Talk:Dumas Malone

Removal of References to Jefferson's "Paradoxes" Regarding Liberty and Owning Slaves

This article is not related to Jefferson's owning of slaves in any way, nor is it an article about the fact that Jefferson was a leader of the abolitionist movement and the man who freed the entire world from tyranny and slavery. The article should be limited to what is pertinent to Dumas. One third of the article on Dumas should not be an anti-American, anti-Jeffersonian rant about how evil the man who brought liberty to all slaves in America of all races was by inheriting slaves that were brought to America (and most of their other subject colonies) by the English masters who enslaved all of the colonies and all of their people, who Jefferson liberated us from, and who would still be our masters today if it weren't for Jefferson. Diamond Blizzard (talk) is insisting that this page about a historian who wrote about Jefferson include a highly controversial, biased opinion regarding whether Jefferson was a man who enslaved or liberated people (even though the answer to that question is very clear, and the facts contradict the user's biased and hypocritical positions). Wikipedia is not a forum for political protests. This is not the place to display one's anti-Jeffersonian statements to the world, however misguided and ridiculous they may be. If you want to restore English colonial rule and make your self a slave again, then by all means, write the Queen of England in on the next election ballot, but this is not the place for promoting that. Discouraging you from including biased, one-sided information does not mean that my contributions to Wikipeida are not neutral. No one is neutral, but my contributions to actual Wikipedia articles are neutral, and Diamond Blizzard (talk)'s should be too, but they are not. Remove the biased, un-neutral material, and stop re-adding it, or else I will have to make this article neutral, but unfortunately that will not be possible without making this article more about Jefferson and his actual political and social views by quoting his actual writings and policies, than it is a biographical page about Dumas, just to ensure that the article is not biased, because that would require me to include both perspectives on what is clearly a very controversial topic, in accordance with Wikipedia policies on controversial topics. This is not an article about a controversial topic though. This is an article about a historian. There should be a simple explanation of the person's life and work, not a left-wing diatribe against the founder of the Democratic Party, without whom Diamond Blizzard (talk) would face the gallows for exercising any free speech that might insult the crown, and we'd all be slaves. Remove the bias, or I will include the counter-point, in accordance with Wikipedia policies on showing both sides of a controversy, if any side of a controversy is shown. You will not have one anti-Jefferson, anti-Democracy, anti-America opinion while other opinions are prohibited, King Diamond Blizzard (talk). 24.116.97.75 (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. The statements you removed clearly said some academics believed, not that their beliefs were true. Why don't you find some sources about academics who do support Malone's views?

− Also, you seem to have included some personal attacks in your statement, especially when you called me a "King." Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and remember that arguments should be based on the content, not on the person. Thank you.

I need to leave right now. If you want to respond, write your response now, but it may take some time for me to see it. − Diamond Blizzard (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If your statement was about what "some academics believe", Diamond Blizzard (talk, then you do at least admit that the statement was a non-factual, controversial opinion that did not include the other side of the controversy (and thus was biased and not neutrally presented). Furthermore, these opinions are about Jefferson, not Dumas. The material removed was not of an encyclopedic nature or scope. It did not belong here. You shouldn't include one set of highly controversial opinions without including the other side's views, and you should definitely not claim that a person who removes one-sided, controversial opinions does not have a neutral point of view, and then proceed to argue that, therefore, the one-sided opinions you contributed should be restored in order to ensure neutrality. It was the opinions you included that were not neutral, not my removal of those opinions. I could have contributed the other side of the opinions to make the discussion of the controversial topic balanced, but I didn't feel that it would have been appropriate to put so much effort into trying to fit another paragraph about a controversial discussion of Jefferson's abolitionist views and activities, and the coherence of his beliefs of about liberty, into a very small article about someone else. Plus, it was your responsibility to show both sides of the controversy if you were going to show one side of the controversy while omitting the other, not my responsibility; otherwise it was your point of view was not neutral and thus not in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Regardless, this was not the place for that kind of information. Let Dumas have his own article without bringing up Jefferson's "paradoxes". That discussion belongs in a political essay on Jefferson (or perhaps a biography of Jefferson), not in an encyclopedic entry on Dumas. I hope we can leave it at this. If not, I have several pages of direct quotes from Jefferson's original writings that clearly show that these opinions on Jefferson's "paradoxes" were actually incorrect. I could include those quotes in this article on Dumas if you really think this is the place to discuss that controversy in a balanced way that expresses the views of both sides of the argument, in accordance with Wikipeida policies on controversial topics like this one. I would rather not do that here on Dumas' page though. 