Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Bullock Clark/archive1

John Bullock Clark

 * Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Another biography of a Missouri State Guard officer. While the last one, William Y. Slack, was largely a local figure except for his military service, Clark was a prominent Missourian for much of his life. He was an officer in the state militia during the Missouri Mormon War, where he was the recipient of the infamous "Extermination Order". In 1840, he ran for state governor, where he was accused of being complicit in a plot to commit election fraud and almost fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson. Elected to the US House of Representatives in the late 1850s, Clark was expelled from Congress in 1861 for, as a sitting US congressman, leading a body of armed troops into battle against the United States Army in the Battle of Carthage, Missouri. After a few months as a general in the State Guard, Clark became a Confederate senator although he was not nominated for a second term due to behavioral issues (alcoholism, disorderly conduct, womanizing, and mendacity). After the war he fled to Mexico and was arrested upon his return. Hog Farm Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review


 * See this guidance regarding captioning


 * File:Seal_of_the_Confederate_States.svg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Thanks! These matters should be resolved now. Hog Farm Talk 13:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil
Reading through and enjoying learning about a perspective I need to read up on. Hope you don't mind some gripes:
 * accusations of his involvement in an alleged plot - seems like a there is triple doubt being layed on the underlaying claim ('accusations, "involvement", alleged)
 * I'm not sure how to rephrase this best, although I agree that this is an issue. I'm just not sure how to phrase this without making it sound like any of this stuff was ever proven
 * "Alleged plot" implies that it was made up to frame certain people; maybe take it from that angle..ie motivation. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "Clark was accused of conspiring to commit electoral fraud in the election and as a result almot fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson, later a Governor of Missouri." an improvement? Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yes Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tense issues was appointed by Jackson to be a brigadier general - "as"
 * Done
 * The prose are excellent, but sometimes old fashioned (eg "upon his return to Texas") - after his return
 * Is this a problem? I personally kind of prefer the older-fashioned prose but I'm open to changing this if you think it's problematic
 * Not a problem if its your preference. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Clark was educated in local schools.[2]  so what
 * Not sure how best to address this without venturing into SYNTH issues as none of the sources on Clark go into why this is specific - essentially the public school system in the US, especially in rural areas. Most people on the future politics track would have attended a private academy. I can quote Willard Duncan Vandiver as stating that Clark "would have completely spoiled by higher education" if you think that helps make the point
 * Just say something like "in contrast to most other contemporary politicians who attended private academies, Clark was educated in local schools." Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What does he was "unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" mean
 * I'm not sure, which is why I didn't try to paraphrase this. Would it be better to drop this and give the Vandiver quote suggested above?
 * I think so Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done this - I'll need to try to find a source for the private academies/local schools item above which may be difficult. That'll have to wait until after my work trip in the early part of this coming week though. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The quote beginning "The Mormons must be treated as enemies" needs a direct cite
 * This is done
 * Looking forward to reading through rest of the article; his demise seems especially interesting. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - I've replied above - most of these are queries about how best to proceed for now. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Hog, the above were quibbles; have replied with suggestions as to how to resolve the o/s, in lieu I'm a Support. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Kusma (support)
Non-expert review. From my very non-expert POV (I know little about the civil war, and have spent less than five days in Missouri) I think the article gives enough context to understand what is going on, but there are a few completeness/clarity issues, especially around his family and business. —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead: just a note to self to look again at the end.
 * Early life and militia service: do we know anything about his parents? I assume they were not poor, but helped him start his career and wealth?
 * Allardice does not say anything on this matter while Warner & Yearns doesn't even name his parents. Vandiver says that he studied law with an older brother and that his father had a "large farm" as well as making the bizarre claim that Clark was held captive by Native Americans as a treaty hostage one winter (Burchett expresses some suprise that "his biographer" apparently believed the claim). I'm hesistant to use Vandiver for anything other than clearing up details about things referred to in other sources but not elaborated on well as the Vandiver source states outright that it is highly dependent on stories told by a septuagenarian Clark to a teenage Vandiver 55 years before the article was written Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. I would expect (perhaps naively) some land ownership records from this time to exist, so it should be possible to find out a little more, but that might be too far on the wrong side of the boundary of original research. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'd be able to get into anything further on this without veering into original research; it would take a trip into archival material (if it still exists, which I don't know) Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * he married Eleanor Turner: do we know anything about her family? This might be a good spot to mention they had a son in 1831. Any other children?
