Talk:Isle of Canes

Advertising/POV

This article is nothing but advertising and self-promotion. For example:

"Published in 2004 by Ancestry.com/Generations Network (the world's largest online provider of primary-source content for historical research),"

"Rolling On-Atlanta similarly calls it "a must read"

It also contains statements that are not only self-promotion, but blatantly unverifiable, a violation of one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. For example: "met with repeated rejections from publishers who felt American readers were not ready to accept the reality that lay at Isle's core" How do we know it wasn't rejected simply because it wasn't a very good novel?

Please fix it up to make it a neutral, factually based and verified article.

(And, by the way, removing the POV and Advert notices without the issues considered satisfactorily addressed by all interested parties is a violation of WP rules.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.154.250 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The flagged issues have been addressed. Chezbienvenu (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the Advertising/POV label added anonymously by "12.76.154.250." All statements made within the original text are extensively supported by primary source evidence.

Nonetheless, I have reworked the text to emphasize the significance of this family's role in debates on North American slavery and the extraordinary documentation that underpins Isle's assessment of a little-understood side of America's past. Academic debates of historical complexities seldom make it into the mainstream of public consciousness. Novels have the power to do that. But when they deal with human lives, they have a responsibility to be true to the documentary evidence and the character of each real person. This article fairly notes the extent to which its development is based upon these strictures.

As for the "warning" not to remove the POV and Advert notices, that "warning" is not needed. (Eshown (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A year has gone by with no further complaints about the corrected article. If there are no further objections on the issue of Advertising and POV, I propose that the flags be removed. RobertRaymondUT (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way the tagging system works. A tag gets removed when the issues cited in the tag have been addressed. The primary editor of this article hasn't lifted a finger to modify or remove the self-serving advertising in this article, so the tag remains until the issue is addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.32.149 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Three specific examples of Advertising/POV violations were presented and then corrected. Please identify any additional specific sentences that you have issues with so that consensus can be achieved. When no one can identify any more specific sentences, it is appropriate to remove the tag. RobertRaymondUT (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

RobertRaymond -- I agree with you.--Ethelh (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear 64.252.117.9,

Thank you for your contributions to this page. You have added a POV tag to this page after a group discussion concluded that the tag was no longer warranted. If you will state here the reasons you believe this page should be re-tagged, then discussion can proceed. Until then, I will revert the page to the group consensus. Robert 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isle of Canes. 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/20080620123753/http://www.isleofcanes.com/isle_of_canes_resources.htm to http://www.isleofcanes.com/isle_of_canes_resources.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113121134/http://www.nsula.edu/creole/ to http://www.nsula.edu/creole/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs strong editing and additions

The article is lacking the standard structure of one about a published novel, and it relies too heavily on primary sources. It seems to be directed more toward a literary essay comparing novels on 1) Creoles of color in Louisiana, and 2) Black free people who owned slaves. Then it starts to refer to histories of this place and period. It seems very confused. Because it does not have secondary sources, the reader does not know who is making the comparisons to these other works and why these were chosen.

It should have a header "Reception", with references to comments by published reviewers, including Publishers Weekly, for instance, or more specialized journals. Parkwells (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)