you support your claims really well with examples from the text. In my opinion, this is a wholly appropriate and enlightening section. If you're really worried about it, though, it might help to omit words like "treacherous," and just go with "dangers," and maybe instead of saying "she does not feel fear" and "she is strong enough to know," just go with "she does not appear to feel fear" and "she appears to know." I don't want to change it in case you disagree, but I think using certain language can help make insightful observations sound more objective and less editorial. Usually I think this just involves a toning down of certain words, like downshifting "exceptional" into "notable" (though I don't think that particular word warrants a downshifting in this case). --Axel50973 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Diana's bit is so well done and concise I don't think I'm going to put as much in about the differences between the towns as I'd originally planned. I did find an interesting article though that reads the journal as a myth, so I added a small paragraph about that so we could have a few different types of readings in the relevance and reception section. --Preston50973 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a sentence about scholarship to the humor section as well. Cheers. --Preston50973 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)