 * The sources don't mention this, in fact Allardice doesn't provide her name and Warner & Yearns don't mention her at all. I've added a mention of John Jr.'s birth in 1831 to the proper place. None of the sources I've seen mention other children. This is perhaps not as bad as it could be; when I was working on Simpson Harris Morgan I found that none of the secondary sources actually provided the given name of his first wife. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "claims of atrocities" do we know which side was accused of these atrocities and what they were?
 * This is a (still controversial) mess; I've tried to explain this a bit better in a footnote as this is impossible to describe in a manner that would flow well in the main text. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The order instructed Clark to move with a force to troops to Richmond, Missouri" look ungrammatical to me
 * Should be "force of troops"; fixed Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Political career: you have "Democrat candidates" and then "Democratic candidate".
 * Standardized to "Democratic"; that was probably a subconcious thing from spending most of my life hearing family member frequently use Democrat Party (epithet). Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "thinly-pseudonymous" is that a word?
 * Not sure; I've split this into two words. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " Jackson's letter claimed to be based on a document sent between Clark and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming that it had been found in a saddlebag and Clark claiming that it had been stolen from his hat after he left it unattended." so the letter was real? what was the content? Was there a false ballot scheme?
 * Well ... here's what I've got. Phillips attributes the original news to a partisan newspaper known as the Boon's Lick Democrat reprinting content from the Ozark Standard and couches the description of this as claims, not facts. You then had Jackson's letter to the editor two weeks later under the name "Anti-Fraud". The most relevant passages in Phillips are Two weeks later, on September 7, a letter to the editor appeared in the Fayette paper signed "Anti-Fraud", which claimed to have intercepted a letter written in July at the height of the campaign from Clark to James H. Birch [... extended content discussing Birch's general sleaziness, the contents of the letter, and Jackson's authorship of it ...] A Clique member, Owen Rawlins, claimed to have found the letter in a set of borrowed saddlebags he had used in the recent election (Clark charged that Rawlins stole the letter from Clark's hatband as it sat on the podium while he delivered a speech), and upon his return to Fayette showed it to Jackson at his office at the bank. Phillips never states outright or not if this was all real, so I think it's best to provide Clark's lame excuse and let the reader judge as they think. I do find it telling that Clark's response questioned how the letter had gotten into Rawlins' possession, not the existence of the letter. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So Phillips does give some content of a letter that is undisputedly from Clark, just (according to Clark) obtained by illicit means? Perhaps mentioning some of the content could help make this more clear. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not quite - the only letter we have is the one from Jackson, which claimed to reproduce the contents of the alledged Clark letter, but of course there is no proof for that. I've tried to clarify this. Among other things, it apparently included "rascal" spelled as "raskal". Does what I've changed this to in the article help with this any? Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, that helps. It is still weird, but I think I am no longer confused about the facts. —Kusma (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "owned 160 slaves" do we know what they did? Did Clark have any non-law business or were these slaves who helped with lawyering?
 * Neither of the two primary sources for this article (Allardice and Warner & Yearns) have anything to say on this matter, nor does Vandiver or any other source I've been able to turn up on this. About the only thing I can think of for that area that would make sense was if Clark was dabbling in the large-scale hemp farming that occurred along the Missouri River around that time, but I know of nothing to confirm or deny that. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Confederate service: not something I can really ask for, but a map with all these locations would help a lot in understanding.
 * I've actually thrown together one using the location map template
 * Super, thanks! —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Clark later tried to order the cavalry portion of his division to support his infantry, but the cavalry became greatly disorganized and the few who entered the fighting at this time instead fought with McBride's men." do we know why this disorganisation happened?
 * I've added a bit on this and have also tweaked this a bit for accuracy per another reading of the source
 * "no longer wanted"... "was arrested". looks a bit contradictory.
 * I've adjusted "having learned" to "having heard", as what Clark heard was apparently wrong
 * I don't quite understand when Clark was allowed to practice law. Did he re-start as soon as possible or wait until he had not just the right to practice law, but also the right to hold political office?
 * From the relevant source - Clark returned to his home in Fayette, Missouri, where, after his disabilities had been removed, he practiced law until his death on October 29, 1865. The timing on this isn't exactly clear. Vandiver mentions a court case in 1869 where Clark supposedly opposed a former Union militia officer in court (Odon Guitar) but again the normal caveats about Vandiver apply. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we know anything about his whereabouts between 1866 and 1870?