24.116.97.75 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(P.S. The use of the term King to describe someone is not generally considered an attack, but it was intended to emphasize the unilateral authority and disregard for mutual freedom of expression that you seemed to be employing by describing my removal of your non-neutral, controversial opinions from an encyclopedia as a violation of the NPOV rule, therefore suggesting, much as King George III did when Thomas Jefferson wrote the 1st Amendment, that only those whom you agree with shall be permitted either to speak or to remove speech, ostensibly because everyone else is not neutral, and therefore that the only opinion that may displayed is your own; this has become a very common practice on Wikipedia and in modern American and European political discourse over the past 40 years or so, where those who share the views of the establishment uni-party and the media suggest that they (and only they) have an inviolable right to freedom of speech that is under constant attack by everyone else, but since everyone else's views but theirs are deplorable, or fascist, or privileged, or hateful, or racist, or cruel, or dangerous to the rights of others, or too traditional and normal to be progressive, therefore no one else's voice should be heard or even permitted in public (or in private where anyone might be listening, which is everywhere, because everyone else is being monitored and spied on). It is quite ironic how much the positions of neo-liberal/neo-con establishment, which seem to be embraced by at least the most vocal and brazen members of the people in the two wealthiest states in the nation, if not the majority, (as the most vocal and brazen members of the New York public opposed Jefferson and embraced Hamilton's Central Bank, highly centralized form of government, national debt, and permanent professional military, all of which Jefferson rejected, and interestingly are also rejected by the majority in New York and California unless they are tricked and misled into supporting those policies when they are told that the alternative would be to support a proud and hypocritical slave-holder) have become so similar to those of King George, and so different from those of Thomas Jefferson, who was the founder of the Democratic Party and the most prominent advocate and first actual practitioner of Democracy, elections and the codification into law of inalienable human rights since the fall of the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy. This is especially true regarding the policies that were largely shared by King George, the British Aristocracy, Hamilton and the modern American uni-party establishment and establishment media regarding economics, foreign relations, trade, taxes, centralization of authority, gun control, disregard for the will of the people on matters such as nullifying all border enforcement in an otherwise independent and self-governing America, preserving our immigration enforcement forces, the imposition of tariffs on countries that have tariffs against us and which we have massive trade deficits with unless they willing to remove their tariffs ad accept balanced trade, and their support very expensive and militarily crippling foreign invasions [such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea in the modern era, or Spain and France in the colonial era] while opposing diplomatic meetings with North Korea today or with France 200 years ago, all of which policies and programs are and were supported by 70% of Americans today and in Jefferson's day, but which were opposed by both houses of Congress, Bush, Obama, the media, Hollywood, international banks and bankers, and angry mobs of well-funded and highly organized protesters almost exclusively in New York and California in the modern era, and by King George, the British Aristocracy and Alexander Hamilton in the colonial and revolutionary era]. Of course, such otherwise unpopular and apparently anti-American policies and practices that are embraced by either the British aristocracy or the modern establishment plutocracy become easier to accept and to accomplish here in America when the author of our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence is regularly and falsely defamed as the worst slave holder there ever was and a white supremacist, when in reality he was exactly the opposite, perhaps the greatest liberator of all time, and in fact it was the King of England who invaded Africa, shipped those slaves here, and ordered all of his subjects to run plantations in his colonies with the use of those slave labor forces, after which all the profits were to be shipped back to London, or else anyone who objected to any of those policies or practices would be hung for daring to defy the crown (at least until a man named Jefferson Declared our Independence from the Crown and changed all of that). We should also keep in mind that the British Royal Family was always very careful to ensure that almost none of those slaves were ever actually brought into the British Isles, and then, whenever the opportunity arose, they were also eager to use those same slaves and all of the natives in America (whom the British Empire also invaded and conquered when they established these colonies) and even the Spanish colonies, as cannon fodder and proxy forces against the rebellious American colonies, by portraying England as their liberator and best, most powerful friend against the supposedly oppressive American rebels, as they did in the War of 1812 for example, even though it was actually England that enslaved them and invaded their countries in the first place, not independent Americans, at least not after they ceased