User talk:Studyhard12

Comments
Please leave a comment below and I will do my best to respond in a timely manner. Studyhard12 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
I'd be glad to discuss the article with you, if I can remember my reasoning. Was trying to find some way to satisfy Gwillhickers' endless resistance and not compromise the conclusions too much. My counsel to you is be wary of getting caught up in his relentless refusal to abide by the rules (we all get into it at some point), and his circular reasoning. You've done an admirable job of asking him to produce more sources. There was an admin action against him on another article for similar behavior. Maybe we should all withdraw and let him continue to complain on the Talk page about the "lack of balance." As long as the article represents academic consensus and doesn't do away with this issue altogether, I'm satisfied. (Some editors didn't want Hemings or the controversy mentioned at all in his biography- neatly trying to overstep the conclusions about the biggest change in scholarship on him in 180 years.) I was trying to find a different way to deal with GW's objections to "most historians", which is invalid, by the way, because it is reliably sourced. Sunray did the good summary. Parkwells (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what is going on in this article, having had a look back over the archive. I agree that it now currently does represent the academic consensus, and - I would say - is generous in describing the opposition. Most notable is the lack of any charged statements or things which could be misconstrued in claims of bias. To that end it seems a little short, but I can accept the current wording. Thanks for your time and work on this article. I'm content to address other problems in the article. Which sections are in need of the greatest attention? Studyhard12 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have done some other general editing on the article, as well as adding to an article on the Monticello Association, a lineage society that conducted its own study and excluded the Hemings descendants from membership in 2002. (Not satisfied with the specialists at the National Genealogical Society.) (Very interesting background reading in that, especially as some Jefferson-Wayles descendants have helped create a new association with Hemings descendants and also toured speaking publicly about the racial issues of their larger family.)


 * Back to the topic of the TJ article, Gwillhickers has objected that the "Jefferson and Slavery" section is "too long." He claimed this was a reason that the article fell out of Good Article status, but if you look at the background on that on the upper Talk page, you will see the review and goals for things to be fixed made no mention of either the Controversy/Hemings or Slavery section. Still, why not look to improve it? There is a separate main article on "Jefferson and Slavery", so you might see if what is in the TJ article can be made more of a summary, as Sunray effectively did for the controversy. That would be a great service.Parkwells (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What stands out is that it seems to be an argument on whether he was for/against slavery, and that is the first area in need of reduction, as no more than two sentences are needed to address that. I also note that it seems too detailed and complicated (poorly written), and had some incorrect info on the Ordinance (which I've already corrected). My guess is 2 paragraphs could go, and the remaining three could be refined into a coherent part. The section on racism (views on blacks is euphemistic) goes back into the for/against slavery argument...I've seen this sort of nonsense in the article on the War of 1812 where editors turned it into an argument on why the war could not have been about the cession of Canada, and they systematically list 10 reasons to support their thesis, something which should be avoided. My point is that these two parts on Jefferson will need serious work, and I'm willing to try it. I'd like to focus less on what Jefferson supposedly felt/thought about slavery, and more on what he did to/with slaves (is own and those he ruled over). Studyhard12 (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that the section could be shortened. You can imagine the contentious trading and adding of quotes that went into that, and it shows. This is an area where Wikipedia sometimes doesn't do too well. My suggestion would be that you work first on the main article (TJ and Slavery), and try to get that into shape, before working on a summary of it. Some other editors were very involved in the "Slavery/views on slaves and blacks," so they may reappear. Shearonink has a great way of focusing on content and working in this forum.  Try not to attack people's writing per se, but offer alternative ways to say something, or alternative paragraphs.  The excessive quoting in the Slavery section is useful for showing how historians' attitudes have changed; contemporary historians have wanted to see more action by Jefferson and less talk.  That's what they judged him on - what he did, rather than what he said, and what he did in the context of his time.  For example, in the two decades after the Revolution, numerous people freed their slaves.  The percentage of free blacks in the Upper South went from less than one percent to more than 13 percent, as I recall, so it was real change.  That was when Jefferson was silent, and did nothing comparable.  Such manumissions decreased after the invention of the cotton gin made short-staple cotton a valuable commodity across the Deep South.  But, the manumissions reflected the feelings of the time - people were moved by the ideals and experience of the Revolution, which Jefferson definitely helped articulate.  The US still works toward social, civil and legal equality. Read as much as you can of the sources themselves, so you understand them. Some editors are not very good about interpreting texts, so it's better to look at the original language and context.Parkwells (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent start on TJ and Slavery - direct, active voice is good. Parkwells (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the Wikipedia guidance on summary style. I'm going to review it, too.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on the style manual. I just changed the historians evaluation of Jefferson part, framing it as a traditional vs a more recently challenged position on Jefferson's pov of slavery. I do believe that it now meets the criteria for neutrality, and does not take a position for either. Is it ok as it is?Studyhard12 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Parkwells, you corrected one error of mine and rephrased the last sentence or two on the evaluation by historians part, and it is all the better for it. I've just adjusted the Hemings sections to be ahead of slavery and to appear together. I'm thinking of ways to rework the views on slavery section so that it puts the arguments in context of the arguments that historians made; without such I cannot see that part as neutral. What are your thoughts?Studyhard12 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and Slavery
I think the placement of Hemings/and controversy in the main TJ bio article are still under discussion. We may create a section on "Private Life" and put it there, since his private behavior was just that. This Slavery article/section is more about his public statements and actions. The overview of how historians have considered Jefferson is a good idea - clearly ideas have changed to in terms of how to measure his ideals, achievements and views. The section has so many warring ideas and quotes that it is difficult for readers to understand the basis of what different historians were considering.Parkwells (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to work on some other articles for a little while. I'd like to think more about how I could change it, and I can see what you mean conflicting editors. It's so thrown together, I almost don't know where to start. Do you think any edit wars would begin (I want to avoid that) if we starting working on making the article more coherent? You've been on this page longer than I, so I'd lie to hear your pov before doing anything to it.Studyhard12 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Henry Knox
I was looking at this article (checking up on it after a flurry of vandalism yesterday) and noticed that you changed a few instances of "American Indian" or "Indian" to "native" in your recent edits to this article. You might not be aware that the word "native" to mean "Indian" is on its way to becoming frankly taboo in parts of the US - it's been taboo for years in Canada - and because of its emerging new meaning it might be best to avoid it outside of quotations.


 * I also wanted to say how great I think your edits are, by the way! It's nice to see someone with knowledge of the 18th century doing their part to improve the encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. This comes up every now and then, and I've never found a satisfactory term for the indigenous peoples (I'd prefer indigenous/first peoples myself...). I know native isn't the best, but many object to Indian/s. I'm happy to explore an alternative. Have you any suggestions? Of course, I meant no disrespect to any nation, and if you or another person can assist with the terminology it would definitely improve the article. Studyhard12 (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)