 * Not that I've seen. The returning in 1870 comes from Eicher and Allardice, neither of which provide any detail on this Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Confederate service" section is quite long; would it be possible to subdivide it with subheadings or similar?
 * I've split this into two subsections
 * The "Confederate service" section does contain some content that could also be part of "political career"; the division seems more based on time than on what kind of jobs he did
 * I've renamed the "political career" section
 * - Thanks for the review comments! I've tried to address things above, but these gaps are for the most part present in the underlying sourcing itself so I'm afraid there's only limited answers I can provide for some of this stuff. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It always amazes me how little is known about fairly recent American history. I still need to review the lead, will do that soon. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have anything to complain about the lead section at this point. —Kusma (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just one more thing (I hope): why is the succession box titled "Party political offices"? These seem to be political offices that are not tied to a specific party; I would prefer "Political offices". —Kusma (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been done by switching from s-ppo to s-off Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that's all from me, support. —Kusma (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino
Thanks for the interesting read. Minor comments below. Will have another readthrough with fresh eyes in the next day or two, then I expect to support. Missouri and I have recently parted ways, but I'm still glad to see another (soon-to-be-)FA in the Hog Farm topical sphere. Ajpolino (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Happy to support. Thanks again for the read. Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Clark's acquaintance... spoiled by higher education'" - I'm not sure I glean any meaning from this, is there something in particular you're trying to get across?
 * - This is one thing I'm having trouble with. Several of the sources all make oblique references to the quality of education Clark received. There's this; Burchett has "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education". Warner and Yearns refer to "such schools as the county afforded". I'm under the impression that the statement of "Before the Civil War, Missouri followed the southern pattern that downplayed public schooling, as well-to-do families patronized local private academies." from History of education in Missouri is probably accurate, but I can't find a straightforward reference for it (McCandless dances around the claim but doesn't make a broad one) and I'm not familiar with the Kentucky stuff at all. I'm pretty much stuck on this issue. Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" makes me smile. My suggestion would be to remove "Clark's acquaintance... higher education' " since I don't think it makes sense without more context. But it's not much of a bother either way; your call, of course. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just removed that quote from Vandiver entirely then. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The historian Bruce S. Allardice refers to him as 'a born politician'." - is it possible to give the slightest context here? Is Allardice referring to his innate skills that match the occupation? His family ties that would have given him access to halls of power? Something else?
 * Unfortunately, there isn't really any context here from Allardice - we have from the source Clark studied law in Fayette, Howard County, and became a successful lawyer. A born politician, Clark served as county treasurer (1823 to 1825), clerk of the county courts (1824 to 1834), and state representative (1850 to 1851).
 * Assuming Allardice is referring to Clark's skills/looks/demeanor, it might flow better to move "He was taller... a storyteller." up a sentence to directly follow Allardice's appraisal.
 * I've moved this, and the colorful legal anecdote, up to after this.
 * Several places you use "began [verb]ing" which seems to unnecessarily focus the reader on the beginning of a task, even though the task gets completed without interruption. Would "[verb]ed" suffice? E.g. "Clark began studying law" → "Clark studied law", "Clark began to mobilize..." → "Clark mobilized".
 * I've rephrased most of these instances away
 * "He further warned"
 * Done
 * "speech as being humiliating"
 * Done
 * "the harsher Mormon Extermination Order" - "harsher" feel weak and unnecessary when we're immediately treated to "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State"
 * Removed
 * "the statement that " - this may be a personal preference, but I often feel "that" is a removable filler word. CTRL+F "that" and you'll see a handful that can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentences.
 * I've removed about eight or so uses of "that"
 * "spread claims that the Whigs had spread" spread... spread. Maybe "distributed" for the second?
 * Done
 * "in parts of the state... Democratic candidate" had to read this twice to understand. Would it be accurate if shortened to "in parts of the state that substituted Clark for Thomas Reynolds, the Democratic candidate."?
 * Done
 * "...and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming" at first read I was confused and thought "with the Democrats claiming..." was describing the contents of the aforementioned letter (rather that its provenance). Can we split this into two sentences? "Birch. The Democrats claimed..."
 * Done
 * "Jackson's letter claimed to transcribe the contents of a letter... sent" Can we shorten to something like "Jackson transcribed a letter... purportedly sent..." I think "letter... letter..." and "claimed to transcribe" made my brain trip over itself for some reason.
 * Done
 * "a possibility for the Whig" "considered for the Whig" would read more naturally to me.
 * Done
 * "He continued to practice law..." → "He practiced law..."
 * Done