to take military orders from the King of England at the point of a sword. And yet they all believed it, the Africans, the Indians, the Irish, the Scottish, and even many of the American colonists who allied with and became loyal to British Crown, because buying that narrative immediately won them an endless supply of British gold, guns, land and a declaration of their freedom, if only they would help England to enslave others. And they're still falling for the same Divided and Conquer strategy 250 years later (consider what portion of the Congress, the political establishment, the media and the general public in the two wealthiest states are actually more loyal to England than they are to their own government today). Or I should say they are falling for the same Roman strategy of Divide et Impera, 2,100 years after the Romans began establishing the city of London, or Londinium as they called it, just about the same time that the Romans went a little too far with the idea, started buying their own propaganda a bit too passionately, and then decided to apply the same tactic of pitting one faction against another that they applied on the Jews/Christians, the Germans, the Celts, the Greeks, the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, inside of their own country, by pitting Democrats against Republicans, with Caesar on one side and Cicero on the other. The result was that civil war broke out, when their violent and malicious speeches were finally put into action, Rome was burned to the ground, half their army was killed the other half, and all Roman citizens lost their freedom and their democracy, with the death of the Republic and the crowning of the first emperor, who just happened to also be the heir to Caesar's fortune and the avenger of his death. A few centuries after Rome succeeded in enslaving itself, the Germans and Celts conquered the same civilization that had conquered them. If that story sounds familiar, it's because we are living it right now and some of us are actually even helping to re-enact it, most of whom do not even have the faintest idea of how less contemptuous forms of partisan factionalism and deliberately false and misleading propaganda intended to demonize one's own country and fellow citizens have ultimately led to the complete destruction of most of the greatest civilizations in history. Ironically, Thomas Jefferson was among the first American visionaries to predict that the downfall of America would come from within, as one political faction would seek to destroy the other, rather serving the common good, the interests of the nation, or the will of the people, which ideally should be one and the same in a well functioning democratic-republic like our was intended to be, as America originally was, and as it was in early Rome, when all of the citizens were free, prosperous, loyal, patriotic, and united in the service of their nation, and when virtually all of the citizens were demographically homogeneous (and thus they were inevitably relatively cohesive, loyal, cooperative and united) descendants of the original Romans and Americans, which is a statement of fact, not a supposedly deplorable opinion that no one should be permitted to speak regardless of how true it is or how important its lesson is today for the survival and well-being of our nation AND its people.) Some say United we Stand, and Divided we fall. Some say that the best nations, peoples, individuals and ideas should be identified, emulated and justly rewarded, while the worst should be treated worst by their peers and expect the worst outcomes, and that we are not equal in either abilities, contributions, character, virtue, or in the treatment we deserve. That is why King George is condemned for bringing the British Empire to ruin, while Jefferson is revered for establishing the most successful nation with the highest standard of living in the history of mankind, far surpassing all who came before. That is why some nations rise while others fall, and why some eras are considered golden while others are given as examples of the worst period of moral, spiritual, social, economic, legal, political and military decline and decay, as is so eloquently described in the works of Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch, Josephus, David, Livy, Polybius, Tacitus, Isaiah, Voltaire, de Tocqueville, Gibbon and Dumas Malone. 24.116.97.75 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it appears User:Curdle reverted your contributions and added some new information and references. Then, you removed some of the information, ironically using Curdle's own edit summary. Why don't you have a discussion with Curdle about this, especially because considering the added references, I suspect that user knows more about the subject than I do? Diamond Blizzard (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with leaving out the section you first objected to, IP 24.116.97.75, as I think having a whole section is undue weight considering the length of the article. The other section you removed was unreferenced; however it was not irrelevant, so ideally, you should not have removed it, but attempted to find citations for it. This article is a biography of Dumas Malone. His most notable work was a biography of Thomas Jefferson. Typically, in an author’s biography, there is enough discussion of the literary criticism the author's body of work has received to illustrate why it, and therefore the author, are notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Discussion of this literary criticism does not mean that either the subject of the work, or its author, are being denigrated in any way. Literary criticism of the biography is not a personal attack upon Jefferson, or his politics. It should of course be referenced; I have found a few reviews of the books, so I will be supplying more of those.Curdle (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)