Source review

 * The article is largely sourced to 15 books: 11 from major university publishers, one from a major textbook publisher. The other three broken down below. Other sources are used sparingly to add dates or contemporaneous color. All seem uncontroversial.
 * Burchett is not a Civil War historian (I think he's a visual arts professor?), but his book was reviewed positively by one. He's cited for just three things; two add color to Clark's biography, one is a date. Seems fine to me.
 * Consider whether "The historian Kenneth E. Burchett..." is deserved. He wrote a book of history, but his academic discipline isn't history per se. Where is the line for the title "historian"? I've no idea, and I don't feel strongly either way. But flagging it for you to consider.
 * I've gone with "The author Kenneth E. Burchett ..." - is that better? Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hinze and Farnham is written by a high school teacher and published by a company for whom our Wikipedia page gives me pause (haven't looked into it any further than that). But it's only used here thrice to cite minor details, so I'm not worried. A historian calls it "the most comprehensive piece of research written on the Battle of Carthage to date." He has some criticisms, but they're not relevant to the bits cited here.
 * Yes, unfortunately there is a paucity of modern scholarship on Carthage. I found that work conflating William Y. Slack and Mosby Monroe Parsons in one paragraph while working on a different article so I've been using it with caution since then. I keep having a nagging feeling that something isn't quite right with one of the things sourced to this work, so I've removed it for now. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Brooksher - According to University of Nebraska Press, the publisher didn't take on the name "Potomac Books" until 2004. The archive.org version is under the imprint Brassey's Washington and lists a location of Dulles, Virginia. Do you have a paper copy that was reprinted later under Potomac? Truly not sure this matters at all, just curious.
 * I have a "First paperback edition" that gives the publishing date as 2000. The publisher given is "Potomac Books An imprint of the University of Nebraska Press"
 * Either way, Potomac is a university publisher; Brassey's is a specialist publisher in the military sphere (I gather). So that all seems fine.

Sourcing seems solid. Happy to pass source review. Left a point above for you to consider. Feel free to educate me on anything I've got wrong. This field is new to me. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks for the revieew! My replies are above - I have removed one brief bit sourced to Hinze & Farnham due to nagging doubts and a bad experience with that source at William Y. Slack. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your replies all look good to me. I gather our University of Nebraska Press article is not quite right then. Perhaps once you get every MO civil war figure and event to FA status, you can start on the academic publisher articles ;) Ajpolino (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

- would I have permission for a second concurrent nomination (Arkansas, not Missouri this time) - for the article in question several major sources need to be back to the library by mid-May so I'd like to get as much of the FAC process done for that one by then to reduce the number of trips to the library. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

 * Infobox: "Major General" and "Brigadier General". Why the upper-case Gs? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - these have been lowercased now. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)